Imagination as a model for spatiality


Imagination, in essence, is what allows us as beings to explore thoughts that are not present in our immediate environment, to the senses and perhaps things that have never been real at all. It is what makes us as individuals adversely different from each other allowing us to transcend that of which goes past what is observable by the senses, to a world of our own thought and aspiration that is nested within the creative faculty of the mind, what is primarily imagined is generated from within.

Imagination works adversely to visual perception in that instead of using a perceptual process to generate memory, imagination uses imagery to form memory and surpass realism, sensibility, and spatiality. Although surpassing these elements imagination does inhibit them due to imposed constructs of our perceptual understandings; in essence what we learn, are taught and know from our perceptible reality is reflected in our thoughts, so although our memories are distorted within imagination our mind tends to reflect cultural, environmental and our aesthetic interests or quick triggered thoughts from visual stimuli; constructs of the past, present, and future reality are present yet there is a freedom of subjective alteration.

Imagination is a bridge between images and ideas and with regards to spatiality could be implied as space within the mind, thus heterotopian in those regards. Nostalgia and utopia are hence ‘imagined’ spaces in which we craft our own sensuous reality too. Ideas of grandeur, what once was and what could be are then thrown into the mix and ordered into the chaos that is our mental data bank. When we dissect these spaces as a cross-wired web of sensibility, memory, and perceptual influenced thoughts they don’t seem as peculiar as one might have first thought when comparing and contrasting them against one another, what we see and what we feel are connected therefore it is only rational to create an innate connection; what differentiates real from unreal is common sense and basic human initiative, what we fundamentally learn from others, trial, error and curiosity.


Modern counterparts – scholar rock to glazed ceramic specimen

It is easy to see from the image featured below why the rocks themselves were sought after with great connoisseurship. Valued for their intrinsic physical and visual virtues it is here that western perceptions of abstraction intersect principles that the Chinese scholars prized. The rocks themselves stand president to the integrity to which abstract sculpture aspired to. Regardless of environmental situation the peculiarity, beauty, and elegance of the scholar rocks simply lie in the subjective elucidations and assumptions of what these objects could be, through ambiguity they have an incredible amount of imaginative potential and allow a variety of interpretations.


opposed to a direct evocation to form and texture, my current body of work could be described as ambiguous, almost fictitious in its contrived representation of geological landforms.

I see my work as a modern counterpoint to the scholar rocks discussed and featured above. Much like the scholars, i hold similar ‘rules’ or principles of what makes ‘the perfect object but ultimately unlike the scholar rocks, there is an element of chance and risk due to the unpredictable nature of kilns and ceramic glaze. The object going into the kiln is very different to the one coming out.

the term natural for me is something that is masked in mysticism. The elicit nature of my work much like the term natural itself is shrouded in ambiguity to allow the audience to impose their own subjective feelings, sensibilities’ and ideas of what the work/composition might be. We as beings although different in our inherent and learned personalities and cultures all can comprehend and visualize similar phenomenon but what those phenomena mean to us can vary in incomprehensible ways.