These works by David Hanes seem like they are out of focus and make your eyes constantly re-focus. They are in focus however they possess a blurred aura, a sense that something is not quite right or there. I enjoy what these images do for my brain, it has to re-interpret what it is seeing relying on fragments of understanding that allow it to calm down. I also like the fact that the images are of art that were taken from the internet however the way I have seen and experienced these is also through the same medium to which they were first found. Please read this article from Tourist Magazine which outlines Hanes process and perspective on these works.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS INVOLVED LEADING TO THE FINISHED EFFECT OF THESE IMAGES?
Process is quite simple but is fairly time consuming as an aggregate. Basically I see myself functioning as a kind of human-algorithm, surfing the net for images of art that I think are either interesting or will work best with the project. Once images are compiled I systematically go through them and reshape the images using the content aware function in Photoshop. Some of the images I pass through quite quickly, while others (if they seem to be going somewhere) I spend time with, re-configuring them and sculpting them in a way. If I find myself stuck with an image, I am using other touch-up functions in Photoshop and not just the Content Aware function.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SAID EFFECT?
I find it hard to talk about what I am doing with the AWARE project, sometimes it feels like pro-surfing user thing and other times it feels like a representation of process and a way of seeing. I believe the work is ambiguous enough to not hold one specific meaning and that the work is diverse enough for everyone to approach it and take from it what they will. For me it really began as this way of working out a frustration with art, arts distribution on the internet, access to art and its elite aesthetics, and arts place in the dialoge of images. But now it seems to be more of this place to work out new ways of looking at art and creating something post-physical and untouchable.
ARE THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS YOUR OWN OR IS IT A DE-CONSTRUCTION / REMOVAL OF OTHERS WORKS IN GALLERY SPACES?
None of the above images are original. I am still on the fence about whether or not the images should be made from originals or not… maybe making them originals seems a bit futile and irrelevant. I think it’s the dialoge and narrative of art and interpretation that feels the most interesting to me.
DO YOU FIND THE ART IN THESE IMAGES SUPERFLUOUS AND LOOK SIMPLY TO THE SETTING THAT THEY SIT WITHIN? OR DOES THE ORIGINAL ART WORK MATTER TO THE PROCESS EVEN THOUGH YOU ESSENTIALLY ERASE IT FROM IT’S CURATED SETTING?
No, i don’t think that the art in each image is suggestively unnecessary… in fact I feel the oposite. Maybe I’m a bit superficial about my selections, as I think most people associate their relationship to art on the Internet. The original artwork is the original artwork, my process reshapes the image of that artwork to create a new way of looking at that image of that artwork. The art is a way of looking… the digital recontextualisation of images of art.