|
 |
Here the role of the artist is not found in the invention of an
expressive subject, or even in the expressive mimesis of an existing
subject, but rather, in the exercise of a choice of subject. I agree
that there is much here to suggest that this choice was not ironic, and
it seems dangerous to read too much into it, but neither can irony be
completely ruled out. Afterall, we are shown a postcard
commoditization of an exotic culture at a time when that culture just
happens to be the focus of western foreign policy. And the theme of the
picture, old vs new, not to meantion western commoditization,
just happens to be what is at issue in the current conflict. Further,
the picture has a geometric stability and serenity. The simple beauty
of the picture, and a certain inscrutability of the structures
underscores the geometric basis of both architecture and picture
composition.
Raytracing provides a different wrinkle in the old debate between
synthesis and mimesis in art, precisely because it achieves mimesis
through synthesis. Pictures are achieved in a two step process, first
making a virtual model of the subject, then taking a virtual snapshot of
it. We refer to what results with legacy terms such as "picture" or
"image" that don't quite fit. Given this newness, it is not yet
clear what different statements are made when the raytraced image is
taken from the culture of images, the culture of real objects and
vistas, or from the individual imagination.
I noticed that the artist is from Iceland. I remember a certain paradox
that I noticed when I spent a summer in the North West Territories of
Canada. There is both the cultural isolation imposed by the distance,
but also a equalizing of cultural experience because, since it is a long
way to "anywhere", anywhere is where people would travel. Amsterdam and
Vancover are held up to comparison as possible sources of amusement.
So I also wondered how his geographic location might also have effected
his choice of subject.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
