a new title

so after much deliberation, and some insightful feedback, the thematic context of my phd project, and its title, have been updated. the change in title is a necessary outcome of the refined theme but i'm a little sad to see chaos calls be replaced. it will no doubt rear its head at a later juncture.

here's an abstract for the newly articulated project, 

system synthesis: 

the ambiguous zone of the nature/culture divide 

An exploration of the nature/culture divide through an analysis of the relationship between these two highly fluid and overlapping categories. With particular focus on the way in which the use of technology filters and mediates this relationship, a set of propositional objects and installations are created from assemblages of materials that straddle the ambiguous zone of this arbitrary divide. It is the problematising of the theoretical nature/culture divide, particularly through the interrelationship of networks and systems that spans both categories, that offers us a field of inspiration from which to harvest ideas and a prism through which to examine the swirling pool of our collective understanding.

new thematic context

the process of transitioning from masters to phd continues to play heavily on my mind, and its impact on my approach to my entire practice cannot be understated. the whole process takes about 2 months from start to final approval from the research centre at the university. i'm at the very last hurdle and there is, as i've noted in previous posts, a refining and reworking of my general premise.

fortunately, this juncture is the perfect opportunity for such a review of one's work. in the interest of laying out some thoughts to help in my grappling for a clearer thematic expression of my 'project' here's where i'm scrambling:

+ the title of my work, chaos calls, was meant as an evocation of 'nature calls' or 'the call of nature' and how it both calls for us (our attraction to it and our need for its resources) and to us (in the sense that we are the articulated expression of nature, it has 'talked' us into existence). chaos is simply a better description of nature and a way of extricating the true meaning of nature from the limited perceptions of it that are controlled by a historical interpretation of that word - 'nature' - and all the 'old' connotations of the wilderness, the other, and the objective. However, the title has not been well received by the professors at uni and at some level i can see their point. its implication is of something far wider in scope than the actual creative production i am undertaking. that is, the body of artwork that i have produced speaks to a far more refined aspect of nature, or chaos even. where chaos evokes the entirety of nature and, well, everything, my actual art evokes issues of a human interaction with nature. the nature i use in my work is almost always a 'culturalised' nature - nature controlled, manipulated or constructed by human engagement (pot plants, gardens, logs chopped from street trees etc). this is truly the essence of my work and while i may be dealing with a broader overall interpretation of nature, the actual physical manifestation of my ideas in these material creations is definitely dealing more specifically with the human use of 'nature'. 
and so, with a chance to renew my project, in light of the phd upgrade, it would actually serve me better to more clearly refine my thematic approach in that context and to rename my thesis. so far, the strongest thematic idea that comes to mind is something like 'second nature', 'new nature', or a similar expression of the idea that human interaction with nature, often facilitated/mediated through the use of technology, consequently produces a 'new' nature.

cleaning equations

after some consideration i think maybe the most refined expression of my core artistic practice is actually denoted by this guiding equation:

the attempt to

extract information 

from

culturalised elements of botanic nature

through the use of

technology

this then clearly identifies "the relationship with nature" as the focus of my interest. where nature and its definition is critical in this process, it is always supplemenary in my research to the focus on "the relationship". and even more particularly, a relationship mediated by technology.

equations and definitions

this upgrade process, to go to a phd, is really forcing me to get a better grip on exactly what i'm trying to do with this 'project'.

here's the latest break-down of my understanding:

the application of

commonly available monitoring and recording technologies

to

culturalised elements of botanic nature

in order to

extract information 

that is translated into 

audio/visual outputs

this is the dominant theme of my work thus far. 

there is an experimentalist aspect, in the construction of these kinetic networks, that is at once the process and the actual art object. the audio/visual outputs are not an end product but just one part of the entire network.

i'm hoping that by refining my practice down into this simple equation i can now define my work more clearly and also set about producing more refined, considered and better executed works.

applying the microscope and the telescope

in what feels like some sort of gentle epiphany, i've come to realise that the focus of my research is rather more refined that i had been imagining. when i look back over my work, which was a happy by-product of my application for a phd, it is clear to me that while my over-arching interest is in a broad re-interpretation of nature, my actual creative material output is more specifically focused on an exploration of technology as a filter and mediator of our relationship to nature. and it is this particular intellectual curiosity that is the driving theme of this project.

this is a rather exciting discovery as it refines the focus of my work and allows for a more directed line of inquiry.

looking back over the last couple of years to exhibited works and even works that were abandoned, incomplete or put on the back burner, it is apparent that they predominantly use various forms of technology to engage various forms of nature in order to extract or elicit information. and it is the construction of these experiment-like assemblages, together with their extracted information, that is the work. 

Network 2008 - spheres of wood, each with network cable, apparently seeking out a connection to a network plug, one visible on the trunk of the old tree.

Off The Record_An Aeolian Symphony 2008 - old turntable arms applied to the severed and spinning tops of logs, apparently extracting the sound from specific growth rings. Created rhythmic white noise/static sound.

 Tap 2008 - audio jack connected into central growth ring, extracted 'information' played through amplifier. Created low hum sound.

More recent works have seen a webcam monitoring a bonsai, a pseudo-EEG monitor connected via networked telecommunications cables to terrariums of garden plants, and recorded sounds of leaves and branches being broken by hand played back at slowed speeds. The connecting thread with the works is this focus on technologies being used to extract, or apparently extract, information from things that could be deemed to be 'natural', such as plants, leaves and logs.

understanding exactly what 'natural' objects i am using, and what forms of 'technology' i am choosing to use in these artworks will require analysis. but i feel confident that this renewed understanding of my work will enable a more refined artistic output.

review, rethink, reboot

yesterday i went to plead my case for an upgrade of my postgrad - from mfa to phd. a rather nerve-wracking process, but the unexpected positive side of the experience was the chance to collate my art from the last 18 months and review it as a collective body of work. it brought into sharper relief some of the themes running through my work as well as some of the weaknesses with it. of course, the feedback provided by the professors after my presentation also assisted with this process and as a result, i find myself refreshed and reinvigorated. 

 Rhythm Code 2009

Plane of Composition 2010

 HigherBreeds 2010

it was especially interesting to reconsider the conceptual premise i had been assuming was underpinning my work, after some of the feedback. 

where i go from here, will of course depend partly on whether i am granted the opportunity to extend my research into a phd, but i am feeling that i have been granted an opportunity to rethink the underlying impetus of my work. for example, it is more apparent now that i am only dealing with 'nature' in a very cursory sort of way. it feels perhaps more reflective of my practice to argue that i am dealing with networks. networks that incorporate some elements of a mediated nature perhaps, but the treatment of 'nature' in my work is not at the forefront of its operations as much as i had been thinking it was. whether i push it more into this realm, for example by injecting more of a natural focus, i need to reflect on some more. perhaps my interest does in fact lie with networks, and 'nature' is merely an aspect of thinking about networks and it is this approach that is more in-keeping with my creativity.

i do know that this particular body of work has been a very productive period for me and provides me with a jumping off point to aspire to a stronger and more refined creative output. the desire to step up my game and make better work is ever present.