Since Sarah posted Jeff Campana’s diamond polishing technique I’ve had a new found love for sanding and polishing. I’ve got what I hope is the last round of tests for my tablets in the kiln right now. I decided that I want the marks on the tablets to be inlaid and flush with the surface/screen (and of course polished like the family silver). I like that within the show there will be 3 types of marks: dug into a surface (distant past), put on top of a surface (recent past), and as part of the surface (current).
Touch screen communicative electronics such as smartphones and tablets demand a kind of attention which has never before been enacted by another object. Using haptic and visual interstimuli, these devices engage their users in physiological transactions which are markedly different from the interactions spurred by past tools of communication. Past in this instance includes: stone and clay tablets, scrolls, codices, books (hand and machine made), messengers, signal fires, letters, telegrams, telephones, and laptop/desktop computers. Despite the seemingly new mode of interactivity between humans and their communication tools, there are striking similarities to the old ways of information storage and transfer, ways which embody the essence of what it is to be human.
This is not the first time that there has been a significant shift in the way that information moves and translates among its authors. The advent of writing, when humans began to organize thought visually and linearly as opposed to aurally and without concrete reference to time, changed not only the way information travelled, but it also set roots for visual systems both within and without informational content. Written language is so commonplace in the developed world that at times it can feel like it is a naturally occurring pattern in the human fabric. However, writing itself is a technology, a man made apparatus meant to increase the efficacy of communication. To illustrate this point, it helps to think of Plato, one of our most revered thinkers, voicing his resistance to writing as a technological advance. In his time, Plato was adamant that the written word would ruin the capacity for true intellectual thought. In a contemporary reflection on this notion, Piercesare Rivoltella compares Plato’s apprehension toward writing as a substitute for memory with expressed cultural apprehension towards electronic communication as a replacement for writing. These questions of technology’s role in human communication point my work towards a stance that accepts a continuous flux of the means and modes of information exchange without much real change in the substance therein and the underlying human instincts and desires. The work in my thesis exhibition grapples with the notion that despite what may seem like a clear departure from writing into a new technology of knowledge storage and transfer, the root and the branches of the system are the same.
The path to written language started with something as simple as drawing a line in sand. From its humble beginnings, writing, as a system of recording grew to be incredibly complex with many iterations of mark-making systems spreading across the globe. Calligraphy was once the foundation for this structure which was then followed closely by typography. Where calligraphy values order among its forms in addition to spontaneity, typography values only order, hierarchy, and functionality. Both of these are deeply influential in shaping patterns of human thinking and seeing, and my work in this exhibition draws on patterns and aesthetics contained in these structures. As we know, both forms of writing are merely apparatuses of information, and no apparatus is without its eventual demise and transitional moment. When printing presses replaced the artful practice of hand drawing of letters, it left in its wake a memory of the preserved human presence in liquid moments.
Those moments are not gone. The apparatus of information has come full circle back to drawing in the sand. In 1936, H.G. Wells predicted the existence of a “world brain.” We have it now. It rests in our palms with a slick surface as the entry point to an increasingly pressurized flow of knowledge. Marks made by hand-tool interaction (a finger on a touch screen) are still the driver of information transfer, although the marks themselves are now spared from any visual language. The objects in my exhibition bring these hidden marks into full view and place them in their historical context. By using the visual references of ancient text and current information tools, I hope to spur some thought and discussion about the human instinct to record, and the way in which this recording flows out of us.
There is another important shift in the current state of information concerning volume. Where we once toiled tirelessly to preserve information and went to great lengths to guard it as permanent knowledge, we are now faced with creating permanent information with a comparatively miniscule amount of effort. This leads to the problem of over saturation of content which anyone who lives in a modern society experiences daily. Not only is the ocean of knowledge growing exponentially, but simultaneously the objects that communicate that knowledge are getting physically smaller. This movement towards extremes is something I hope to capture in my exhibition as well.
We are mark makers. It is in the very core of our being as humans. The goal of my exhibition is to remind my audience of this, and to show that even in our current electronic age when we might feel removed from the physicality of our presence, we are still doing what we have done for millennia.
I’m getting closer to starting the big pyramid, but I’ve been testing clays and methods first. I plan to build the thing upside down inside an MDF form lined with plastic. I’ve been doing this small scale, and the technique is basically packing chunks/handfulls of clay firmly against the walls building upwards. I’m hoping this will be more structurally sound that using giant slabs because the whole thing is one big mesh of smaller pieces without any real seams. We’ll see.
I was originally thinking something that fires white or off white, but I’m opening up to the grey part of the spectrum. No color though, that just too much. I want the think to look sturdy and well made, but also a bit weathered and stony. I’ve tried VC’s 04 white sculpture recipe, as well as Chris’ and Geoff’s clays which are both low fire talc sculpture bodies. I’m wary of the low fire stuff for two reasons. First, I do want the thing to be strong. I’m thinking of this thing as a monument that’s meant to withstand the ages. I can’t have it crumbling in some major historical event. Second is that I’d like to not use any glaze/wash/other and just let the clay be the surface. It’s been my experience that the 04 range even when fired to maturity is still kind of bisque-y. It’s meant to have surface applied to it. But, I haven’t fired these tests yet, so I’ll withhold judgment until I do so.
Where I think I’m honing in is in the cone 6 sculpture body zone. I started with Val’s white 6 recipe and varied from there. As you can see, I’ve reduced grolleg and replaced with other things, including studio stoneware premix in variant 4. Grog, molochite, and a bit of paper pulp will all be my friends in this venture. Here are those recipes:
Before you read this and the Stands post below, it makes sense to look at my Thesis Exhibition Proposal which I’ve recently updated.
It sounds a little funny, but I might go with some really generic modern designy factory made tables for my installation. This is an example of what I’m thinking of from Ikea.
I want some of that slick retail feeling in the display, and I think this will do the job.
I think I’ve figured out what will hold up my tablet forms on the tables. The idea came to me after doing many google image searches on tablet stands. This is an acrylic one which is currently being used in some retail stores:
I like its simplicity, and that it has the rubberized edged which will make solid contact. I also like that it gives the object the appearance of floating. These were surprisingly out of my price range, so I designed my own variation. I am ordering clear acrylic parts to build these. I’ve steepened the angle slightly, but the idea is essentially the same. I will put a circular bead of silicone on the surface to provide grip and minimal float above the disc.
All the different ways.
I propose to build a pyramid shaped monolith which holds up the one almighty communicative device. The monolith is 2′ square at the base and 1′ square at the top. It is 3.5′ tall. The object which is held above the monolith by a small pole is 2.5 x 5 x .5 inches. This object will have a surface which one could mark with water on the tip of a finger. There will be a pool of water set into the top of the monolith, below the smaller object. This whole piece stands alone on the floor and it is accompanied by a series of tablet forms installed on four 2′ by 4′ tables which form a square around the perimeter. The whole space is roughly 15′ square.
The porcelain tablets on the tables each have a singular permanent calligraphic mark which is created via my touchscreen calligraphy process. These tablets are propped on stands at an angle facing the pyramid. Each of the individual marks on the tablets are used in pattern and repetition to create a kind of “text” which is etched into the surface of the stony white ceramic monolith. At the bottom of this pyramid form, the etched marks are small, overlapping, and jumbled. As the eye moves upward, the marks become increasingly larger, and separate from one another until individual marks are recognizable at fingertip scale.
This is boiled down from the post below. Feedback welcome.
Touch screen communicative electronics demand a kind of attention which has never before been enacted by an object. Using haptic and visual interstimuli, these devices engage their users in physiological transactions which are markedly different from the interactions spurred by past tools of information storage and transfer. Past in this instance includes: stone and clay tablets, scrolls, codices, books (hand and machine made), messengers, signal fires, letters, telegrams, telephones, and laptop/desktop computers. Despite the seemingly new mode of interactivity between humans and their tools, there are striking similarities to the old ways, ways which embody the essence of what it is to be human.
This is not the first time that there has been a significant shift in the way that information moves and translates among its authors. The advent of writing, when humans began to organize thought visually and linearly as opposed to aurally and without concrete reference to time, changed not only the way information travelled, but it also set roots for visual systems both within and without informational content. Calligraphy was once the foundation for this structure, but efficiency drove the path to typography, valuing order above all else, and leaving in its wake a memory of the preserved human presence in liquid moments.
Those moments are not gone. The technology of information has come full circle back to drawing in the sand. In 1936, H.G. Wells predicted the existence of a “world brain.” We have it now. It rests in our palms with a slick surface as the entry point to an increasingly pressurized flow of knowledge. Marks made by hand-tool interaction are still the driver of information transfer, although the marks themselves are now spared from any visual language. The marks then become an indirect messenger of sorts, between human and tool rather than following a direct human to human path. This is a new pattern and it represents a powerful shift for us as gatherers of information.
If the written word is so influential in our thinking and seeing patterns, what might we be in for now that a flux of words and images flash through our eyes as they simultaneously slide deftly under our fingertips?
1. History of visual information. Showing the ways that written language shaped visual thinking.
A. Calligraphy. Showing the ceremonial and celebratory nature of information preservation through human marks. Also showing the precedent for hand-tool interaction.
B. Typography. Showing beauty in order, organization, and efficiency with reference to information.
2. Exponential growth of information and the need for editing. Showing the problems of the permanent record and how those problems are addressed by a selection process.
A. The nature of translations.
B. The nature of indexing.
3. Screens and Interaction. Showing a new paradigm of the way information authors and consumers relate to the tools which foster communicative processes. Also, posing questions about how this paradigm may shape visual and tactile thinking.
4. Conclusion. Isn’t finger painting great?