|
 |
|
The painting as
a canvas or planar element on a frame, or effectively surface with
particular boundary, has prevailed as a formal paradigm. In this
way we can imagine a painting as both the enclosure of the work
and the expanse of that enclosure as plane or surface, which for
the purposes of my practice I will describe as 'surface of boundary'.Looking
at architecture, architecture specifically as process towards built
form, we start with a line on the paper. This line, in the context
of an architectural plan already has assumed attributes of outline
or boundary and is imbued with a surface potentially extending into
the vertical plane upwards or/and downwards into infinity.By the
nature of the process architects are trained to read 3d in 2d. The
process destination towards real built form, from inception astonishingly
means that the drawing used by convention is entirely 2d, [3d is
almost exclusively used to explain to the uninitiated about the
building prior to it's being built]. Therefore within the architectural
process, drawing could be said to be reality described in 2d.In
coming full circle in the search for a painterly connection between
the process of making the 'art' and process of making the 'built
form', I could postulate that: Architecture uses 2d to describe
‘Reality’, whereas Painting uses 2d to create the illusion
of ‘Reality’.
Taking this further, through practice wholly in painting, I would
like to invigorate this arguably tenuous link between art and architecture,
by inverting the process towards their respective destinations.In
other words I am provoking personal practice through the question,
what happens where,
Architecture uses 2d to create the illusion of Reality, whereas
Painting uses 2d to describe Reality.
Grania Cumming - 2003
|
|
