"I am not much of a scientist, either at heart, or in my analytical nature. Still I am a scavenger of science, and the technology it leads to that eventually enhances tools I used in my art, and in my existence. In science – one might develop a theorem – proved mathematically, that indexes the speed a crack travels through breaking plate glass - according to its tinsel strength and mass. As an artist, the concept can be translated into art. As a scientist, the solution to the formula's translation is art.
I imagine when science was still young – passing the point of control of the church ethic – that it would possibly have been close to the times after which artists began pulling away from the grasp of the church ethic as well - both revving up to sighting new ways of discovery and expression. Each, the scientist and the artist, were going rogue and changing the face of humanity where changes were being artistically expressed, and scientific frontiers were massively expanding.
Now, for today, fringe elements in science – or at the edge of art and science, have learned to use the instruments of science to express themselves in the name of art with micro, and Infrared imaging devices, etc. – photographing or digitizing mineral construction at minute points invisible to the naked eye. Bacteria and viruses have become the fodder of coffee table ‘Art” books. In my mind, this takes us back to the pseudo-premises used by DamienStevenHirst, where he uses slaughtered dead animals, and insects, as art, when in fact, they are curiosities, and the elements of a dying planet that consumes all of its resources even though we should know life begets life, and death begets death. This of course, is not Hirst’s message – he just becomes a consumer of our butterflies, and other once living things that kept our world a more viable place to exist. It is, however, a legitimate aspect for the artist if they choose, to express the dark sides of our humanity – but such efforts need to be heartfelt expressions for those efforts to convey truest meaning.
It is obvious – the image capture devices we call cameras – that are mass-produced for the professional, and amateur image gatherer – represent a marriage of science and art that I find exceptionally acceptable as a means to capture our surroundings. However, there is a distinct line between a snapshot and a unique point of view. There is a place for images of the guts of animals, and the bacteria, which is good, or bad, or non-effecting towards us – or the viruses, such as West Nile - all the same as images the Hubble Telescope has gathered for humankind to consider. But all of these things are not art – unless you would say art is the creative design of your god – but then – it would be god’s art – and not yours.
Art for me is a true expression of a human’s capacity to express their emotions, their intellect, their happenstances, and their stories. Science gives the artist new tools to use - tools other than the paintbrush. Those who are inclined to do so – take these new instruments of science and bend, or blend, or capture straight out - what light reflects back to them from their own unique viewpoint from where they stand, sit, or lay. A painter can use theories from science and apply those proven points of existence to their art. Artists may also paint images that – not by their exact design, fall into representations of theorems of proven science. It is all ‘wild and wooly’ – to use a non-scientific expression. You got to love it. In the end – the greatness of our art will come from our individual viewpoints, and insights, all grown from our own exacting experiences and just living in our own particular places in this world. – Brad Michael Moore"
My Digital Artifacts
- Brad Michael Moore / 09 April 2009
Those who know me, know my, ”Digital Artifacts,” are drawn from a, “Digital Soup,” whose ingredients are often the pixels derived from other previous image captures (film or digital), and recast into a new visual mode. Sometimes referred to as, “Digital Renderings,” or, “Convergence Media / Convergent Media” - even the old term of, “Mixed Media,” is “near close,” or even more simply – “Digital Art…” I prefer to refer to my works as, “Digital Artifacts.” My reasoning is that there's a very clear difference between, “Digital Photography,” and what I call, “Digital Artifacting.” Barney Davey coined the phrase, “Convergence Media,” and what that suggests is closer to what I do than any other term I use in the “Active” sense. I converge digitized films with digital captures, and include my own – “Made in the Moment” digital drawing, texture, gradient masks, and colored layers, to complete my work as I construct my digital outcomes. It is the outcome of stacking so many layers in no specific order, from no specific number of resources - that becomes my, “Digital Artifact.” As such, I can consider, and accept, the process of delivery I use as, “Convergence Media,” and the result as a, “Digital Artifact,” – a simpler appearing object resulting from human workmanship and modification. – Brad Michael Moore"
- Brad Michael Moore / 02 April 2009
"Pure perception is the state which already exists at the level of the brain perceiving visually without interpretation from memory. - Michael Berry."
Unless there is no memory - there can be no pure perception. I can agree with this as a theory - but not as a possibility. As soon as cognitive ability become active in child's brain in the womb - the virginity of pure perception is compromised in a nanosecond after the first firing synapses and there - the sensing of need, chaos, nutrients, instinct, and sensitivity to the senses. In that, I would think pure perception to be a unique - once upon a lifetime experience that has no chance of being remembered - only an invisible feral signature which to me, thinking about it, could be argued as one of those definable moments never agreed to as to when life begins..."
The colors he saw – were through the eyes of a painter, and he was reacting as a painter to my Digital Artifact - which, itself, has different rules - that sometimes exaggerate elements. Working digital, which operates within different parameters than other mediums, allows me to function under different values as well. It can be a bit more confusing to read - the rules are not set in concrete as much as quicksand. In this piece – the reflections upon the water reflect a total ignorance of the circumstances the King is in. The water reflects colors from fire, and clouds, and the moon – these elements have no concern to the pithy conditions of the human actions being taken - for which they only play a backdrop… I’m trying to please two worlds – mine, and the real world I exist within. It is a point many tie together for their work – wishing to imagine the surroundings of their topics are more tied to the actions and participants they portray. For me – I feel less in control of what nature is really doing, and just hope I can obtain my goals by respecting the elements for which I depend upon – but have no true control over…
Most of my darkest work, not surprisingly, happens when I am functioning in my greatest fatigue. I call it ‘sleep walking.’ It is - for my medium, a wild card to use, when mixing pixels - I mean if you want to reach into the most ephemeral of thought images - being in a ‘near sleep state,’ allows me to be most honest about exposing the deeper regions of my sub-consciousness. It is not like crawling into an isolation tank to hallucinate on LSD - but it is close. I cannot do it by design, it happens when I'm driven to stay awake and work when I should have crashed an hour or two or three or four hours before. I wouldn't teach or preach my methods to anyone. It is a region of exploration I have fallen into in the last several years only because of the medium I am working in, and the circumstances under which I live. When I was a young man, in my 20's - I worked in my darkroom the same way - working into the deep hours of the morning - but the results were very different. Outcomes may have reached my goals - but they were not altered in big ways from what I went into the session trying to seek. These days - I can steer an ordinary image in a matter of a handful of moves to be transformed into a rendition I could in no way imagine a few hours earlier. This is why my works might seem - from piece to piece (when I am not doing a series) to have little in common with one and another - while actually - they are irrevocably bound by a state of mind within which they are created. Strange process – perhaps casting the ways of a madman...
ART for Fart's Sake - and Art for Art's Sake...
- Brad Michael Moore / 23 March 2009
Maybe a way to compare ideas of art - which some believe has lost it's meaning today, is to compare two well-known artists I know. This is in my point of view on Pablo Picasso and Damien Hirst. One hundred years from now - Picasso will still be considered a genius, and master, who altered the course of art, a co-founder of cubism, and highly renown for his Blue Period, even into his eighties he was already working in what would later be known as Neo-expressionism ten years after his death. In one hundred years, I think the work of Hirst will only command a ditto, as having the most overpriced, mis-represented commodity of his time - playing a, "Sensationalist parlaying as Artist." Sez Wiki, "Death was a central theme in Hirst's best known works. He became most famous for a series displaying dead animals as art (including a shark, a sheep and a cow), which are preserved—sometimes having been dissected in formaldehyde." Hirst tried to pull off Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup work, but proposing taxidermy as an artform - knowing it is a folly. Nothing wrong with dark matters – but art is made with our hands – not the expose’ of lesser animals we have the power to destroy. I am more impressed with a crucifix in a jar of urine (Piss Christ / Andres Serrano.). People were fooled where there should have been a, 'Leash Law.' Which artist was truly creative, and innovative, and inspired - and which one was a Wall Street-like near-to-be hoax despairing everything about art that is truly meaningful. I would have preferred Hirst painted a dissected animal - that would have at least proved he could do better that putting color dots on paper and calling it LSD. Picasso believed that an artist must paint in order to be considered a true artist. That idea rules me out as an artist - but then Pablo never knew the digital age - dying April 8, 1973. I would imagine my friend, Cassandra, who put me to this test - was thinking she would prefer a Picasso effort to a Hirst effort in any day and time. Perhaps Hirst may still show he has learned something from his exposure to the world of art. His 2006, 'Flies and Resin on Canvas' – a construction series of common shapes, while still unimaginative - holds more substance than anything he has done before – sure beats killing butterflies and gluing them to canvas – again – why not paint the concept. Hirst is well known as living a career financed by Charles Saatchi - we all should be so lucky to be bankrolled - even for cornball ideas. Picasso was never a ‘’bought-creator’ in his whole career. These are two kinds of artist manifestations here – one a journeyman, and the other - a King's brother. Still, Art is alive today - but like all efforts worthy - you must make the journey to find its best truth. It does exist - it is out there...
AlphaSight.com / Brad Michael Moore / American Artist