How has my work changed? How have I changed? When I first came into the major I was only barely able to draw and had very surface level ideas. My latest project, “Meteor, Ready” is itself a change in my viewpoint on what I like. In freshman year I originally believed that actions define who we are.
Applying that to my artwork however was not the case. Originally that was my philosophy for my work. That the end product was the finished piece. However since then my ideas have shifted from the idea of the end point being the message to the process itself being my message. My pieces abstract animation: saucy, daystop, and skipping are more about the process of creating work than really having an end point that is the message. The messages in skipping and abstract animation: saucy handle the ideas of mechanical reproduction in video format.
The process of both of those formats was the use of multiplication of a singular asset, similar to the work of Andy Warhol’s silkscreen prints where he would re-use a singular asset as it changed over time. However unlike Warhol’s prints; my assets were animation sequences and filmed material. In Saucy, it is a matter of multiplication of a sequence that creates an a satisfying series of movements. Where as Skipping was a filmed sequence layered on top of one another to form a kaleidoscopic sequence. The Process of both of these however shares a theme of mechanical reproduction. In a way my work embraces the quick to reproduce nature of working in a digital format. Like Warhol, it is a matter that relates to time and uniqueness. Daystop however breaks from this idea, and instead loses the idea of reproduction and simply embraces the aspects of mechanization. Where rather than frame-by-frame animation, utilizing the almost puppetry style of animation in after effects. This I feel questions the idea’s of medium, weather an animation can tell the same level of depth of story in this format. I believe it can infact do so, however it cannot do it on it’s own.
Another aspect of my work, in retrospective does tackle the ideas of identity, the early philosophy of action defining being does still add a layer to my work. In daystop the identity of the characters are nearly unrecognizable, almost blank slated and empty in their characteristics. Things like gender not really showing in either silhouette of my characters. When before gender was much more apparent, I believe I’ve found amore interesting place where instead of man or women they are reaching for that middle ground of ambiguity. However in other designs gender idea’s still show but when it comes to characters that I feel the best designed, Daystop’s character work is the strongest when I let go of the idea of identity being that of gender.
In retrospect my work has matured in terms of technical focus but does lack in terms of grand deeper meaning. I feel most of my works message is the process of making them. The layered aspect of skipping detailing the absurdity of time, or the repetition of saucy to be a repetitive sequence of satisfaction, my work has evolved to speak with whats being done rather than what it means at the last few seconds of a video. The process of sculpting the pieces I feel is more important than what the pieces words should be at the very end of the video.