17th July 2019: Supervision meeting with Becky (the inadequacy of words)

Met with Becky to discuss my research structure. She agreed with my breaking down of the process of reconstruction into replication and reconstruction but felt the term ‘reinterpretation’ was a result of the other two and a word too loaded in art historical terms. She suggested I change this to something like remodel or reassemble or reimagine, pointing me towards Delezue’s ‘assemblage theory’, as the outcomes of practice will be a reassembling or merger of ideas and inspiration.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with this. I see these three actions of replication, reconstruction and reinterpretation as distinct (though connected) modes, each with slightly different aims. Replication is employing various methods to record the objects and sources in precise detail, allowing me to explore ideas of authenticity, ways of looking, decay and the ‘story’ of the object and the embodied knowledge of the maker when encountering those objects and sources. Reconstruction as the act of remaking, re-enactment and recreation, exploring processes of making, ideas of ‘tacit’ knowledge, hapticality (knowing in feeling), skill and ‘wayfaring’ (finding a way through), ‘composite biographies’ and the concept of ‘ghosts’ (recreating the absent). What I am trying to encapsulate in the term reinterpretation are the more experimental interpretive works that arise from studio practice. While replication and reconstruction are explorations of forms, materials and processes grounded in existing objects and representations, reinterpretation denotes a space to explore more experimental processes, possibly generated from the first two actions, with emergent outcomes. When I’m unsure about a word, I look at a dictionary definition as a starting point for clarity. The definition of reinterpretation is “The action of interpreting something in a new or different light.” – that seems to me to be what I am trying to express here…

We also had some confusion over the term “embodied” – it was not until after our meeting that it occurred to me that I think B was talking about the objects while I was talking about people and actions – I think this needs further clarification → embodied-objects, embodied-knowledge, embodied-experience – these are different things…

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s