I had a really interesting conversation with a professor from Pratt‘s Visual Criticism studies program. We were discussing my participation in this semester’s colloquium, which would focus on Landscape*.
He felt I would be a good participant because my work so often was focused on making the invisible visible in landscapes (I am paraphrasing greatly). It really got me to thinking about how I define my work. He struck a very true chord with me.
I have always felt uncomfortable with pigeon holing myself into the world of eco or environmental artist. Even though much of my work does explore these themes, it primarily is encouraging audiences to re-think their existing environment or landscape. This is true of historical work and definitely true of current and proposed projects. A number of which don’t fit neatly in the environmental pigeon hole. Some of these include:
So… I just think he really has a point about my work. I certainly hope that the projects will continue to inspire critical and creative thinking around environmental & ecological issues, while at the same time connecting people to their landscapes.
I guess a new statement is in the works… Any thoughts?
*I like the word landscape because it includes not only visible features but also the weather, climate and human features & the flora and fauna.