More still life

During a critique a few weeks ago when I took my broken plates and vases in to be critiqued, one of my class mates said that they possibly weren't as strong as they could be because they weren't sitting within a specific context. They were just plates on a white background. 

That comment helped a lot because I knew that they weren't quite working but couldn't figure out what exactly it was that wasn't working (being a stubborn artist, they were photographed and turned out exactly how I originally wanted them to look and I couldn't see past that).

So, today I revisited that Fragile robustness idea. 

Abbey Proctor, 2011, Fragile robustness IV [digital photograph]

Abbey Proctor, 2011, Fragile robustness V [digital photograph]

I was a little reluctant at first as I wanted them to be purely a metaphor for the soul or self, but I finally decided that embracing the plates' original form (that being.. a plate) might be the best way to go about photographing them for a second time. So I sat them in this gorgeous wee plate / photo frame holder that sits on our coffee table in the lounge.

I haven't figured out why exactly these work a lot better than my first attempt, but I really think they do. I suppose that the 'holder' is, in a way holding the selves together so they don't fall apart? I still have some thinking to do in that area..

The reason behind the unbroken plate (or self) being added to the series plays with an idea I came up with while I was in Auckland a few weeks ago. The "whole" plate is a representation of a young, innocent self that has not yet been damaged enough by life to have broken, this is juxtaposed by the damaged plate, representing an older self that has been worn down by the harshness of life and is, in some parts, barely holding itself together.

I really love the way the two look when they are placed side by side.

But I'm not sure that the idea as a whole is strong enough to be taken further this year. At this stage these are just another series to add to my final body of work..

Self

A good few months ago now, I was looking in the Technical Bookshop in Riccarton on Clarence Street by the mall. I went in looking for some of those 1960's Vogue mags (completely the wrong place for that kind of thing) but I did find a book on identity and the self which I thought was quite interesting. It's called 'The Ego Trick - What does it mean to be you?' by Julian Baggini. It sort of sounds like a terrible self help book but it's really not. Baggini is founding editor of Philosopher's Magazine (personally, I've never heard of it but it sounds pretty interesting) and in the book talks to theologians, priests and lamas as well as neurologists and psychologists to get different takes on what the self is. I'm almost half way through reading it and I'm loving it. It is so interesting!

Anyway. Through reading this I've had lots of different ideas that kind of illustrate some of the ideas said in the book, but are also kind of metaphorical. One particular paragraph really stood out to me:

"So what could explain the strange combination of fragility and robustness that characterises the self?

The answer is perhaps that the fragility is the strength. A pearl may be hard and distinct, but smash it and it's utterly destroyed. A composite or amalgam, on the other hand, is of it's nature a collection of things. That means items can come and go, or be damaged, without necessarily terminally destroying the character of the whole."

That is quite possibly one of my favourite paragraphs I have ever read. How he has worded it is so beautiful.

With this idea in mind, I broke things. I smashed a few plates and a couple of vases; things that are both fragile but strong at the same time. We know that if a plate or vase is dropped, it will smash, however when they are doing what they're suppose to do, they're strong. After completely ruining and breaking the structure of these things, I put the pieces back together, but some pieces were missing or ended up being slightly mismatched, however the original structure and purpose of the items is still able to be seen. They are broken entities, but are still able to function as their original selves.

Abbey Proctor, 2011, Fragile robustness I [digital photograph]

Abbey Proctor, 2011, Fragile robustness II [digital photograph]

Abbey Proctor, 2011, Fragile robustness III [digital photograph]