A Shadow is a Colour, a Body is a Shape, an Edge is a Line: Towards a Posthuman Account of Painting -part 2
Maegan Harbridge, Canada
14 November 2022
Fig.2 Maegan Harbridge, Evanesce, 2021, 30x40cm, acrylic on paper.
This is Part 2 of a two-part essay. Read the previous part here.
II. Shape
Figuration is a form of speech but “the shape of shape”[1] is a silence, an abstract painter’s punctuation for reflection; stiff, solid, delicate, and indefinite; an offering of space for the unarticulated bodies of historically underrepresented form. A synchronous occupation of multiple terrains; shape is full with “quantized indeterminacies:”[2] emptiness, and void. Shape is an ever-expanding inconsistency of associations; a simultaneity of faces and spheres. A singular yet archetypical gesture of emotion, a contour, and a dimension in motion. A shape radiates exquisite rage and fear, disquiet, and delight. It is the face of chaos, a virtual trace. Stoic, yet never fixed, shape is a transfiguration; a protrusion and collapsing of configuration; a constellation of colour, planes, and positionality; a chimera of absolute definition in an ever-unfolding state of exception.
Shape is the holding of tension between friend and foe, a temporal surface and substance of ebb and flow; non-talk, “unthought,”[3] a contesting of the logic of chronological time.[4] Shape flattens observation into a plane of smooth space, animating the possibilities of an excess of form, an accumulation of forces, a strange topology in flux. Shape is a carrier of opinions and feelings, indifferent of their texture, colour, and tone. It is a suspension of stance to hold a spot for variation, mutation, and change. Shape flickers the unresolved emergence of matter, an architectural intensity of internal and external fluctuations, a reaction of the intra-action of objects in space.
Everything that exceeds representation is a shape and a shape is the delineation of everything representable. It is a border line of difference, texture, colour, and tone that is a surface façade of the most enigmatic matter, an active ambiguity of anchored physicality.
Fig 2. Varying layers of translucent and opaque paint infer depth and distance. The colours are contingent upon one another; their temperature and configuration are each independent bodies but intra-act to suggest atmospheric space. Glacial-like figures emerge as cut-outs against the ground, composed as a plurality of contingencies–an autopoietic force that is the face of a vacillating system. Positive/negative, warm/cold, full/empty, tangible yet formless. These sequences of shapes do not resolve into anything distinct but quietly point to an iteratively constituting presence.
III. Line
A line is a punctuation between light and shadow, the division between wakefulness and sleep, an expanse of fracturing planes, an uneven topology of exterior façades, the flow of water, a break in the ice, an advancing coast, an intersection of decomposition and regeneration. A line is the delicate containment of life, a registering pulse, a walking path for bodies, eyes, and hands in the dark, the bones of drawing,[5] the architecture of thought–a habit, a direction, a pattern of behavior.
A line is a sentence, a circumference, a shifting cartography of imperial control. Animated by elation and fatigue, lines are the expansion and contraction of skin–a scratch, a stretchmark, a tear, the folding of inside and out, a mobius strip. A line is the crossing of territories, and personal boundaries, the persistent impression of both stop and space between bodies and things unsettled yet bound together in an uneven distribution of form. It encloses possibilities of perception, refining objects of attention to singular positions of fact, but this line of thought is porose–malleable and inconclusive. It is a sociogenic trace[6] of enclosure that is historically drawn, a fiction systemic yet radically contingent to differentiation, mutation, and dissent.
Fig. 3. A line in painting is simultaneously a colour, a texture, and a tone; it is the scaffolding of form, a division between positive and negative, light and dark, cool and warm. At one scale a line is a border, but at another scale a line is a field–open to vast microbial networks, chemicals, UV rays, words, and shadows. A line is never only a line, it is a manifold event–a ripple of relations across a field in flux.
Fig. 3 Maegan Harbridge, untitled (Wintergarten), 2018, 30x40cm, acrylic on paper.
Conclusion
Can abstract painting be a technology that undoes an underlying philosophy of representation in the circulation of global consumptions and control? This undoing might work at the incongruencies of our molecular machinery, wriggling into our genetic code, infecting and affecting knots of knowledge formations, modes of linear perceptions; disrupting normative thinking that might give way to heterogeneous, intersectional, modalities of being; new cosmologies of seeing. What if abstract painting is a prosthetic for looking that enables a view of the relational quality of form; a technology that interrupts narratives of individualism to hone in on the incorporeal nature of bodies intra-acting; where the simplicity of its component parts is a transparency that displays its own fluctuating construction. There is reparation at the foundation of such observations: To dispense with an exception of autonomous bodies, the ascetics of borders and barricades, is to learn with aesthetic criticality; to tell a new story of composition and the interlinking nature of its seemingly independent forms; a Copernican leap[7] of centers to peripheries.
You can read the previous part of this essay here.
References for Part 2:
[1] Sillman, Faux Pas, 76. The Shape of Shape is the name of Amy Sillman’s 2019 curated exhibition at the MOMA in New York. The phrase is used here in the same way that Sillman evokes the conception of shape.
[2] Barad, “On Touching,” 23:15. Karen Barad evokes the space of the void with an explanation of virtual particles, which are quantized indeterminacies-in-action. That is to say, the space of the void is never empty but brimming with possibility.
[3] Hayles, “Transforming How We See,” 1. Katherine Hayles makes reference to Ursula Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness as a gesture towards the space of knowing that precedes consciousness. For the Handdarata this space is “unthought.”
[4] Braidotti, Posthuman Knowledge, 126. Chronos is the conception of linear time upheld by the “Royal” or “Major” sciences as posited by Deleuze and Guattari and then taken up by Rosi Braidotti in Posthuman Knowledge as contrasted to Aion time, which she attributes to peripheral and “minor” knowledge formations integral to an ethical transformation of the Critical Humanities.
[5] Sillman, Faux Pas, 91. Line as the bones of drawing is an idea building on Amy Sillman’s investigation of Abstract Expressionism where she likens drawing to “the bones of thinking itself.”
[6] Erasmus, Sylvia Wynter’s Theory of, 9. The idea of a line as the refinement of fact thinks with Fanon and Wynter’s concept of “sociogeny” where lines of experience, thought, and sight impress into the psyche of the colonised and coloniser as “psychopathologies” (“ways of knowing and seeing”) that are precarious and can be interrupted.
[7] McKittrick, “Sylvia Wynter on Being”, 46. This reference to a Copernican leap thinks with Wynter in her exploration W.E.B Dubois and Frantz Fanon’s “new Copernican leap” instigated through the “self-reflexive” conception of “double consciousness”. To see form as relational and not independently constituted, I argue, is a “self-reflexive” consciousness of the doubling of form as both solid and unstable; particle and wave.
Biblography
Barad, Karen. “On Touching: The Alterity Within,” Rietveld Academie, YouTube Video, 59:02 June 27, 2018.
Bennett, Jane. “Systems and Things: A Response to Graham Harman and Timothy Morton.” New Literary History 43, no. 2 (2012): 225–233.
Bignall, Simone and Daryle Rigney. “Indigeneity, Posthumanism and Nomad Thought: Transforming Colonial Ecologies” in Posthuman Ecologies: Complexity and Process after Deleuze, 159-181. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2018.
Braidotti, Rosi. “How to Do Posthuman Thinking” in Posthuman Knowledge, 122-152. Cambridge, England: Polity, 2019.
Erasmus, Zimitri. “Sylvia Wynter’s Theory of the Human: Counter-, not Post-humanist” in Theory, Culture & Society 37, no.6 (2020): 1-19.
Hayles, N. Katherine. Prologue to “Transforming How We See the World” in Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious, 2-5. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Karen Barad, interview by Adam Kleinmann, “Intra-actions.” Mousse 34, 76-81: Contemporary Art Magazine, Issue 34 (2012).
McKittrick, Katherine. “Unparalleled Catastrophe For Our Species? Or, to Give Humanness a Different Future: Conversations” in Sylvia Wynter: On Being Human as Praxis, 9-89. North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2015.
McKittrick, Katherine. “Yours in the Intellectual Struggle: Sylvia Wynter and the Realization of Living” in Sylvia Wynter: On Being Human as Praxis, 1-8. North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2015.
Moten, Fred. “Blackness and Nothingness (Mysticism in the Flesh)” in The South Atlantic Quarterly 112, no.4 (2013): 737-780.
O’Gorman, Marcel. “Necromedia Theory and Posthumanism.” in Necromedia, 7-25. University of Minnesota Press, 2015.
Sillman, Amy. “Further Notes on Shapes” in Faux Pas: Selected Writings and Drawings, 76-100. Paris: After 8 Books, 2020.of Minnesota Press, 2015.
Sillman, Amy. “On Color” in Faux Pas: Selected Writings and Drawings, 47-77. Paris: After 8 Books, 2020.
Weber, Nicholas Fox. “Foreword” in Interaction of Color, ix-xi. New complete ed. New Haven Conn: Yale University Press, in association with The Josef and Anni Albers Foundation, 2013.