Evan Broens.

Artist Statement:

The sense of wonder has always intrigued me. It is at its best a catalyst into investigating life and the understanding of it; at its worst, it is the spark of imagination. Wonder is childhood at heart, yet shifts as we mature and grow older. What happens to our sense of wonder, our imagination, our myths, stories, and overall investigation into things as we age? That this sense of wonder is over-looked, wiped aside to some beneficial ideal of maturity is a loss; it is as if childhood wonder has no place in real life. The sense of wonder has always intrigued me.

The role of spirituality in contemporary life is a topic of much debate. With true believers of one thing on one side and not believers in anything on the other; most of many reside in the middle, staying at arms reach of the extremities. In the newspapers, belief systems battle from one daily cover to the next. In making objects and spending numerous solitary hours alone in the studio, I begin to question the purpose of what I do, who its for, and what is the final outcome.

What sculpture is, or what it means to me, is about scale. As drawing is my other discipline, I constantly battle whether to take my idea off the page and into a physical form. Scale is interesting in the sense that just by increasing the size of a known cultural object, a very different perspective of that object emerges. Sculpture is about scale and my intention is to use it as a means to unveil an alternative perspective to life. It is with scale that the topics of wonder and spiritualism can be addressed.

Biography:

Evan Broens competed his BFA at the Alberta College of Art and Design where he received numerous recognitions for his outstanding work. He currently lives and works in Vancouver, Canada.

INTERVIEW:

The following is a excerpt from an interview with Evan Broens.

AH: There is a moment for the spectator that is probably indescribable,where one decides to allow themselves to be drawn into a fictitious and imaginative environment- weather it be a book, movie, or piece of art. For this to be successful does the creator of the fictitious environment need to also be lost or caught up in the created environment? How would you reconcile certain critical imperatives of contemporary art to such an act of wonderment? Or, do the typical critical imperatives such as detachment and self-reflexivity no longer serve there purposes?

EB: Success would be for the spectator to allow themselves the position to be drawn into the imaginative environment. This could be achieved through the creator’s active involvement in the created fictitious site and to be caught up in the created environment. One could argue that it is the role of the creator to convince or provoke the spectator into a position of allowing themselves to be drawn into that prescribed space. However, there are spectators who actively resist the fictitious site for the shear principle of it. In turn, the creator is required to be involved on both levels; balancing between being caught up in the fictitious site and wonderment while viewing the same space as mere objects in a room. Reconciling wonderment and contemporary critical imperatives is a complicated issue. There is definitive inherent merit in both of them; I see both of equal value and yet to be kept separate. Typical critical imperatives serve their purpose, but bringing those applications tomy work might leave that spectator discontented.

AH: A prescribed wonderment could be thought of as a form of manipulation- like a contrived religious experience.  The one who actually had the religious experience wants to tell others but in telling them they end up subtly twisting others to feel the same way.  I know that you are aware of this danger; however, do you at any level hope that the viewer might achieve a comparable experience to the one you have or had in the making of the work?

EB:The answer to this question is both yes and no. On one level I hold a sense of hope in that my viewer will have a comparable experience as I had in the making of the work. At the same time that experience is different because the work stands as an exclusive occurrence in and of itself. I don't seek to manipulate my viewer; rather, I intend to show something not seen or felt, call it spiritual, religious, or imagination. I know the possibility of my viewer achieving a comparable experience is slim; however, there are other entry points in my work that the viewer could connect with. I see the experience as a relay, passing on one moment to entice another. The created fictitious site is the location where the relay takes place. If the viewer takes part and the creator succesfully provokes a sense of wonder, then the potential for the exchange of insight and experience solidifies.