Recent discussion during a weekly MA meeting introduced me to the writing of psychiatrist and writer Iain Mc Gilchrist. His direct clinical experience underpins his idea that perception doesn’t just receive information from the outside world like a helpless consumer.
Im learning that it’s actually a dynamic process – one that directly affects our experience of things. I now realise that its a process I have agency in, so I’ve been thinking about the implications of this for my practice.
I’ve found this fresh understanding of what McGilchrist labels modes of attention, to have really shifted and crystallised the way I understand drawing and making in my practice recently. It’s not just about looking, the quality of looking is equally as important. The realisation that rushing while drawing means that I’m not actively responding to the way materials are behaving is a revelation. In order to respond in a fully informed way, patience and time is needed to assess the complexity rather than speeding towards ready made conclusions. Paying attention to the physical sensation of making – pressure, touch, resonance, the feeling the activity gives me in my body is key in reading and responding in a way that’s fully present.
This post is part of an active research thread for me- widening my understanding of Iain Mc Gilchrist’s ideas on attention and exploring what this means for my practice. His ideas fundamentally relate to my interest in Polyanyi’s concept of tacit knowledge. This is a kind of knowledge that lives inside the body that can exist separately to language. I’ve come to realise that if I want to express tacit knowledge in my work, Mc Gilchrist’s writing on modes of attention could be part of my methodology in achieving this.
Attention is not neutral
On reflection, the specific materials I choose to work with actually inform and shape the mode of attention in which I work. I experience this regularly in my studio.
For me, drawing comes from the receptive space between thoughts rather than from a sense of control I exert over materials. Mc Gilchrist’s idea that attention is not neutral has made me realise all the baggage that I bring to this practice. The decisions I make while drawing are shaped by my approach the process. This is important because it means I now have an insight into what’s actually making all the many decisions that result in a final image. The drawing itself is also a record of the way in which I gave my attention to the process at the time.
I see this in practice especially when I’m working with encaustic. I’m using a heat gun, melting beeswax and I need to be careful. It creates conditions for a kind of looking that isn’t hurried. Im taking in information through all of the senses- the temperature of the encaustic board is felt as it sits in my bare hand. The smell and colour of the wax tells me if it’s too hot. I touch the surface of the encaustic with a brush, feeling the level of drag and this also tells me about the physical state of the wax.
It’s a mode of attention where I’m aware of so much more than just the visuals. This is because I’m reading and responding to the process with my whole body. Mc Gilchrist associates this kind of attention with the right hemisphere of the brain. It’s responsive, open and very in tune with context. This is the kind of attending that allows me to respond with a broad minded approach to materials. This takes trusting the process to mean I need to trust the tacit knowledge I have inherently and allow that to lead things.
In my scanner based work I’ve learned that the most exciting scans come from an approach where I’m spontaneous and experimental. What I’m coming to realise is that with the scanner, this practice is best done without a set plan… intuitive embodied approaches create the best work because they create space for unexpected development.
In the Rain Piece, the process of working with expired film taught me that receptivity to unexpected results yield progress. My best work comes from a basis of attending to making in the right way rather than exerting preconceived ideas about outcome.