Can creative material translation reshape artistic appropriation to escape the cycle of mimicry and mockery linked to contemporary visual art practice? To explore creativity in material translation, my project has been divided into three case studies, each translating a different pattern, from a different context and material, into my chosen pattern-making language of glass murrine. In the first case study I translate a Moorish plasterwork pattern from the Alhambra, in Granada, Spain. This pattern has been copied before: a translation of fidelity printed by Owen Jones in his publication The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.1 Jones’ pattern and my patterns will be used to examine fidelity and infidelity in material translation. In the second case study I translate Paisley, a Kashmiri textile pattern appropriated and adapted by western manufacturers in the 19th-century. Paisley's history of adaptation will be examined in relation to my translation, to compare the two methods in the context of a single decorative idiom. In the third case study, I translate a stamp- printed furnishing textile pattern designed by Bernard Adeney in the 1930s. This translation will be an isolated interaction between two makers, a similar position to the critique of contemporary visual appropriation, allowing for a comparison between infidelity and appropriation. Murrine has been chosen as my material language because of its ability to create patterns with colour, depth and unlimited variation. The murrine technique involves the heating up and stretching of canes or sheets of coloured glass, arranged in designs that become very small when elongated. These stretched lengths are then cut in cross-section to form mosaic tiles. Developed by the Greeks and Egyptians, the murrine technique has been under constant development for the last 2000 years. I have further refined the technique, incorporating new methods such as waterjet cutting. I have made final artworks from each set of murrine in the format of flat glass panels, each exploring its pattern in a unique way. An examination of each artwork, its process of translation – including drawings, computer models, photomontage and other designing methods – and its material and contextual change will forge the link between making and writing in this project. My original contribution to knowledge is the exploration of a practical act of visual translation, analysing material change and creativity. The project serves as a model for material translation, questioning the contemporary act of appropriation in both art and culture. The project developed through my rejection of contemporary practices of appropriation, along with my passion for the spiritual nature of pattern and the glass technique of murrine. My theoretical framework is built around the linguistic concept of ‘creative translation’. Linguistic theorists such as Jorge Luis Borges ‘treated translation as a creative force in which specific translation strategies might serve a variety of cultural and social functions’.2 My project will adapt this linguistic concept to visual practice, investigating its relevance to material language.

No description available.

A turn away from language and the human mind as the dominant (or only) determinants of reality can be identified within many disciplines, including anthropology, philosophy and literature, reflecting a growing acceptance of human and non-human, living and non-living entities as real, complex and partially withdrawn agents in the world. In Object Oriented Ontology the definition of object is extended to include humans, who have no special ontological status. Timothy Morton proposes rhetoric as a means of drawing closer to other objects, of contacting the ‘strange stranger’; objects cannot be known directly, or fully, but can be explored through imaginative speculation. Drawing on Object Oriented Ontology, my project explores making - an intimate engagement between body and material - as a means of thinking the body as a (strange) object within a mesh of strange objects. Facture is documented as image and language, prompting a series of shifting, speculative questions: • Can writing be brought to making to generate new new approaches to craft production? • How might writing in response to making, or objects, be reintroduced into a making process as a form of feedback? • Can writing_making methods generate new approaches to writing (about) making and materials? • How might a combination of production, documentation and reflection be displayed as artwork/research? • Can making be seen as a means for contacting the ‘strange stranger’?