This mixed media work is by Kofie One, an illustrator/designer/fine artist working out of Los Angeles. Kofie is known for using found paper (often decades old) and archaic techniques (hand drafting) to execute compositions that borrow from the constructivist aesthetic. He combines the recent past, the present (graffiti), and the historical avant-gardes to form a style that hovers between being dated and progressive.
So that was an intro to his work/practices, but what really interests me is his use of found paper and other materials (this piece incorporates found chipboard). As I mentioned earlier, alot of these found objects are authentic artifacts from the more recent past. In the image above, Kofie uses paper featuring blocky typefaces on bold, uniform fields of colour. I've come across this style of signage searching through the HRM archives, on business storefronts, municipal signs, and old posters. Kofie also uses faded, browning paper from a package (Pilot Ink Colour Refill) that is presumably from the recent past, and carries a nostalgia specific to the north american graffiti community.
Assuming that most of the found paper is infact authentic (that is, genuinely vintage and not a retro reproduction), does Kofies work still deserve to be designated as 'retro'?
Nate - I really, really like the work of Kofie. Although I understand that for those into graffiti culture the piece does hold a nostalgic and retro feel, to the everyday viewer like me it is hardly tied to feelings of times past. The use of old, found and imperfect paper does give the work an older feel, however I believe that to be retro something must be striving to fully emulate and express an anachronistic aesthetic; it must point to a specific style, trend or collective memory in the past. The more specific inclusion of visibly dated packaging and design does evoke a certain level of nostalgia, but retro and nostalgia are not mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteI would like to use your reaction to this piece as an introduction to the concept of studium/punctum - the former of which is the collectively understood symbols and recognizable aspects of a piece that we can identify, while the latter defines the point of a piece that punctures through the protective Ego of the viewer and touches some personal experience or memory of that individual. This image, for me, lacks that punctum because for me there is no reference to a past experience that I have had, or information I have.
-Christin
Nate, to the question that you posed [does Kofies work still deserve to be designated as 'retro'?] are you asking that because the materials themselves are vintage, or "retro", would the final work also fall under that category?
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree with Christin in that I didn't find the piece itself to be retro. However when I looked at the image on it's own and larger, some individual pieces (like the fading paper and the Pilot Ink Colour Refill) really do stand out as dated. Although even after noticing this, I don't feel referencing the past makes a final outcome automatically retro.
I think this is a good example of art that uses (objects from) the past to move forward; literally taking what may have been obsolete and creating something new.
in asking if his work deserves the retro designation, i guess implicitly i was asking how we classify a work that actively appropriates (found items from a recent past) but is still, technically authentic.
ReplyDeletestudium/punctum is an interesting principle...
I'll have to agree with Nate, in that it is at the very least, technically authentic. Retro is not just limited to materials, but it can also be an attitude as well, or even a technique.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we start to approach from the angle Matt was talking about, in that retro is an experience, then the idea that retro can be apply to this work is supported even further.
Whether it is Kofie or any other artist: you and I even, when art is created there is an experience or a "moment" there.
That said, it all depends on the viewer, and as Christin pointed out, if the viewer can connect anything with the past in the piece, then the warm light of retro doesn't touch them: unless it is explained that older papers were used and the text fragments of the piece are from an older time. If a young person viewed my car for the first time, and couldn't place it, then retro would not be the first word that comes to mind. (more like strange would be the word (^_^))
Retro can be used to describe this piece, as well as modern.
I think I am starting to understand this "retro" thing. Thanks!
ReplyDelete