I had a conversation with an artist about a week ago, who said that what I've been referring to as ‘dresses' aren't actually dresses at all, but are more accurately read as négligés. I spent quite a while trying to think of a way of create a dress which didn't have an obvious historical grounding, as I didn't want to limit the work to something in the past. The reason I went with this particular style is because I saw it as something that could have been worn in the past, but also as something that would be worn today. I chose thin, translucent fabric, as I saw this as a way of suggesting fragility; the lace had references to domestic environments, but also clothing. However, as was pointed out, other the obvious reading, (which had kind of skirted across my thoughts, but not really settled into my conscious), was that flimsy fabric, revealing a body (which in this case isn't actually there) has quite apparent sexual undertones. This wasn't what I was aiming for, and obviously brings into play a whole host of other issues (one of which, interestingly enough, is that négligé is the part participle of the French verb négliger, to neglect. The neglected bit I like, but not in direct association with a female body, which could be used to go down an abuse avenue).
So I'm putting the ‘dresses' on hold for a bit, while I explore some other ideas I've been tossing about. Firstly is the idea of casting some domestic objects out of unsympathetic or materials which seem slightly wrong, so that the cosiness, safety and security associated with home is shifted. I'm thinking along the lines of concrete or porcelain. I've also been preparing a range of possible supports for printing photographs of the library onto – brown paper bags, plastic carrier bags, reclaimed letters and bills. The first time I tried this yesterday was a bit of a disaster, as they all pretty much fell apart as soon as they hit the developer, so I've invested in some waterproof PVA and a subbing and hardening solution.
(Continues…)
