I’m not necessarily suggesting that recognizability equals form. Rather, I’m saying that the narrative that rises from culturally recognized symbols can be seen as a Form unto itself. Not to confuse things further, but I see Form and form as being two distinct things (ie- Body and body).

I think a more specified conversation develops when the viewer recognizes a Mickey Mouse glove (Tompkins) instead of just a hand (Essenhigh). If Essenhigh was directly using images from say Akira, we’d be having one hell of a ménage à trois between her, Murakami, and Tompkins!

I’m suggesting Tompkins’ usage of Pop imagery opens up another conversation beyond that of mere abstraction. I’m not sure we should just accept this inclusion and let it stop at the ocular level. To be fair, I don’t think you’re suggesting that either.

Anyways, I do agree about our need to make sense of abstraction, seeing images in clouds, faces in power outlets, etc.

The difference, as I see it, is between the interaction of the forms, which makes the underlying ideas very different. You’re right though, about similar visualizations.

That is to say that (in Essenhigh’s work) meaning is achieved when (structure) “A” has conceptual relation or compositional proximity to “B” and vice versa.

Whereas, in Tompkins work, meaning is dependent on “C,” which rises from the mutually deconstructed ashes of “A” and “B”. As if the pulp they’ve beaten themselves into becomes the new form of “C”—a meta-meaning aside from or unrelated to the sum of its parts.

However, I have to disagree to a certain extent… (and mind you I’m referring to Essenhigh’s late 90’s work since her new work is ripe with narrative)…

I would argue Tompkins might use more form than Essenhigh. His inclusion of highly recognizable (dare I suggest “Disney-esque”) animation signs/symbols opens up a cultural narrative that relates to the familiar, the fog of memory, “affect,” etc. This narrative becomes a super-Form, (heh heh or soupy-Form!), albeit one we can relate to even if we don’t know why.

As I see it, Tompkins’ work becomes a memory-blender of the past, where it’s strength is supported by the “hey where have I seen that before?!” factor. It moves forward by using forms from the past. It’s a mash-up.

Essenhigh’s (earlier) work doesn’t seem to have this experiential quality of culturally recognized forms/structures. It’s relying on something entirely different— a bizarre and recursive past-tense view of what the future might look like or dissolve into. As this quality of the work is more speculative and less culturally recognizable (such as something like animation and cartoons), I’d say it’s form-LESS-ness becomes it’s strength. It’s more a morph and less a mash-up.

All in all, it’s interesting how similar visual approaches to image-making can represent two different trajectories.