I read elsewhere that writing is a solitary experience. I am agreed thus far because I spent numerous moments hunched alone on my keyboard. I sometimes wonder if anyone would notice my efforts. History is the mess that remains of our ancestors’ endeavors as they try to survive, whatever their motives are. One’s intentions in achieving a goal are not always squeaky clean as far as the ego is concerned and not to mention self preservation. Anyway to chronicle history honestly it would mean not erring as far as taking sides is concerned, but to give as precise a detail as a historian can muster.
ïntraparadox is a coinage for the phenomena that occurs during an interview with an artist. Like any human being out there an artist has their own convictions and contradictions; for they are social animals. So intraparadox, as a dialogue produced as a result of an interview with the artist, is like an x-ray process that reveals the nature of the artist, their life and their art practice. It is important then that it, intraparadox, be written word for word based on the audio file gathered during the moment of interview with the artist, for I would like to present as closest an account as possible of the artist’s persona to the reader – a portrait of the artist. The reading must produce a reflection of the personality of the artist as it is, as it would be encountered when the reader, should the occasion present itself, meet the artist in person! The interview should be an intimate encounter of the artist in conversation about their work – this is the first task of writing the text. Secondly, during the interview as the ideals upheld by the artist emerge, teased out and made bare as the conversation develops around pertinent issues the artist is preoccupied with in their art production or practice; issues which might emerge during the dialogue, it is hoped, that an opportunity will be afforded the reader to delve deeper into the conception of the visual art object apropos to the artist undergoing the interview¶