ANNA J. EYLER & NICOLAS LAPOINTE BETWEEN DIFFÉRANCE, AND NOW (Images courtesy of the artists) RUN: June 11 – July 5, 2015 ...
ANNA J. EYLER & NICOLAS LAPOINTE
BETWEEN DIFFÉRANCE, AND NOW
(Images courtesy of the artists)RUN: June 11 – July 5, 2015
Opening: June 11, 6pm
Studio Sixty Six
66 Muriel St. Unit 202, Ottawa, K1S 4E1
“We are interested in the space that exists between words and matter, between definition and object,” write Eyler and Lapointe. “The reference to “now” highlights the temporal dimension of this exchange, with an emphasis on the present moment in interpretation.”
between différance, and now examines the precipice between the tangible world of objects and the formation of meaning. Though the perceptible world is interpreted through signs and purpose, it is always in a state of flux. Making reference to the principles of Minimalism and the 20th century Japanese Mono-ha movement, Anna J. Eyler and Nicolas Lapointe refer to this shifting nature of representation in language and in objects, and the strain to express an absolute, to approach the essential. Naked line and shape acts almost like a drawing upon the space, each structure a sketch for an event.
Eyler and Lapointe cite American artist Donald Judd (1928-1994) and Japanese sculptor Nabuo Sakine (1942-) as influences on their work. From Judd, we see an allusion to architectural forms and a resulting ambiguity about the work being seen as sculptural. Sakine lends to Eyler and Lapointe a practice of intervening upon objects—interrupting their form with technology, resisting their completion, and assigned meaning. As in the practice of Mono-ha, between différance, and now expresses the teasing balance between naturally occurring substance and human-made material. Water attains an uncanny stillness in containers of Plexiglas, as in Freeplay, the weight of concrete is offset by the lightness of resin, electronic signals seem to communicate from within eternally silent objects.
The exhibit considers the notion of différance in relation to the sacred, where objects are suggestions of sacred artifacts and the rituals of their experience. The iconographic is reduced to fundamental material and simple shape. At the same time, they are not separate from the everyday, where the material nature of the work reflects a contemporary industrial climate. Roche de Bostrom, for instance, makes use of this object intervention to abstract the potential of information. Blinking LEDs suggest a language coming from within the inanimate object, but the strange alphabet is undecipherable. The runes communicate the great rift of différance—the negative space between the object and the signifier. This encounter of tension is felt in the individual and collective systems by which we create languages for what we strive to know: the tangible, the temporal, and the unattainable. The meditative and experimental aspects of divinity are alluded to through those elements that form an undertone to the everyday experience, those elements that may be obscured by this same iconographic assignment of meaning to object. What remains is an uncertain pursuit, a necessary detachment, and the anxiety of the unanswerable.
Text by Lital Khaikin.