|
Introducing the extraordinary Macoto Murayama© |
So I went to
Macoto's talk this week and what a joy it was. Firstly, the Japan Foundation
was a superb space and all of the speakers and directors made us feel so very
welcome, providing us all with refreshments which is always a nice thing.
Secondly, it was an awesome experience because Macoto delivered the entire
lecture in Japanese (thankfully there was a translator on hand). I was really
pleased that he did this as not only did it make him feel more comfortable, but
also because I believe you can tell a lot about a culture and the thought
processes associated with it when you listen to it's language. Even though I
had no idea what he was saying, one could note the pauses and changes in rate
and expression. I noticed that Japanese seemed to be more efficient as a
language - less words were said than the translation - and I wondered if that
sort of efficiency gets translated into other aspects of life, such as in their
art work.
|
|
The talk was a
beautiful introduction to his work and the methods he uses when creating. The
presentation was later followed by a conversational piece between Macoto, Lucy
Smith and Nathan Cohen. I particularly enjoyed this element of the discussion
and wished it lasted longer. I had several questions that I really wanted to ask,
but we sadly ran out of time. The questions I had saved were rather different
to eatchother - one was far more basic and certainly less philosophical than
the other. Firstly, I wanted to know how Macoto chose the plants that he used
in his Botech Compositions (where several plants are used to make an elaborate
pattern - see picture below (a couple down)). Looking at the designs, there is
no reference to taxonomy or shape, but maybe geography was the key? Or maybe
the patterns represented something more journalistic, possibly depicting plants
collected on a single afternoon of field work? Who knows?! However - I would
like to know as I think this sort of thing is really interesting as it
descirbes the thought process and influences one's interpretation.
I also wanted to ask Macoto (and Lucy) if they
think it is important to include a level of emotion in their work. At the start
of Macoto's talk, he mentioned that he worked in a florist shop in Japan
between the academic years of study, so that he could learn more about the
relationship that exists between human beings and plants/flowers. Further to
this, he also highlighted the groundbreaking moment when he first saw what was
inside a flower - how bold over he was and that his first impulse was to share
what he saw to the masses. He wanted everyone to see the beauty hidden in
plants. Lucy appeared to empathise with this feeling (as do I and probably most
botanists and illustrators). There certainly is something truly remarkable about the
complexity, wonder and beauty hidden at the microscopic level of an organism
that so commonly goes unnoticed.
Therefore, from what Macoto is describing, one can deduce
that there is most definitely an emotional and communicative aspect in his work. However, I very quickly noticed a contradiction which was
introduced at the start of this debate and it was this that I wanted to highlight and bring
to the table. When discussing the artists that had influenced his work – Georgia
O’Keefe, Ernst Haeckel and Karl Blossfeldt, Macoto said that it was Karl's work
that he resonated with the most because he was drawn to the distance captured in each
black and white photograph. He liked the clinical nature of Blossfeldt's work,
the emptiness, stillness and lifelessness reflected in every piece. I feel
that in the majority of work that both Macoto and Lucy produce today, this
stillness is also very much present. However, why produce work that is so reserved, detached and quantifiable if what made you want to make it in the first place were the irrational feelings of excitement, ecstasy, awe and sheer wonder?
Lucy's scientific works are mostly black and white
and drawn in pen and ink. Macoto's "Botech
Art" and "Floral Diagrams" are very mathematical, logical and,
like Lucy’s work, linear. There is nothing irrational about them; they are to
the book accurate and motionless. I wanted to know how they felt about this and
if they thought as illustrators, if it is possible to engage the populace using
such heavily structured illustrative works or, if they felt that this where
botanical art comes into play.
Is botanical illustration
able to engage people from all backgrounds, or is botanical art, with its many
applications, media and forms, better equipped at tackling this dilemma? I wanted to
know if Macoto felt that his compositional work (second above), which features ideas behind symmetry
and pattern (these are the ones that look like rug patterns), has been
better received across the board than the more quantitative works. Or are people intrigued by the more numeral pieces and if so, why? Do people prefer less emotive works? Are less expressive works easier to observe because there is nothing beyond the shapes and lines to interpret (there is nothing overly challenging). Along this line of thought, I also really wanted
to know if he was conducting evaluations of his exhibitions as this is something
that I very strongly about. Personally, I feel that it is incredibly necessary to know how one's work is received - it gives purpose and direction.
I was disappointed that I didn’t get to ask
Macoto and Lucy their thoughts on the different channels of visual description and communication, but then it was probably just
as well as we might have been there all night debating it, and it might have
blown the interpreter's mind! I might have to ask Lucy one day if I see her
again - I'd be intrigued to know her thoughts. Obviously her more scientific
works are of use to many people under the umbrella of environmental research,
but I wonder how she feels about showing her work to those beyond this sphere
of enterprise and if she feels that she would need to change her style in order
for it to be more noticed by these other spheres and cultures? Basically I suppose I am asking if the
work needs to become more emotional, expressive and arousing whilst also being accurate in order to be noticed and send a message?
I am glad that I have been able to
highlight these thoughts online. I think this is something that we all
need to consider. I myself don’t have any answers, but would be delighted to
know your thoughts on how successful ‘clinical’ illustration is (as opposed to
the more arty forms of botanical art) in encouraging people to become more familiar
with the beauty, elegance and complexity present in plants.