We had both just moved to new cities. Rovers in need of new environs. One of us, a writer, tramped off to Chicago. The other, a visual artist, landed in Los Angeles. Phone calls ensued. We wanted to collaborate on. . . something. Long conversations surveyed a range of ideas, including inquiries into the areas of medium and practice. They also involved theories on why an artist will take the steps they will from one project into the next. For both of us, these talks were a natural extension of work completed individually and together in the past, and always leading toward a shared interest in the variety of ways art develops and takes form. More than anything, the subject of process came up continually in our discussions. How do artists do? What motivates and influences movements from point A to point-who-knows? We considered the artist in terms of their role as a repository of unique histories accumulated, shared and relived: an endlessly curated trove of personal references interweaving with the lives of other people, places and things. But what are the cues existing between artists and their work that serve as triggers for recollection and connection? It was not a question merely of acknowledging influence, but of understanding specifically how the artist participated in creative dialogue as a means to determine their own sense of voice, aesthetics and practice. Increasingly, we found ourselves compelled to further examine the reasoning and rationale—not to mention potential randomness—behind the decisions artists make in the context of their surroundings and relationships.
For Pair Shaped, this notion of creative exchange presented itself as an opportunity to observe the forces informing the trajectory of an artist’s practice. What would happen if you placed an artist in a creative space with loosely outlined parameters and msp hack starcoins and diamonds asked them to engage in dialogue with other artists? Does the consequent back and forth chart an unfolding example of hybridization? Would the nature of the collaboration yield results that aesthetically and thematically brought two artistsD3 closer together or set them down opposite paths? Our curiosity grew. Thoughts on how to configure and arrange such an exercise progressed into greater notions of building a community of artists taking part in a free musical.ly likes kind of ongoing, call-and-response narrative. The idea seemed ambitious, but simple; structured, but boundless: We wanted to exhibit the evolution of ideas and the steps artists take as they progress through collaborative movement with makers from various disciplines and mediums. The ultimate results will surely document ups and downs, successes amidst failures. However, it is through this dialogic, exploratory process that you get a seismograph of decision-making essential to the practice of art-making.
Now, we find ourselves here, launching the first digital iteration of the Pair Shaped project. Works from our contributors will be published and archived on our site for everyone to engage and experience. It is a beginning—indeed, a beginning of many beginnings. The growing collection of works will certainly drive into something challenging dragon city generator no survey and unknown. Above all else, it is our hope that these experiments will lead to discoveries instrumental to the developing practice of Pair Shaped participants. The dialogues will carry and propel those involved. A narrative will build. Elements will split and cohere. And, in this process, the resulting art and writing could produce everything from garbage to groundbreaking.
– Tony Cleasby & Weston Lyon
Painting: Tim Gardner, Two Men Looking at a Shark