de Niet, would that R de Niet, how are you doing, im one of your long lost pupils, Surrey Institue of Art right??

yes Gary, i am that R de Niet. How are you doing?

de Niet I will need your help to fix my examples for f;lux please.

"Anyway, without trying too hard to turn the dial back to boring, I think you should discuss the question of artistic identity today and the notion of self-mythology. Isn't an artist's identity in many cases a carefully constructed product in just as much as their work is? (i guess the question i'm asking is - are people just getting sick of this duality because a lot of 'bad art' is being glossed over simply because the artist in question knows how to shoot ping pong balls from her fanny etc?)"

(Detlev), from the other thread "love and hate"

f:lux, in answer to your request for an example, I would call this quote by Detlev, an attack on a particular type of 'surface art' That it it is recognising that persona can be created as 'surface', as much as the art can be created on the 'surface' to serve a certain notion of 'value'. (I agree with the post too, mostly but it begs the question to me of what is other value).

This is similar to your ideas about the contact sheet, the identity and body of work presented to create a persona is carefully constructed much is left out and what is put in is for a purpose. De Niet called this 'surface'.

Personally I see this construction of persona and value in all things. I see that what we call 'reality' is similar to what de Niet calles 'surface' a world of shared meanings and values of language that defines us. So its hard to illustrate with concrete examples. but i will keep trying with de Niets assistance i hope.

A magazine called my office today "We're doing a shoot featuring a band (biggish name), we think there's a great synergy between your label, our magazine and the band, ... would you be interested in paying us $3,000 for this?" I said "I dont do advertorial its completly against my beliefs" and they said "no-one will know" and I laughed (and said no thanks buddy). (thats another 'surface' example for you). I mean surely EVERYONE suspects this happens even if they didnt know! and if they dont then we would be totally deluding them about celebrity and popularity ...)

usually the next thing is the magazine will say "We can do an editorial story on you in a later edition too, this is a prestigeous fashion magazine" ha ha ha. Im sure you all know this happens all the time.

This example is meant to illustrate that there's an underlying acceptance of this 'reality' of 'information' I mean i could have had that magazine say whatever i wanted of course, just as I can create anything about my persona or label any time, any where. And it is all about association, meanings of prestige, association of meaning and synergy... ha ha ha. all fake. and the punters will buy it for $10 bucks. and they'll buy into it too.

... notice... dear f;lux this is less than a quarter of what i intended to post, but it was unworkable, sob. ... more to come.

Hi Ethan!

Yes I did open de Niet's link - the error 404? A great zen enlightenment moment, sort of unexpected slap upside the head in Welsh!

No, I didn't really know about the mag stuff you describe but (if I understood) I'm not really surprised.

I really like detlev's opening question too. So, do you think that process has the merit of providing a degree of transparency? The depth below the surface? If so, how to integrate with this the fact that for a lot of people culivation of celebrity is supposed to be part of the process? I mean, there are a lot of people whose person is an integral part of their work, no? Which I think is what detlev said already, but much better than me.

I've got a bit of a heavy workload at the moment so sorry, but I can't do better than this for now... cheers!

Sorry for not responding sooner I’ve been in bed with the flu,

So, do you think that process has the merit of providing a degree of transparency? -- If used in the right context

The depth below the surface? -- If set in the right context

Both of these and all of the other questions so far in this, can be answered I believe with context. There is a place or method which is right and it in context which dictates it.

So to bring things back to the starting questions.

“Do you acknowledge your own biases and viewpoint in your creative process(es) and is this important for artists and creative people? Where does your creative process begin and what should we reveal?”

To answer that. I think I am aware of my own biases as well as my own creative wants above and beyond that of simply answering a clients brief. They manifest them selves more by the inclusion of additional layers of information rather than simply the laying out of process for the viewer. My bias would there for to be rather than just simply making plane the process or method of how I produce, I tend to fill work with additional ‘stuff’ most of which would be for ‘other’ audiences, who may view it.

An example of my bias I here you cry… awhile ago I was asked to design a page for a magazine showing a typeface I’d designed. On one level I could and did just show the font, but additional layers also in clued, historical design references, personal political views, factual information, references to my larger body of work, signifiers of where I hope the work sat in the world of type.

I hope that in someway shows my creative bias and how I use it.

To answer the second part of the question “Where does your creative process begin and what should we reveal?”

It began from before I remember and I reveal different amounts depending on the person.

I’ll try to write more when I stop sneezing and have had more sleep.

Hey F:lux, Hows the work going? what are you up to? for my opinion on your questions...

"So, do you think that process has the merit of providing a degree of transparency?" = I believe that is the idea of showing process.... however as de Niet said, if it is process created self consciously (to be viewed), then really it isnt process, its part of the final art.

"The depth below the surface?" well I feel that its totally circular, if process is part of the value of the art, then that just becomes part of surface too.

As I remarked in an earlier posts two ways of circumventing that circularity spring to mind.

Exhibit, or publish or "make final" unfinished work or earlier versions including unintentional mistakes (I have done this in terms of allowing spelling errors and stream of conciousness thought be published in written work, The final work is finished in terms of production quality, but the content seens strangely unfinished, rawer.... But i thought there's the danger people might think it's just bad work (and maybe it is on that level) but as de Niet said and i hadnt thought the value of that might be to 'another audience'

another idea could be to produce work that was 'purely surface' and defied value and authenticity. I liked an earlier thread where someone was a fashion editor, and cast themselves as the model in the shoot, styled themselves and did their own hair and makeup. I wish they also designed the clothes purely for the shoot but i dont know if that happenned. The only thing that would make that better in my eyes, is if they then created a thread on SHOWstudio used the psudonym VALENTINE and declared it was Total Crap. I'd love that.

Ha hA ... f:lux
I realise that your question ...is actually the same as what the thread is asking....

"If so, how to integrate with this the fact that for a lot of people culivation of celebrity is supposed to be part of the process? I mean, there are a lot of people whose person is an integral part of their work, no? "

If revealing process is important how far back to we reveal, does this include revealing the construction of your creative persona... and its biases and viewpoints(thats what i meant by seeing the back of your own head)

I didnt have an answer for that. But for me, its what i try to acknowledge and achieve whenever i can...

Hi de Niet, I could use more sleep too, so sympathies.

Ethan I could kick you! By dragging detlev's quote over here (though he's not playing with us as a result, obviously) you've created a link to the other thread and it's distracting. So I've just posted something over on love & hate, bits of which would now be almost at home here? Apart from the contradictions... And I didn't mean to bite the tail of you opening to this thread, so sorry! but at least I now know I really understand what's the opening gambit was because I've ended up asking the same questions as you.

That I'll have to get back to you about because I'm knackered, so I'm not playing 'show you mine if you show me yours' today. See you later!