space part 2

I’ve been thinking about the idea of space and the artist studio more, and have found numerous essays surrounding this as a subject matter, from the 1960’s onwards. whilst it is in the back of my mind that i am still interested in how being in an artistic space makes you feel internally, i’ve become slightly sidetracked by how artists see their space. even reading tonight on the way home i was surprised to find that in the 1960’s there was such strong belief that the studio had had it’s day and that we were now in a post-studio world. this has become even more appropriate as an opinion given that so many artists simply have a laptop as their permanent studio without any tied physical entity to work in, yet initially it was risen as a given over 50 years ago (daniel buren). this all then warps what my opinion of a studio space is. initially concerned with the assumption all artists strived to have separate space to create work, as i so clearly need, actually it appears that significant numbers are more interested in the relationship with where the work will be placed once finished. equally i had assumed that the studio is a room. therefore i am simply projecting my own needs onto a majority, which couldn’t be further from the truth. so really what i need to quantify first is that the studio is a flexible form, if i do wish to concentrate on how a “space” makes you feel. i’ve had a chance to work on some initlal drawings of ideas and these seem to centre around a neat organised space or a packed full haphazard enclosure of “things”. due to my current interest in the bauhaus, the drawings are based around a perfect cube in homage to the basic design/foundation course drawing processes (vorkurs). but now it becomes clear that i need to establish why i am attempting to enclose that form so specifically, when actually it appears most artists do not need define their space with solid structure. do i carry on with my assumptions of what an artist needs and go from there or forget my own requirements and listen to the majority? how does that then relate back to my interest in how you interact with a space, which i feel is still relevant?

thus there are numerous factors that still need considering – does a space have to be solid? what am i trying to capture by focussing on a feeling? do i need to define what a studio is before i move on with any more practical ideas – or should all versions be established and see how that affects the “feel” of the place?

hmm, i feel a lot more reading is needed if for no other reason than to make sure my assumptions on what artists define and use a space for do not detract from the really interesting ideas that may be coming to the fore.

if anyone reading this could comment on what entity their studio exists in i’d appreciate it. or what you perceive to be a “studio” in your opinion.

finally, there is one more aspect i wish to keep included in the thinking process, the relation of how best to use a space; and the architectual based process of negative space and how we need to allow this to exist to best utilise the space (in a 3Dimensional capacity).

back to the drawing board i feel, literally!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: