I met Ark Lu ’24 in our Painting III: Materials and Methods class. It was led by Visiting Assistant Professor Dani Levine. When I walked in for our first critique, our studio space had dozens of abstract calligraphy “experiments” scattered among the walls. Needless to say, I was intrigued. So, naturally, I wanted to know more about Ark’s artistic progression.
Part of Ark’s enthusiasm comes from limited studio space access during the pandemic.
“Because of the lack of space access during the pandemic, my art classes and art history classes were more theory-focused than they would be today. Learning more about the tool and understanding how they work makes creating art easier. It also makes understanding your own as well as other people’s work more satisfying.”
While art history shapes many of our peer’s understanding of material exploration, museums are not necessarily a source of inspiration for Ark.
“When I go to the museum, most pieces are self-explanatory and easily understood. But, there’s often one or two that make you stay there and look at it for longer, and there’s always one that you might go back and think about. This kind of subconscious synthesis makes you try new things.”
Ark added, “I don’t think any particular artist has made something that I tried to replicate. Rather than following one particular artist, career, or personal background detail – which I don’t think I should – I analyze how an artwork makes me feel when I first look at it. ”
However, Ark is particularly compelled by prints and their intersection with artmaking.
“You don’t have to think about the printing process or how printing cylinders interact with the printed materials, different inks, etc. But, at the same time, there’s also the replication part of printing that makes it more intriguing because even though technically it’s supposed to print infinite pieces, printing plates always degrade, and the amount and kind of ink you’re applying is always different.”
Ark continued, “Printing is relegated to an art form now, but it used to be in technology. The intersection of these different fields are compelling to me. Not only because they’re less often thought about or talked about but also because you can still see traces of them in our daily lives and practices.”
Given Ark’s understanding of printmaking as a separate craft, I was curious if our definitions of art differed from each other. My only requirement for art is that it requires input of work. However, it is upon the artist to choose how to define that work (either literally or intellectually). Ark has a highly specific definition for what qualifies as art.
“Art-making is about the process of experimenting with things, but it’s also about the final product of the experiment and whether or not it’s successful. I don’t think representing what we see perfectly is as compelling as exploring the materiality of the matter we’re working with. The loss between our perception of reality and accurately depicting it on paper or canvas makes it more interesting.”
Moreover, Ark believes that artists are somewhat similar to scientists, making mere combinations of different materials to observe their behavior.
“I’m more process-oriented because I don’t want to make decisions. I don’t feel artists are creative because they’re not making materials out of anything. They’re as creative as any other occupation. So, I don’t consider myself a creative person. I’m a mediator between what I have materially and how these materials interact together. I try to catalyze the reactions between the materials I already have, and depending on how they react, I change the formula.”
Ark continued, “The meaning [of my art] is experimentation, and the products are snapshots of the different results I get. I tried to make the process as visible as possible in the final products. Obscure processes make it more interesting. It’s that balance between the obscurity and the transparency of the process and materials.”
I was curious to hear how Ark wanted viewers to interact with these experiments.
“I want the viewer to feel how my physical work operates in space,” Ark replied. “I want their subconscious thoughts to be more or less the same as how they’re working in my mind. I want people to take what I’m working with in another context because everything can be subdivided. That [subdivision] makes the thinking part of looking at other work more interesting too.”
Hearing this, I assumed Ark was very organized when it comes to art-making, but my assumption couldn’t have been farther from the truth.
“I don’t feel I’m methodical. Some people measure and label before they even start painting. That [reproducibility] makes it less interesting because you know what exactly you’re gonna get from doing that.”
But what I still couldn’t understand is what really drives Ark to create. Ark responded, “I make things for my own sake. It’s fun to create, and I feel great afterward. The end products are snapshots of my process, and it’s nice to have conversations with other people by showing them. Everyone should allow themselves to try and work with materials to observe how they react with each other.”
Ark’s ability to act as a mediator between materials is incredibly admirable, and I’m unsure if many of us can fully allow ourselves to observe as a third party. However, maybe we can all benefit from dividing our egos from our practice. Perhaps trying to explore the material possibilities of art-making is an art form in and of itself.
