The distance from the maker to the concept person, from the artist to the viewer, and from the artist to his various artistic expressions. All distances which allow for different expressions of creativity to flourish, for different interpretations of the object and the creation of the object. Different paths one can take, many more possibilities. Regarding the latter, how far can one take one’s work and stretch it so that it becomes unrecognizable, is it even desirable to engage in this sort of practice? Is it of interest, its ultimately and exercise on reaching one’s limit? One can go so far that one loses track of one’s inner person and begins to appropriate other’ work in order to instil this difference, or one does not go far enough and this difference is nothing more than the usual extension of the current work being presented and normal development, it can be an interesting one and even an important one, but falls besides the purpose of this exercise, of this practice. Its therefore, as with most of everything, a balance, there needs to be a tension present between the two poles. I believe this exercise can be of consequence, how can one stretch so far one’s work in order to disappear from the work, the current self, and a new self to appear. This will help to break the mould one tends to put oneself as an artist, many of these stretches will make more sense as a part of the whole and maybe not so much alone. Is the artist himself then the final work of art, the persona(s) created and not so much the works that represent him? Can one go a step further and develop heteronyms and ascribe to these various pieces another maker, someone else with a biography a clear line of taste? Would this be entering in a blag à lá Manzoni or really something more towards Fernando Pessoa and Kierkegaard? As usual various gradations are possible.
Martim Brion, Munich, 2024
Martim Brion 