Armita Raafat: A Few Words on her Practice

posted February 10, 2010 in news

Armita Raafat's current show at threewalls has been called "the most visually arresting of the work of the day" (Erik Wennermark).  We spoke with Armita about her practice, research, and experiences behind her work.  If you haven't seen the show yet, stop by threewalls by Saturday February 13th.

 
The pieces in the show appear to have almost become a part of the gallery's architecture. Can you describe your process, from idea to installation?

I usually start from an image that, most of the time, I’ve documented myself, and write about what I am planning to do. I start the piece based on my interpretation of forms and structures of the image. Also, the readings I do relate to my concept. The work is very process-oriented, and it changes a lot in the course of making. Intuitive working has a role, too. So, it’s a combination of logical/structural decisions with intuition and process making.

Along with a notion of ruin and reference to Middle Eastern structures, pattern and ornament are an integral part of your work. How do you conduct your research, both visual and historic/cultural?

I do readings on ornament, as well as destruction and ruin related to different parts of the world, not just the Middle East. I also look at different imagery. So, the research starts general, and then sometimes gets very specific. Like last year, I documented and researched Muqarnas of a specific era in the city of Isfahan/ Iran.

One of the pieces in the show is a collaboration with another artist. Tell us about that piece and your collaboration.

The collaborative piece is a beginning of series of works between me and an American/Pakistani Artist. We are both working on Muqarnas for some different and some similar reasons. We are collaborating for a bigger project to come soon.

You've studied both in Iran and in America. How has this influenced your practice?

The School of the Art Institute of Chicago had an interdisciplinary and conceptual approach, which I found very interesting. My training in Iran was very traditional and was very focused on techniques, skills, and knowledge on material. I could only do painting, since I was in that department. I think the combination of both of these approaches and what I've learned in both schools was very important and helpful for developing my work.