A composite of definitions found in many English language dictionaries for the word tool could describe a tool as anything (device, implement) used to as a means to accomplishing something -a task or a purpose.

I’ve been thinking a lot about tools lately. What tools do I use in my practice? What are the origins of these tools? How did they become a part of my practice? How do I apply a particular tool in my practice? Is there a hierarchy of use, and, if so, what is it and why is it?

Considering the focus of my research project in terms of its title Playing Personas Painting I have been progressing towards an understanding of the personas I am working with as tool in my painting practice. This understanding ‘personas-as-tools’ is becoming more solid as I work with Petra, Franz and Melusine. What still remains less clear is the role of play(ing) and painting. On one hand I can see where play is the method by which the tool, persona, is applied within a methodology of painting. On the other hand a case could be made for the opposite: persona is the tool applied through methods of painting within a methodology of play(ing). As my research progresses over the next few months, and most likely through the absence from the daily visits to my studio during most of July and August, I imagine that this question of which is method and which is methodology will rise up further to the surface of my thoughts.

But for now in this post I want to delve a bit deeper into the idea of tools and my research-practice. After which I will review the postings I’ve made throughout the past month, highlighting discoveries which I see as containing potential for further development.

First, returning to tools I am not going to discuss the personas-as-tools here at this time. Instead I would like to discuss another tool applied in my research - the bibliography. Interestingly the past weeks I have also been ruminating on homonyms -words that are spelled the same but have more than one meaning- and the multiplicity of meanings found in most words which lead to the need for the reader/listener to understand the context in which the word appears in order to understand its meaning (at that moment). In this I draw an analogy to the fragments of identity -the words of the text- whose meaning can only be determined by understanding the context in which the words appear in order to understand the text. This is a circular relationship, drawn out it might look something like this:

Where I am leading with these thoughts, is, the relationship between the multiplicity of meanings of words -fragments of the text- which depend upon the context of the text, while simultaneously create the context of the text- and the multiple purposes of the bibliography AND the multiplicity of identity. In my research the personas-as-tools by which to explore the multiplicity of identity through painting are like the bibliography-as-tool applied to the scholarly research; both have the purpose of providing an approach to analyzing the research from (at times slightly) a different angle.

This past month alongside the continued daily paint practice, working with primarily Petra, less with Franz, and beginning to work with Melusine who is in the process of interviewing Petra for an essay she is writing on Petra’s studio practice, I have continued with reading, writing, watching, and thinking. One task I set for myself the first week of June was to take a first attempt at a longer bit of writing which may or may not become a chapter/essay -or portion thereof. The purpose was to sit down and write something in the 7,000 word range and for this I decided the question/topic Roberta brought up in our committee meeting in late April, Why not (just) Marcel Duchamp? would be a good one to begin with. The initial bit of writing is still very rudimentary, and definitely needs work in terms of expressing the criticality I have for the subject I am addressing, but it push me a bit into considering a few other things, like homonyms, particularly the word ‘gesture’, as applied conceptually and practically in the discussion of the practices of myself, the personas, and others -like Duchamp. Time is growing tight, but I hope to have one more larger bit of (first draft) writing done before Berlin. Additionally, I would like to focus my time in Berlin outside of/between the PhD workshops on producing another 1-2 longer bits of writing. This will provide me with material to review in first few weeks post-Summer residency, assessing the potential to develop into the example chapter for RDC2 either one or a combination of the writing, along with other bits I’ve posted in the studio writing blog since winter.

To end this post, here is are direct links to updates to the Making and Studio Writing sections between May 15 and June 15:

Making-

Good Witches of the Between, Part Six- applying Petra

Gestures of CillaVee - Gestures of Petra Nimm

Three more small asides

A little madness in the Spring, Part Three -part three

Good Witches of the Between, Part Seven -another start

Studio Writing-

Preliminary thoughts on the written exegesis

Petra’s Statement

Quotes and Notes on Performance Studies: an introduction

Schjeldahl on Rauschenberg