EVOLVING SPACE 02

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

In the painting I am working on at the moment is a tree, a big tree. It is far too big for the space that has evolved, or is about to evolve in this very painting. I wonder what to do: should I listen to this painting who is telling me to delete the tree or should I listen to my conceptual ideas for the whole project, which is telling me to keep track to the general outlines of the detail in the parent painting. And here, there is a tree.
I feel that I already buried an answer in the way that I put the question (does not a painter have to listen to the individual painting, not to some square-headed concept?) - but I do distrust my preconceptions here. I think it is a real decision with real alternatives. And the alternatives are leading into different directions. I could postpone the decision and follow the concept blindly. I could do a painting with a far to big tree in it. It would not even be special because I have done things like that in the other two “Evolving-Space” paintings as well. But it is not the consistency of realism I am wondering about. It is a question of priorities: Is the concept or the single painting ruling the laws?
When I started the “Evolving-Space” I did something like a compromise. I wanted to work parallel to Lee Smolins ideas of “Evolving-Laws” – but I thought that is was to complicated to open EVERYTHING to the process of change. It could to easily happen that I would follow some idea just because of a momentary interest or fascination. I think that there is a maze between freedom and arbitrariness – a maze I did not want to get lost in. I choose to narrow the problem down to “space”. A lot of things can change when space is evolving. But still one could see the way back, see the outlines of the parent in the child. This would give some control and maybe some meaning. In principle every spectator could follow the evolving process by looking at the finished paintings. And if she/he discovers similarities and developments he/she could feel the space grow.
I think if I remove this tree, the change in the outlines will be too big to follow up. When you will compare the child with the parent, it will not be similar any more. It will just be two individual paintings from the same workgroup. But it will be difficult to see them as one evolving organism.

It is very tempting to break up this control. But yet I feel it would be too early to do this now. I don’t want to be quick; I don’t want to take many steps at once.

I like the murmuring ideas on the horizon: That the organism of the evolving thing would only be in the web-animation. This would change the meaning of the website, it would not be a mere documentation any more. Instead it would change into an integral part of the process – and this I feel is right. It is fascinating to look at the complex network of information-processing. The painting, the photographing, the photoshop-ing, the flash-animating and the dream-weaving into the world-wide-web; the learning, understanding and growing of abilities. I feel that it is interesting to give up the idea of substantial differences between the soft- and the hardware parts of the process and between the real and the virtual entities. I feel that in the work I want to do these differences are pointless.

Now it is clear: I want to remove the tree but I think I should decide not to. I will leave the tree as a remnant of the parent painting. I take this experience of the revolting child as a hint that “Evolving-Laws” are somewhere to come – but I want to take care for solid ground before going the next step.