In this series, like all of my recent collages, I’m experimenting with issues of context and representation. The subject of any art piece brings it’s own context and background to that piece’s interpretation. Andy Warhol’s portrait of Mao Tse Tung is highly informed by the charged identity of it’s subject matter. His Marilyn Monroe portraits are created in a very similar style, yet produce an extremely different effect because of the huge difference between the perception of her and Mao. The viewer can’t help but bring their pre-knowledge of either to their viewing.
At the same time, however, how the works are made is also charged with context. Those same Warhol screen prints were as notable for the quick form of reproduction used, and what that said about modes of production and the consumer object. Taken together these formalist qualities interact with the qualities of the subject matter to create the general identity of the piece. (Over time, the Warhols have also gained context specific to themselves, their own history and existing within the public consciousness in their own right.)
Every aspect of an art piece (or possibly anything) has a level of context that informs it’s interpretation by a viewer.
My recent series of collages (and works based upon them) is an attempt to exaggerate that relationship to the breaking point. Each piece is representational, yet represents their subjects with other materials loaded contexts that compete with the represented. Whether appropriated printed materials or other artworks that I’ve made, each layer of each stencil can be isolated and interpreted in it’s own right. The overall effect of the added noise of the competing materials is to drown out much of the effect of the represented subject.
In the case of J Dilla and now this series that transforms this piece by Roy Lichtenstein, the subject matter is self-reflective: Lichtenstein and Dilla both specialized in the re-contextualization of prior works of art. The context they bring to these pieces is intended to reflect on these pieces themselves. How I reference the subjects with the source material is meant to be fluid, ranging from complementary to a feedback loop of pure noise (a plane wreck, if you will?..).
The source material in these varies from completely arbitrary (Sample voting ballot in the second piece down), to referencing the subject matter itself (the purple and blue dots in the 8th piece down), to ironic absurdity (the childrens’ illustration of the 7th down), to imposed relationships between different abstract patterns (patterns themselves being an intricate series of relationships between parts- 4th and 5th piece down). I’ve appropriated art publications, other artforms (music, quilting, literature), or non-art-forms (science publications) and even art making materials (used masking tape, cover of a watercolor pad in the 2nd down). I even appropriate the drawings of my own computer.
The point of this is that every component of each version of each image can be related back to the facts of the creation of the piece itself, to it’s subject matter, or to the intellectual history of that subject matter, or even to me, my personal history and the constant influx of information flung at me by society (the paper Trader Joe’s bag in the 3rd down didn’t need to be branded and populated with folksy ephemera, yet they felt obligated to impose themselves into my mental space, which ultimately can’t help but influence my interaction with the rest of the world in whatever minor way). The inclusion of each component is intended to make this web of relationships explicit- to force it to the surface as much as possible instead of allowing our brains to simplify it into a sensible silence, as they usually do.
Finally, all this explanation is meant to explain the pieces I posted a few weeks back, the “Irony” series.
“A does not equal A” is the literal definition of a logical contradiction. It is also arguably the modern definition of irony. When something is used figuratively to represent something other than itself, that contradiction is a form of irony. These series of collages, by focusing on the web of context everything in the universe exists within implicitly challenge the ability of anything to existence outside of context, which is usually how things are defined. Change the context in which something is presented and you change that thing itself. These images are not “about” a plane exploding. They are about being images, and specifically to the difficulties of images fulfilling the roles they are meant to fulfill.
The difficulty of understanding “things,” defined outside of context, can lead to intrinsic logical fallacies, yet our minds aren’t equipped to cope with the concept of A not equaling A. I definitely don’t want a structural engineer to start deconstructing his own work product to better examine the historical context in which he works. But in my recent work I am trying to find a new form of logic- or illogic- that can analyze the world with less focus on cleanly defined “things” to focus more on the relationships between those things.
The reason I want to do THAT, however, is a whole ‘nother story.
-JD






















































