ICUL CTION C o n t e m p o r a r y
A r t
H.C. Turk
R e v i e w
Special Issue
retrograde position of eliminating this superfluous component, following in what seemed a perfectly reasonable extension by eliminating music. My replacement for both became sound (neither tonal nor atonal): animal, insect, and other nature sounds along with electronic companions. The ultimate progression was to animate this with visual associations: Upon encountering a scene with an aural theme redolent of quasi-natural sounds from animals that might have never lived and robotic voicings that seem part of the landscape instead of the speaking of its populace, a denouement of silence occurs when sound becomes a sight revealing that the ambience is ultimately human. Your work accomplishes the difficult task of establishing a dialogue surrounding the continuing life of film and analog imaging tools in contemporary visual arts: when highlighting the evocative potential and the emotional contents, you seem to urge us to challenge the relation between our cultural substratum and our limbic perceptual parameters: to quote Simon Sterling's words, this could force things to relate that would probably otherwise be unrelated. Do you agree with this interpretation? And in particular, what is the creative role that chance plays in your approach?
Forcing (maybe "coercing") the art spectator to confront new, ad hoc relations is part of the art game to those of us playing in left field. What does the cry of a wolf have to do with the static portrait of a bee? Nothing until the artist presents the relationship. The intended and/or ultimate meaning behind these new relationships is part of the creative process. And though the elements are explicit (picture of bug, sound of wolf),
24
the manner in which they relate is abstracted and evocative (more than vague). The emotions elicited will vary from spectator to spectator, and in that sense are unpredictable because they stem from individuals, not because they are generated by chance. In my work,