Digital Simulation

“The status and significance of the image changes in postmodern digital art: the image becomes a secondary manifestation, of the abstract code, which becomes the primary vehicle of creativity. Before, the creation of material images was the primary goal of visual art, and the immaterial code that guided the process was regarded as secondary. Now, the creation of the code—more broadly, the concept—becomes the primary creative act. The image no longer exists in its own right, but now exists only to make the invisible code visible, whatever the material medium.” (Donald Kuspit, The Matrix of Sensation)

Upon entering the studio of Charles Broskoski my attention immediately was drawn to a series of framed pictures of flowers (irises) arranged on an office shelf. The images are 8x10 inches digital prints produced by a camera making snapshots while horizontally rotating around a 3D-digital model. Charles based this work on a photograph by Robert Mapplethorpe. He re-created this photo by painting it digitally and scanning original leaves and collaging it together. Ultimately he created a 3 D model of this photo (to which he refers to as a sculpture). But what was I looking at? -  A photo, a print, a documentation of a sculpture, ..

In our conversation Charles made it clear that his main focus of his work was sidestepping the fraught question of medium-specifity. In his studio he also had two framed drawings hanging of the same still life. On first inspection this bright drawings seemed like traditional drawings made with crayons. But quickly I realized that the materiality of a traditional drawing was missing. What was it? A photo of a drawing, a scan, a digital drawing or maybe just
documentation of a drawing. Charles played with my perception because ones again it was not clear what I was seeing. Charles explained that he started with a crayon still life, which was based on a drawing by Matisse. Later he scanned his drawing and manipulated the lines with a brush tool in photoshop. He printed the image leaving a white border around it and a small drop shadow on the side. It seemed to me that Charles was showing the documentation of his work instead of the “real” work. Charles puts great value into the copy, the archival / documentation of art. In another body of work Charles created his paintings/drawings directly on the computer without an “original” and presented this body of work directly on the internet or as small thumbnails printed on a canvas. Charles work asks how traditional modes of expression are effective in the age of the internet when we view so many images online. He also questions where the boundaries of those traditional mediums lie when there are so many opportunities for simulation. For Charles the question is: If a medium is simulated, can it still be appreciated?

While in traditional painting a stroke of paint done on canvas captures often a feeling/moment in time. Charles way of scanning, retouching, re-creating is a step of removal for me. By using images of art history as a starting point he turns down the volume on subjectivity but at the same time he turns up the subjectivity of our world around us. Retouching is a huge part of the fashion and advertising industry but taking these tools to the fine art realm opens endless doors. In our conversation he revealed that methods and tools of expression are also very important aspects of his work. Making a photograph into a sculpture only to later re-photograph the 3 D model to create a new work.

The first artist that came to my mind when seeing Charles work was the Austrian artist Peter Kogler, who also creates his work digitally but works conceptually very differently. Kogler is more interested in networks and in the idea of infinity and uses the computer to express these ideas. David Hockney and Barbara Bloom are artists Charles mentioned are of interest to him. Hockney stated onces that “painting was a process of seeing and thinking, rather than one of imitation.” Charles work puts this statement on its head because with his way of imitating he animates you to seeing and thinking anew. Of course there is another connection - In 1985 Hockney was commissioned to work with a computer program that allowed him to draw directly onto the screen an Hockney like Charles is a great fan of Iphone drawings. Ms. Bloom is also an artist Charles mentioned. The connection I made between her and his work is for example when Ms. Bloom used the auction catalog for the estate of Jackie Kennedy Onassis as an inspiration and starting point for one of her shows.

Digital painting thrives mostly in production arts such as film, television and video games. Some artists believe there is something missing form digital painting, such as the character that is unique to every physically made object. Most artworks we see today are reproduction either on the Internet or in print. The physical surface disappears in Charles work but he is not faking it and I see value in the copy. His work for me moves between fact and fiction. One’s mind apprehends each image here less as a phenomenological entity and more as an icon reading as “painting” or “art” or “art history.”

In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin analyzes how mechanical reproduction destroys the uniqueness and authenticity, the “aura” as he labeled it, of the work of art. But the withering of aura in the age of mechanical reproduction is inevitable. And, in many respects, it is a good thing. If the mystique of the “original” is broken down, if the work of art is torn from the “fabric of tradition” of which it was a part, then it loses its false importance. Authenticity is no longer a relevant criterion for evaluating artistic production.

But for me the work of Charles is also about disappearing and a sense of removal. Charles does not see his work in this way of course. Overall the works that had a source/base were more interesting for me. But for me the online flipbook of digital drawings and paintings still seemed unresolved. While I see this flipbook as a library I am confused about the individual works. In a sense I felt these drawings were just visual candy to entertain my eye. When he uploads new work to his website a sort of clock reading appears next to the work. 5 days ago… Charles is re-examining the possibility of a certain sincerity in painterly expression, but doing so not in the individual painting (well, not primarily in the individual painting), but as a performance—in time. It took me a long time to understand this aspect of his work but when I watched a video piece of him in the afternoon and wanted to watch it again during the night I was greeted with the message: ”Please return at 10am”. For Charles the films come from thinking about how time operates on the Internet. So there is a schedule of “films” that plays everyday no matter if someone visits the site or not. So essentially when you visit the site, you are walking into something that is already in progress (as opposed to watching a YouTube, where it starts when you want it to). But one has to return to his site again and again, watching him upload new work, performing his creation, only then one begins to see how time is such an important aspect of Charles’s work.

By Martin Roth
From Graduate Seminar on Combinded Media
September 1st, 2010
Charles Broskoski