I've researched the inaesthetic, and been advised to research it more.
Through the beginning of this exploration, this week specifically, I've realised that I can no longer apply the term to my process. I can however apply it to my materials.
My process is undeniably aesthetic.
I have come to a moment where I either shift my work to the inaesthetic, truly, which will lead to the development of work beyond the object. Or, I embrace the actuality of my practice; that I use an aesthetic consideration of form and space to open the conversation between materials, artwork and audience.
Both are interesting, and a shift away from the object (which I believe will involve a deeply contextual process) is something I think I would like to explore when I don't have a studio. Post-MA is looming on the horizon, and I want to be in the studio making. As a maker, a fact that I have no passion to deny, I don't want to ignore the reality of who I am. I have a studio, I have access to workshops. I won't for much longer. I want to use them.
Celebrating the inaesthetic highlights the concept, it challenges the purpose of art (here seen as not to entertain or bring pleasure) and, in the case of the accidental and incidental, encourages others to see art in the world around them.
Form is an important materialistic concern. It is something i enjoy working with. It is a continuing language that i am developing and something i am keen to continue working with. It is often unconscious or intuitive, and in my practice it is something rooted in the physical object.
I'm begining to read ‘The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodernism’ edited by Hal Foster. So i can say that this is a continuing area for research. However I don't feel that the inaesthetic is an area of focus at the moment.
Some research on form and aesthetic considerations might be useful to reaffirm my understanding of the subject, even if I do reject them.