Art always has a context. For example, the context in which the artist wants to see her. Or a context in which it is placed by the experts. Or a context in which it can be classified through material and optical aspects such as medium, style, etc. Or or or. It is not possible without context – although it is of course up to the viewer or artist to want to see and observe this context (or not).
But art always has a point of reference. In my opinion, this is different from the context in which it stands or wants to be seen. And this point of reference is immensely important.
Reference points can be, for example, profane in nature: the value of an art value when art is seen as an investment (by the artist, the viewer, the buyer, etc.). The congruence to a majority (fashion) or personal sense of beauty. The reference point of the importance of art history. This becomes relevant, for example, whenever someone tries to assign a work of art to certain art directions and epochs. Or the reference point of the art market. In other words, the connection to or in the group of people who feel part of the art market or claim to form it for themselves. ‘Experts’ is often used as a term here. These can be a very important reference point for a work of art, for example when an artist is classified as a ‘good artist’ on the basis of her education, her places of study and trainers alone and is thus recommended by the experts. Such an ‘assessment’ of the artist alone is already a reference point for all her works of art.
Or simply the reference point into which a work of art is placed physically/visually: the space, the wall, the place. Each reference point influences the effect and meaning of a work of art. Each reference point determines the relationship between artwork and the outside world. Between artwork and viewer. Between artwork and interaction partner.
I briefly came to mind the theory of Charles Sander Peirce, who always attributes an iconic, indexal or symbolic connection with its viewer to a sign or work of art.
However, the point of reference I am thinking of is something else. A reference point can move at the content or meaning level, but can also be figurative, as in the example of space. Even another frame, another place, another hanging can change the effect and thus the meaning of an image. Sometimes even fundamental. Reference points always determine the effect and meaning, the message of a work of art (if it is to have a message).
That is why reference points are so immensely important when it comes to the dissemination (marketing) and acceptance of art. Platt said: If you want many people to like your own art, you have to present it handsomely. Or give it a profound meaning, perhaps even a fundamental message. Or you have to give her a certain notoriety of the artist. Or all together. You simply have to change the work of art by means of reference points. Yes, I think that even a presentation chosen by the artist changes the effect of the artwork on the viewer. The work of art changes – provided that the effect is the decisive criterion for the work of art.
That is why, wherever possible, I try to give my pictures as few reference points as possible or as neutral reference points as possible. My pictures should, maybe you have read my post to my ‘why, to inspire the viewer to something very specific. Something I can’t foresee and want to control. But something whose way is to be determined by the viewer alone. By being true, you true me. Only the viewer, or more precisely, is to determine the inner world of the viewer, as the inspiration is formulated. Yes, I would like to inspire, to put it simply, to be more spiritual. But like this spirituality, how this more, what the way to it looks like – this can only be determined by the inner world of the viewer. This inner world is the only crucial point of reference. All other reference points, possibly, deflect from this one reference point.
That’s why I try to give my pictures few reference points.
No video reports on how the image was taken. No stories of what went on in me when I took the picture. Not at all a worded-out message that I want to convey with the picture.
Only my assurance that it was born out of an inner impulse that I think could inspire you, the viewer, to allow your spirituality even more than it is today. This is the only point of reference that I really consider to be intentional. Anything else is unintentional or unavoidable.
Time is a point of reference against which neither the viewer nor I, as an artist, can defend myself. Whether I see the work of art in an art-historical or epochal or current context, I can determine. These temporal reference points are not binding.
However, the point in the time at which the viewer is when viewing the image cannot be changed. I cannot influence what the viewer has experienced in his life so far, whether he captures the moment when he sees the picture, captures it and makes it one of his moments, or whether he falls past that moment in the vessel of time.
I can also influence my very personal time location only to a limited extent. With a time location I would like to refer to the current moment, the here and now, MY here and now (or just YOUR here and now). All the moments i have moved past in my previous life or in which I have immersed myself determine my personal place of time. About my experiences, my knowledge, my experiences, my personality. And this place of time, my place of time, also determines my inner impulses, my inspirations. When I’m completely immersed in a moment, consciously and consciously percepting it, the inspirations will be different than when I just fall past a multitude of moments, because I’m just being guided by everyday life and its external factors.
That is why my personal time location is so important for my pictures: it determines the impulse that led to the image. It defines the cause of the image. Just as your personal place of time determines the effect of the image on you. My personal reference point is therefore the only, really relevant information about a picture for me.
Some time ago, therefore, I decided to share my personal time location with my pictures (at least those shown in the gallery) as the only really relevant and important information.
And every personal time location, like every point in the world, has unique coordinates. No, I don’t know how far I can go through time. But I know how long I’ve been doing this, how many moments I’ve been past or immersed myself in. And these coordinates, this amount of moments, I can very well convert into earthly, standardized units. E.g. into the unity of the ‘common year’. A ‘common year’ consists of 365 days a 24h a 60 minutes a 60 seconds. I can objectively describe the coordinates of my personal time location by expressing them in relation to the common year.
This is or was my personal time location, for example, where I write this blog. ‘4937.83%’ describes very precisely one of the moments in my life. Much more precise than this could be about the date. Because the date may be an understandable time. However, it is cleansed up because it is intended to be comprehensible and comprehensible for all. Clinically pure even. The date and time do not include any relation to the personal time location of the individual. They are neutral, cold facts. Unlike my personal place of time, which is nothing more than a personal sensation of time. Therefore, all pictures that are important to me have no name, but only the coordinates of my personal time location. Because they say so much more about the image and the impulse behind it than words could ever.