:)

On Individuality in Metaphysical Practices 

Artists who employ metaphysical tactics when making art work in a way similar to engineers. Figuring our problems related to the task at hand, their work. This practice is essentially problem solving. There is nothing new about this method, it has been used to start civilizations and through this it has shaped the way people live they way they do.  Although this way of working is logical in the way of solving formal problems pertaining to the form and content of a specific work it also has its limitations. What happens when an artists concern in their respective practice is only problem solving? A group of artists emerge with work that is essentially the same. A practice consisting of solving formal problems is half a practice. 

Content is equally as important as is logistical material partner, the medium. Metaphysically concerned artists have adapted a semi for filled Greenburgian conversation. Where a practice which is only concerned with medium specificity and the exploitation of the materials used. The scope of work being produced becomes exclusively concerned with that of the medium at hand. The personal touch is reconfigured to be thought that a hand made touch is sufficient enough to constituted as content. This dialogue becomes shared by many artists, over and over again, without gaining complexity. It shys for the complexity its striving for because this way of working is just that a way of working. It is only part of a practice, the second part is incorporating personal interests and hopefully linking various ideas together through a common thread of thought. 

Relaying this idea into a practice is as easy as picking a topic and choosing what materials to work with. Easy enough, but what differentiates one artist from another? The ability to construct a narrative through these various implementation is actually important, again! Having a narrative implies there is something to be laid out thus having room for criticism. Narratives come in all shapes and sizes particularly linear and un linear, oddly enough they basically get the same point across. That A. there is something specific about the narrative itself a artist wants to delve into or. B. there is something specific about the way in which a group of works are linked that a artist wants to open up for discussion. Practically the same use of the narrative format just with different focuses. 

Narration coupled with metaphysical implementation is art with weight to it. If metaphysical tricks at the root of the conversation the room for conversation becomes suffocated. Problem solving is interesting, humans are one of many beings that do it well, but is that really all we can congratulate each other on? How have people in the art world not become desensitized to this? It seems like a trivial fact of existence. Have a problem? Find a solution. Have a problem? Find a solution, etc... 

A “grander” scheme to a body of work almost seems required for this new Metaphysical ideology of art making. Gaining interests from a broad scope of other peoples influences works if done sparing (in my opinion). Finding one self through the constant production of ideas and work even if it takes a couple years for the creation of anything resembling the artist themselves to happen. Sincerity is what differentiates artists from one another. Sincerity in finding out oneself will be noticed by viewers, the work will come off as genuine because even if an artists interests are similar to another. The specific subject matter of specific works/bodies of work will be unique as no creators are the same.