Thought drawings

Thought Drawings and Philosophical Sketches are prominent typologies in the world of Sands’ practice. While maybe better known for his body-based performance works – which, I suppose, are all PERFORMALIST SELF-PORTRAITS in one way or another – Sands also has a long-standing mark-making practice that is apparent in his stacks and rolls and Albert Heijn bags and now archival boxes full of drawings and sketches on A4 paper and drawing paper and backs of drawing pads and specialty papers and rolls of paper and sometimes even a textile (though the TEXTILE PAINTINGS remain their own separate typology). The Working 2000 grouping has around 350 sketches; the Rolled Paintings probably around 150 (though we only ever catalogued 20); the Computer Drawings around 58; and the Working 2010s, well, we’re not sure as we had to stop at around 65 but it’s likely closer to 200. Then there’s the horse drawings – thousands of them – which we never got to, but which live through the META-ARCHIVE PROCESS IMAGES and across social media. It’s a lot to take in, trust me, I know. And that’s part of it. A single drawing or sketch might be interesting or funny or compositionally seductive but taken in their accumulation – and sometimes in their repetition – they become something else. They form densely woven theoretical tracts unfolding in painterly space.

The sketches are layered, messy, chaotic and often, as Sands says, “irritatingly large” for what they are. They mischievously confuse the terms of what we understand value to be. The drawings are singular statements, sometimes coming in a pair that sits in Marx’s chiasmus, sometimes tracking herstories, sometimes examining truisms and falsehoods, and always connected to LABOR. All are ‘language as figuration,’ breaking apart wrought boundaries between the acting body and thinking body, the gestures of the hand and of the brain, the feeling and the language, the sex and the cerebral. Or, perhaps better put, they make such boundaries fluid. All open onto a lovingly idiosyncratic world-making systems, as Amalia described: ‘gay gay gay’ as a world structure and a stuttering prophetic chant. IS THIS GOOD FOR ANUS?

When no one else was looking, the drawings and sketches became what Radna coined a ‘DITZCOURSE’ of their own. – MH. More The Working 2000 grouping has around 350 sketches; the Rolled Paintings probably around 150 (though we only ever catalogued 20); the Computer Drawings around 58; and the Working 2010s, well, we’re not sure as we had to stop at around 65 but it’s likely closer to 200. Then there’s the horse drawings – thousands of them – which we never got to, but which live through the META-ARCHIVE PROCESS IMAGES and across social media. It’s a lot to take in, trust me, I know. And that’s part of it. A single drawing or sketch might be interesting or funny or compositionally seductive but taken in their accumulation – and sometimes in their repetition – they become something else. They form densely woven theoretical tracts unfolding in painterly space.

The sketches are layered, messy, chaotic and often, as Sands says, “irritatingly large” for what they are. They mischievously confuse the terms of what we understand value to be. The drawings are singular statements, sometimes coming in a pair that sits in Marx’s chiasmus, sometimes tracking herstories, sometimes examining truisms and falsehoods, and always connected to LABOR. All are ‘language as figuration,’ breaking apart wrought boundaries between the acting body and thinking body, the gestures of the hand and of the brain, the feeling and the language, the sex and the cerebral. Or, perhaps better put, they make such boundaries fluid. All open onto a lovingly idiosyncratic world-making systems, as Amalia described: ‘gay gay gay’ as a world structure and a stuttering prophetic chant. IS THIS GOOD FOR ANUS?

When no one else was looking, the drawings and sketches became what Radna coined a ‘DITZCOURSE’ of their own. – MH.

Less