Things and not-things

I am thinking about these two terms, ground and background, and the varying ways they function for objects. Actually, mostly for artwork. Artworks can be hung on the wall (background) or placed on the floor (ground) (and surely arranged in many other ways as well, but I’m just thinking about these two). Generally, “hanging on the wall” seems to imply suspension, a certain form of potential energy, an abstinence from gravity, whereas “sitting on the floor” implies a there-ness, a final destination-ness, an in-the-way-ness, possibly a greater inertness. These qualities seem to rest largely within the respective words “hung” and “sitting.” Is the action an object must carry out to reside in a certain place what determines the qualities of its state of being more than the fact of it being in that particular location? Or, is its action one in the same with the location itself? What happens when you distinguish between the action required to be in a location and the actual location? (...) On...

I like when objects look like they’re trying. (I haven’t written here in a while and I’m feeling like I probably always begin these posts with some version of “I like…” which…is actually a pretty honest display of the fact that I do usually happen to be writing about what I like. Anyway, I like the way objects seem when they appear as though they are trying to do or be something other than what they are.) Versions of this include an object: -trying to look like another object -trying to form a certain shape or structure  -trying to look larger (or smaller) than it is Though, I question this as I say it. Is an object “trying to look like another object” just one object that resembles another? Is an object trying to form a certain shape just an object taken out of its typical, found state? Is an object trying to look smaller than another just an object that is squished, or, out of proportion to its environment? Is to say that an object looks like it is trying [to be something] the sa...