An examination text about my final work for the Master of Fine Arts degree written by Mika Hannula has been published in the book Komeetoista valaisin. The book is a selection of MFA examination texts from the Finnish Academy of Fine Arts between the 1995 and 2008. To the read the full text: click the read more link.
The book, which is a very interesting insight into the recent Finnish visual art scene, can be bought directly from the Finnish Academy of Fine Arts or ordered online from Akateeminen kirjakauppa’s web store.
Nicolas Schevin’s Master of fine Arts degree thesis consists of participation to the Graduate show of 2004 at Taidehalli with group of videos and large drawings, 2 artist’s books and a written section called “Deviation standards”.
The written part of this project is perhaps the most well thought-through essay I have seen in this level of studies. It is elegantly written, tightly argued, informative, challenging, critical and reflective.
However, before going into the written part in detail, let me first focus on the works on display at Taidehalli. As an artist, Schevin does something that is called drawing. He draws, and he draws – and then he draws more. The point in his whole project is not what he does (drawings, right) but how he does it.
The journey from what to how, the mental, conceptual and technical distance covered in this move is very fascinating. In short, the act of drawing for Schevin is not a means for imitation or documentation. He is not reproducing, neither is he creating. For me, the adequate word is generating.
Schevin is generating images with the means of drawings – not more, not less. There is not any authentic beginning, not a final end either. There is the process – and during that process that elementary act of drawing alters itself into many different ways and manifestations.
In the Taidehalli show there were drawings as in large paper works on the wall, and there were drawings as in animations. Or to put things in perspective on the scale of what a collection of drawings can be: the two artist books that he has included in the MA degree presentation. Books as experiments that combine trashy drawings and witty slogans without turning into lame jokes or incomprehensible mumble. Thus, Schevin is in the constant process of thinking through what to do with drawing, how to twist and turn it. And yes, the results are convincing. Pleasant to watch, pleasant to admire.
Moving on to the written part of the thesis, this is somewhat of a surprise. It is a type of written part of a thesis that we have not – unfortunately – been so used to in the field of contemporary art and visual culture. It is a text that is both very clear but also very ambitious. Well written, economically and clearly structured and in overall perspective well produced.
In fact, Schevin’s text proves on it’s own a point why a text can be a very productive tool for visual artists. It provides a tool for critical and reflective thinking, forcing to the core issues that burn and heals, scream and caress. I don’t think I am exaggerating when I state that it comes across the text both how Schevin has enjoyed this analytical-reflective part and how it has, in the end, helped himself to focus more and better on his activities as an artist.
Another side-product of this essay is how it manages to do what one expects of something called artistic research on a Ph.D level. Granted, Schevin does it at MA level, and as it stand now, it would not qualify for the next level due to its shortness and lack of further analytical development of the themes it brings to the front, but it does certainly present a fruitful starting point.
But what makes this text so extravagant? Well perhaps it is precisely so good because it’s not extravagant. It is a very straight-forward attempt to articulate where does he come from as an artist, with what works is he talking with when he does what he does, where has he stood (as in contextual situatedness) during the various periods of his studies, and where does he want to move towards in the next phase of his career. And yes, that’s it, basically.
That is what artistic research is about. But only if and when it is done with the analytical rigor presented by Schevin. Honestly, systematically and with a passion for the issues at hand.
We get a fine view of development from someone who did mainly drawings on paper towards something else, a description of the route and the technique of changing the sizes of the drawings from small to large, an explaining of the move from still images to animation. We also get an articulation of how his views and strategies compare with other artists views and strategies. Just as one example, in the question of how to tell a story, Schevin very nicely borrows a concept of “feverish narration” from Tony Oursler. The point is that he does not copy Oursler style or intent, but uses in a fresh and new way Oursler’s views and ideas.
In the end, I think it is best to let himself to articulate what he does and why. “I could summarize each piece of my work as mental exercise stimulating imagination. I choose and select the disconnection. I compose it. I dissect drawings, ideas and texts. I open them, isolate some elements, I interchange some of them, or I might as well eliminate something in the process.”(p.36)
Sincerely Yours
Mika Hannula
Professor of Art & Society, Academy of Fine Arts
