I wrote this text to accompany my current show (Oct 26th - Dec 6th) at Gallery 825 in Los Angeles. The show features a number of new paintings based on my old family photos.
Anamnesis, or the
remembering of things from a supposed previous existence, is a visual reconstitution
of memories one may or may not have had. The title’s definition suggests
that certain memories can be made and derived from the lives and memories of
others. Using old family photographs as subjects, I investigate the idea of
anamnesis by reworking the images into paintings.There is a two-fold
interpretation of working this way, the personal interpretation, that touches
on memories and events directly related to individual and familial experiences
and the interpretation of the collective memory experienced by those unrelated
to any of these subjects that are nonetheless experienced as having been borne
out of these very same experiences. These can be further interpreted and
elaborated.
Anamnesis - Ash, charcoal and oil on burned panel, 32x32 inches
First, I draw on my own
family history, interpreting and reinterpreting the past through these
images. It is a task that is deeply personal but one that will ultimately
result in incomplete results. Close family
members appear in the photographs, but along with them appear strangers and
strange places. In casual conversation with family members, I’m able to
find out certain details, but not all of them. Some people and places will be
forever shrouded in mystery or will have to fit into a form of reconstituted
memory. By constant contact with the images I am playing not only the
role of the private eye, but also the role of the interpreter and story-teller,
drawing lines, relationships and conclusions from disparate sources of visual
information. Vast amounts of time and space exists between the visual
coordinates of each photograph, some taken in the 1960s others a dacade or two
later, all in various and often unknown locations. It is not necessarily
important to know precisely all the details of a particular image. Memory
itself is highly selective. What matters
is the way the image or event is re-interpreted.
Second, I draw on my
personal and family experience with immigration and integration into a new and
alien culture, to draw out possible collective experiences and how they could
be interpreted by those unfamiliar with this highly personal subject
matter. We all have families and many have experiences with immigration,
either directly or indirectly. This highly personal subject matter can therefore
become a universalizing agent for a much larger collective memory. These black
and white images lack color in a similar way that the immigrant experience
lacks immediate contact with their distant past. Memories of one's birth
culture become increasingly less vivid, they become snapshots rather than full
expressions. In some ways an immigrant
may experience memory as a loss resulting in a sense of incompleteness. The function of memory is significant. Often the way that people of different
cultures attempt to evade loss of collective or personal memory is to hold on
to tradition and vestiges of their particular cultures and continue with then
in their adoptive culture. Such practices can be ritualized, institutionalized,
and personalized, they can be very private or very public. Some people abandon
their former cultures entirely. Whatever the outward manifestation of such
practices may be, what nonetheless remains, is a sense that a part of one’s
experience of the past and of one's culture is irretrievably lost. But
loss and nostalgia aren’t always experienced as negative emotions. Positive memories constitute nostalgic
feelings as much as negative ones, though I understand that in my
interpretation of Anamnesis, in the context of the show, tends toward the
darker aspects of loss and incompleteness. However, even loss can be positive
or have positive outcomes if one's experience of loss, the death of one's child
for example, is transmuted into a generative outlook on life.
A possible third interpretation
of the exhibition exists, one that is more contingent on the source material
and can be summed up as follows. A new interpretative method of memory exists,
one that is being actively developed as a result of the digitization of
collective space and memory. Visual sources until very recently tended
toward the tangible - printed photographs, books, VHS tapes, and so on. Whether within the institutional world of
work or the intimate world of the family, tangible repositories of memory were
kept. Many families kept photo albums
and slides. Today the pervasiveness of
digital media and the movement toward cloud technology made bulky items like
photo albums and slide projectors obsolete, even relatively modern technology
like CDs and DVDs are less and less common as people move away from holding
onto objects to keep only the ephemera, made up of lines of code. This
presents an interesting subject for investigation and intervention into this
space. In the case of photographs, as in the case of many real objects, one is
dealing with a different type of memory.
Photographs are documentary objects and tend to provide historical
accounts of events. They are themselves an object subject to historical
interpretation. The photographs were developed in a particular place, on
particular paper and so on. The paper
will degrade with time and the photograph tends to show signs of use, such as
creasing, abrasion, writing, etc as well as signs of accident or manipulation. At a time when photography wasn’t as prevalent
or as available to individuals, especially amateurs, one had to rely on chance,
proper framing and basic knowledge of photography to actually take
photographs. That’s why lots of older family photos are often out of
focus, framed in strange ways, and have color or lighting issues. This
‘amateurishness’ is also what makes them interesting and particularly human.
Corrective software may increase the quality of photographic presentation but
also erases the possibility of chance and lucky error.
Compared with modern
digital photography the issues of memory are completely different. Because code
and digital information does not degrade, the photographs also do not
degrade. Memory becomes harder to distinguish in this world. There is no yellowing paper or musty
smells. The main indicator of age of a
digital photograph is its time stamp, provided the instrument on which the
photo was taken was correct. Another, more subtle way, to think about age and
memory of digital photography is the age and look of the subjects in the
photographs. Since there is no difference in the quality of the
photograph taken twenty years ago to today, another way I can tell time, is by
how old I and my family or friends look in them. Of course there is the general increase in
quality of digital images, which means that a photo taken with a digital camera
twenty years ago will have a very low resolution compared to today's cameras,
but what matters is the overall condition of the image. That image taken
twenty years ago is the same, whether I view it on its original platform or a
new one. The digital photograph still has an enemy in time however, though not
in the same way that a real printed photograph does. And the digital photograph has a clear
advantage, it can be copied endlessly, provided one keeps the original. What is
lost however is something that cannot be placed into real terms. What is lost
is a sense of continuity. If images are the same from one day to the
next, how does this square with our personal experience in which we continue to
age but our technological selves do not? How is personal memory affected when
versions of it are publicly disseminated across various platforms? Are personal memories personal anymore? And what can be done or should be
done about personal data and information, including photographs, that will
continue to exist in perpetuity in the digital realm?
And lastly, the paintings
are painted directly from photographs. Often the paintings are ‘edits’ of
the actual photos, zoomed in, or sections of the originals. Sometimes
people or objects are ‘cut out’ of the originals as well. The paintings are
mostly black and white. This is my attempt to illustrate the
incompleteness or loss mentioned above.
The paintings are meticulous but often imprecise renderings of the
original source material. This is a strategy on my part. I usually work
with brushes that are larger than what’s needed for the task so that I prevent
myself from ‘painting’ the subject too precisely. I have no need to render
a perfect replica of the photograph since my point is to illustrate the change
between the original material and the finished product. The painting process
usually dictates which way the painting will go. Since I only use white paint
in my process, I have to rely on picking out certain sections of the photo to
paint first. With continuous addition of paint to the work it becomes
more apparent where to add more and where to leave the painting alone. I begin
by using torches to burn the wood panels and then add ash to the surface. I then use water-mixable white oil paint to
paint directly into the ashen substrate. Proceeding with layers upon layers of
increasingly viscous oil paint, the image seems to ‘emerge’ from the background
as I pick out spots where the image will be brighter and leaving areas that
will remain dark. The combination of ash and oil results in a mixture
that is first very dark and is able to be manipulated even after drying. The end result is a painting that is entirely
matte and still shows the surface of the wooden substrate ‘through’ the
image. The quality of the paintings
usually tends toward the darker side or darker feelings and emotions, even when
the subject matter isn’t necessarily dark. The paintings seem to exude a sense
of nostalgia and the past.
Thank you for reading!