It's interesting you should say that, because I've had something of a similar experience. I felt pretty uninterested in print making at uni - which is something I've since come to regret.
I think the tension we've discussed between the humaness of the hand made and the formal perfection of machine printed objects is absolutely alive in this kind of printmaking. For me there's something especially powerful in the combination of disciplined, refined design aesthetics and the freedom of abstract expressionism... it's definitely something I'd love to explore.
I must admit I've tended to become weary of the kind of grainy, pop collage that has been so pushed in the photoshop era - especially when it's combined with so much sentimental, paper faded nostalgia. I think my frustration is something to do with the focus on constructing illusions of vintage; creating a cradle of memory around images which may or may not have weight and worth on their own.
I like images which exist in the time they're created and don't seek to charade as if they've come from somewhere else. This is not to say I'm searching for perfect originality, attempting to ignore all influence and borrow nothing... and I do like collage.
The 'Pop songs...' cover is a good example for me of something that blatantly borrows, but doesn't present to be created in another time. It is the result of the designer re-creating an old technique - not filtering images with an old aesthetic.
It is important to me also, that we see our technical approach as integrated with aesthetic concern, but not as the source of definition. I mean to say that a decision to use screen printing should not define the complete process of creating the image... otherwise our screen prints become just derivative.
No comments:
Post a Comment