Mark-Making

Using Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s verses for the title of a show or the art works is a popular trend these days, especially when 2011 is the year of Faiz’s 100^th birthday. Not to say that it’s a bad thing to do, but with such actions comes huge responsibilities. And the question is; is Faiz only being used as an advert, a symbol or is it an honest expression of solidarity?

“Jo dil pe guzarti hey raqam kerte rahein gay”

is the title of Khalil Chishti’s solo exhibition at Rohtas 2, Lahore, from 9^th to 17^th December, 2011. The burnt marks on paper, enclosed in frames that are made of metal pipes, welded together, hanging above eye level, are to be viewed by climbing on a step stool, through a magnifying glass chained to each frame. Next to each work, except two, is a sheet of paper requesting the viewer to ‘please suggest a title for this work’.

Khalil Chishti, Please suggest title for this work IX, welding spark drawing on acid free paper, 2011

Please suggest title for this work III, welding spark drawing on acid free paper, 2011

In the absence of the titles and any artist statement accompanying the works, the questions that this work raises are so typical yet so crucial, that in answering them, I shall not only help myself understand Chishti’s work but also explore some of the issues that are the core of contemporary art, concerning the problem of ‘painting’ and ‘drawing’. Is mark-making a sort of drawing? Are not these pictures really abstract paintings with no titles? Do titles of abstract paintings really matter? Does giving a title deny it something because of the resulting emphasis on subject matter? Or is it to exploit the technical aspects of painting? What Do they Represent, when titles do not say and pictures do not show(referring to Michael Corris’s book)? Is it a retreat from names, identification, and language itself? What is the function of titles that are given by the viewer? Or why they might be regarded as important? What does the task of looking through the magnifying glass and giving a title, do for the viewer? Is it to make the viewer an active participant only? Or does it reveal something that one might have overlooked without the given task? Does it challenge the conventional associations art historians like to construct through titles, like the surrealists who use to hold sessions in which they suggested titles to each other? Or are titles considered confusing diversions, like the abstract-expressionist believed? Does it help generate an inexhaustible flux of random images for the viewer? Is it a comment on representational attributes of art? Is titling artwork part of the explanatory problem that faces artists and historians alike or is it part of its solution? One explanation might be (note: read in an extremely exaggerated manner :p) The meaning, the message of these paintings lies inside the viewer. Instead of trying to look for something in the image, let the image seep deep inside of you and listen to your inner voice. Let the universe share its meaning with you, that has been yearning to be heard. Hear a message intended just for you. Apologies for being impolite, but on a serious note, I do agree that its not about trying to find something recognizable, though many may do so as their way of giving the painting meaning, ultimately, it is about looking at the images in a relaxed way, devoid of pressure. But the significance of this truth depends on the way in which this explanatory task is registered in the work, and my primary concern is the way in which it remains unclear as to its function.

Please suggest title for this work I, welding spark drawing on acid free paper, 2011

Can such abstract or automatic drawings possibly have the same meaning and affect today that it did in the past? What do they express? Are they automatic drawings? Or are the frames and markings only a by-product of a welding activity? As the description of the mediums reads, ‘welding spark drawing on acid free archival paper’? The possibilities are endless. These sheets of paper attacked with a vigorous gestural expressionism are freed from the need of describing through the framework of mark-making. A sort of a script, preserving the smallest and most fleeting traces of the maker’s hand. Also these marks reveal the physical energy used in their making a bit like music, in its use of harmony and orchestration, combining both subconscious and more deliberate marks, a sort of a partnership between; the maker, the welding spark, the metal and the paper, rather automatically. The magnifying glass did help engage me more actively and made me wonder about how to interpret different line qualities from crisp and sharp to soft and diffused, from raised and overlaid to recessed and inlaid, from the burnt edges to the metal emitting from the holes punched in paper and the incidental text on the glass written in reverse. The possibilities are truly endless!

Ek arz-e-tamanna hai so hum karte rahenge