____________________________________________________________________  RSVP STUDIO ____________________________

We are surrounded by images in our everyday lives. Images can become the starting point for artistic work. Images can be the subject of research. What interests me is the detachment of images from their original source and their free-floating, not unlike pieces of ice. Burgin describes an 'envelope', an 'everyday environment of images', in which "inhabitants of wealthy nations are enveloped by" [1]: images from television, film, the internet, street advertising, posters on buildings, covers on music cds etc. Burgin argues that "what we share in common in cultural experience is dervied from the image enevelope" [2]. I call these images pervasive. I am interested in these images, but also other kinds of images. These can be images we make ourselves, or images we find. Pervasive images have become banal. We are no longer able to aestheticise pervasive images; we have un-aestheticised them. I am interested in reconsidering the detachment of all sorts of images from their original source with the following questions: Is there a re-investment of these images? And what is the role of art as the producer of new images?

Philosophy has been the traditional episteme, which is the Greek word for science. Modern and contemporary philosophy have disputed the normative standpoint for long resting on so-called first philosophy. Challenging first philosophy has led to either proliferations of philosophical discourses and the modern sciences, or practicing philosophical thinking on a case by case basis: say on folk ethics, or practical philosophy, or semantical judgments about truth and falsity.

On the other hand, considering the epistemic difficulties with defining artistic research has only led to the paradox of having to accept art as theoretical. This should not be confused with conceptual art already defined as art for which the value of the concept or idea is prioritised over the finished object. I suggest a reevaluation of art to answer questions about the artwork's epistemic value. I also attempt an evaluation of artistic research to answer questions about whether the artwork or artistic process has epistemic value.

To illustrate my discussion, I take on the counterfeit and the impostor as cinematic fictional characters and figures of art's propositional "as-if". I use pervasive images to suggest answers about how they connect and disconnect with practising philosophical thinking on the aforementioned basis. On the other hand, I use new images as provocations of pervasive images usurping the notion of the archive.

If this is case by case philosophical thinking, at least I have suggested another example of philosophy's existence.



*Counterfeit: An imitation or copy of something, usually made to deceive that it is of equal or greater value of the original.

**Impostor: One who suffers self-doubt about the value of their achievements, for justified or unjustified reasons. 


[1] Burgin, Victor, The Remembered Film, London: Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 65

[2] Ibid. p. 66

'Minimalisms', inks on paper, A2, 2012

drawings from photographs of icy surfaces

M for Manifesto

Drawing requires no collaborators, no elaborate fabrication, no negotiation with others, as installation, photography (in terms of printing labs), or even painting (at least monumental painting) does. All that drawing requires is imagination, creativity, and skill.

Vitamin D: New Perspectives in Drawing: 008-009.