Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Woven Child 2002
Fabric, steel and aluminium
Fragile Goddess 2002
Fabric
Kerry James Marshall, RYTHM MASTR, 1999, site specific installation, 20 double-page, two-sided printed newspaper comics
Who's Afraid of Aunt Jemima?
1983
Acrylic on canvas, dyed, painted and pieced fabric
90 x 80"
Miriam Schapiro
Delaunay
1992
screenprint on custom paper
National Museum of Women in the Arts
Art and the Body/Art and Identity
Art and the Body/ Art and Identity
Is pornography an empowering art form that benefits the feminist cause/ artist community?
Does the phrase “sex sells” have some relevance to this form of work and if so how?
The article written by Henry Louis Gates Jr. “Does Race Exist?” was something I had to read while getting my undergraduate degree in anthropology. The excerpt from the text’ “Racial categories are arbitrarily applied to distinguish groups that have wildly different cultures, belief systems and economic interests” and later in the text another passage “with the assertion of identity comes the risk of being ghettoized fit together perfectly. After studying this paper and allowing it to really sink in over the last few years (through the aging process) I can see more clearly the meaning behind this work. By allowing ourselves to be categorized we lose pieces of our inner personal freedom. Our identities can be constructed and deconstruct by the labels in which we apply to ourselves, groups we associate with, and labels or categories being asserted upon us by other forces.
The term “Victim Art” was discussed in the Identity chapter. I understand the concept behind the term but my question is why? It seems to be a petty action in the renaming. The term “Victim” seems to imply that the artist is pulling at different strings, perhaps ones attached to pity were as the term “Identity Art” suggests a more explorative or introspective view on the world. Is the art of lesser quality? Is its message less clear? Is it less successful under the two different terms or should it not matter?
I should be better versed in my Historical knowledge so forgive me if this question sounds particularly silly. Was feminist movement the launching point for other Civil rights movements or was all of this social change occurring at the same time influencing each other? I suppose my ultimate question was what started the revolutionary thinking that spurred on the social paradigm shift?
Is pornography an empowering art form that benefits the feminist cause/ artist community?
Does the phrase “sex sells” have some relevance to this form of work and if so how?
The article written by Henry Louis Gates Jr. “Does Race Exist?” was something I had to read while getting my undergraduate degree in anthropology. The excerpt from the text’ “Racial categories are arbitrarily applied to distinguish groups that have wildly different cultures, belief systems and economic interests” and later in the text another passage “with the assertion of identity comes the risk of being ghettoized fit together perfectly. After studying this paper and allowing it to really sink in over the last few years (through the aging process) I can see more clearly the meaning behind this work. By allowing ourselves to be categorized we lose pieces of our inner personal freedom. Our identities can be constructed and deconstruct by the labels in which we apply to ourselves, groups we associate with, and labels or categories being asserted upon us by other forces.
The term “Victim Art” was discussed in the Identity chapter. I understand the concept behind the term but my question is why? It seems to be a petty action in the renaming. The term “Victim” seems to imply that the artist is pulling at different strings, perhaps ones attached to pity were as the term “Identity Art” suggests a more explorative or introspective view on the world. Is the art of lesser quality? Is its message less clear? Is it less successful under the two different terms or should it not matter?
I should be better versed in my Historical knowledge so forgive me if this question sounds particularly silly. Was feminist movement the launching point for other Civil rights movements or was all of this social change occurring at the same time influencing each other? I suppose my ultimate question was what started the revolutionary thinking that spurred on the social paradigm shift?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Personal Evaluation
In the beginning the discussion got away from us. The group being full of talkative and intellectual people was tough to keep in check especially because of the controversial nature of our topic. Despite my efforts I often found myself standing idly by.
Another personal criticism would be that I found myself more focused on the issues and work I found particularly interesting rather than having a broad general knowledge of the subject. It is understandable that I the areas I found interest in would stick with me more so I cannot beat myself up to much.
The questions I was asking though I directed them to a certain degree and spent a great deal of time considering them they were beyond my intellectual power to understand and relate to the group. I don't know even if the discussion in classroom helped to shed light on these issues. It is all a very personal journey. I hope because there was no light shed on my mind that does not mean light was not shed on others.
I felt as though the presentation was informative and the group was very engaged which is a success for my group. I would have liked to have been more engaged with the discussion rather than facilitating it. I found myself thinking more about the issues others where being to the table than being a facilitator. The group was so self propelled I felt as though I could have sat back and let things run their own course. Though, when I did try to join the discussion it either interrupted the flow of the discussion or I found myself losing track of my thoughts... making me trip myself up, draw blanks on information, and over all speak poorly. Perhaps it was nervousness.
I also felt as though I was dominating the direction of the discussion as opposed to allowing my partner get involved. She was much more passive than I was and I am willing to be that was because of my loud and talkative nature. I need to be aware of that next time.
Over all I thought the discussion went well. There were a few areas that could have been improved but I will keep them in mind for this up coming Monday. If anyone wishes to comment on the presentation please feel free. I would like to hear what others thought.
Another personal criticism would be that I found myself more focused on the issues and work I found particularly interesting rather than having a broad general knowledge of the subject. It is understandable that I the areas I found interest in would stick with me more so I cannot beat myself up to much.
The questions I was asking though I directed them to a certain degree and spent a great deal of time considering them they were beyond my intellectual power to understand and relate to the group. I don't know even if the discussion in classroom helped to shed light on these issues. It is all a very personal journey. I hope because there was no light shed on my mind that does not mean light was not shed on others.
I felt as though the presentation was informative and the group was very engaged which is a success for my group. I would have liked to have been more engaged with the discussion rather than facilitating it. I found myself thinking more about the issues others where being to the table than being a facilitator. The group was so self propelled I felt as though I could have sat back and let things run their own course. Though, when I did try to join the discussion it either interrupted the flow of the discussion or I found myself losing track of my thoughts... making me trip myself up, draw blanks on information, and over all speak poorly. Perhaps it was nervousness.
I also felt as though I was dominating the direction of the discussion as opposed to allowing my partner get involved. She was much more passive than I was and I am willing to be that was because of my loud and talkative nature. I need to be aware of that next time.
Over all I thought the discussion went well. There were a few areas that could have been improved but I will keep them in mind for this up coming Monday. If anyone wishes to comment on the presentation please feel free. I would like to hear what others thought.
What makes a good review
What makes a good review?
A good review holds true to both honesty and respect. Attacking the work negatively is not a necessity however an explanation of how the reviewer sees and approaches the piece is. This can be done with varying degrees of tact however the best are subtle and kindhearted but firm. The reviewer should discuss physical, functional, and visceral properties. The reviewer if well versed in the area should bring in Historical references or touch on the contextual elements of the work. The best reviews are those that are easy to read and contain visual descriptions in order to convey the work to those that are not able to view the work in person.
Personal opinion is a valuable additive however it must be clear that it is only a single opinion of the work. The best type of review is one that is unbiased. The review should raise both good points and bad in order for it to be effect. Most importantly the review must be helpful and clear to the reader. A review that does not shed any light onto the subject that is being reviewed is a wasted effort.
A good review holds true to both honesty and respect. Attacking the work negatively is not a necessity however an explanation of how the reviewer sees and approaches the piece is. This can be done with varying degrees of tact however the best are subtle and kindhearted but firm. The reviewer should discuss physical, functional, and visceral properties. The reviewer if well versed in the area should bring in Historical references or touch on the contextual elements of the work. The best reviews are those that are easy to read and contain visual descriptions in order to convey the work to those that are not able to view the work in person.
Personal opinion is a valuable additive however it must be clear that it is only a single opinion of the work. The best type of review is one that is unbiased. The review should raise both good points and bad in order for it to be effect. Most importantly the review must be helpful and clear to the reader. A review that does not shed any light onto the subject that is being reviewed is a wasted effort.
Art Narrative and Representation
Art Narrative and Representation
Time Noble and Sue Webster Real Life is Rubbish – 2002
Tim Noble and Sue Webster Dirty White Trash (With Gulls) – 1998
Heap
ARTIST: Jim Shaw
WORK DATE: 2005
CATEGORY: Sculptures
MATERIALS: Styrofoam, plastic spray paint, resin, metal rods
SIZE: h: 64 x w: 24 x d: 77 in / h: 162.6 x w: 61 x d: 195.6 cm
Mark Tansey (b. 1949, San Jose, California; lives and works in New York)
Triumph Over Mastery, 1986
Oil and pencil on canvas
59 7/8 x 144 1/4 in.
Lari Pittman (b. 1952, Los Angeles; lives and works in Los Angeles)
An American Place, 1986
Oil and acrylic on mahogany panels
80 x 164 in.
Time Noble and Sue Webster Real Life is Rubbish – 2002
Tim Noble and Sue Webster Dirty White Trash (With Gulls) – 1998
Heap
ARTIST: Jim Shaw
WORK DATE: 2005
CATEGORY: Sculptures
MATERIALS: Styrofoam, plastic spray paint, resin, metal rods
SIZE: h: 64 x w: 24 x d: 77 in / h: 162.6 x w: 61 x d: 195.6 cm
Mark Tansey (b. 1949, San Jose, California; lives and works in New York)
Triumph Over Mastery, 1986
Oil and pencil on canvas
59 7/8 x 144 1/4 in.
Lari Pittman (b. 1952, Los Angeles; lives and works in Los Angeles)
An American Place, 1986
Oil and acrylic on mahogany panels
80 x 164 in.
Artist from Art and Nature/Deformation discussions
Nils-Udo "The Nest", Earth, stones, birch trees, birch branches, grass, L�neburg Heath, Germany, 1978
Bob Johnson, Wheel Cube, 38 tire rims collected from the Pittsburgh Pool, Tireless Project, Summer 2003.
Keith Barrett "Whalsay", built on the remote island of Whalsay in Shetland, Scotland, this sculpture forms its own sheltered space in a hostile environment. Elm with concrete foundations and steel fixings, length 7 meters, 2001
Sphinx,2005,Edition of 3,Painted bronze34 5/8 x 25 9/16 x 19 11/16 in. (88 x 65 x 50 cm) Photo: Stephen White
優しくされているという証拠をなるべく長時間にわたって要求する
平成16年 / 紙本着色・軸 / 40×50
Demanding Proof of Being Treated Kindly for as Long as Possible
2004/Hanging Scroll--Color Pigment on Paper / 40×50
Nils-Udo "The Nest", Earth, stones, birch trees, birch branches, grass, L�neburg Heath, Germany, 1978
Bob Johnson, Wheel Cube, 38 tire rims collected from the Pittsburgh Pool, Tireless Project, Summer 2003.
Keith Barrett "Whalsay", built on the remote island of Whalsay in Shetland, Scotland, this sculpture forms its own sheltered space in a hostile environment. Elm with concrete foundations and steel fixings, length 7 meters, 2001
Sphinx,2005,Edition of 3,Painted bronze34 5/8 x 25 9/16 x 19 11/16 in. (88 x 65 x 50 cm) Photo: Stephen White
優しくされているという証拠をなるべく長時間にわたって要求する
平成16年 / 紙本着色・軸 / 40×50
Demanding Proof of Being Treated Kindly for as Long as Possible
2004/Hanging Scroll--Color Pigment on Paper / 40×50
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Art and Nature and Art and Deformation
Art and Nature
The chapter pointed out the fact that we as human beings have become more comfortable with the simulated world than the natural one. We have carved out these spaces within the natural world and hardly venture to the barrier that seems to hold back the darkness. When did the wilderness become such a dark and ominous place? At least at some point humanity existed within the natural world and it was a sacred place. What happened?
Is it hypocritical to expend massive amounts of resources in the creation of art to raise awareness for the natural environment? Perhaps the question is strange…
Where is this line between environmental activist and environmental artist that advocates for the environment? There are many activists who plant trees that do not consider themselves to be artist however, there are artist whose art is planting trees.
I thought the idea presented in the text referring to the natural environment needing to be sheltered from us was a profound statement. Historically speaking it was Humanity that needed to seek shelter from the natural world. We have somehow changed things to such a degree that we think it needs to be protected from us. I disagree. I believe that we must protect the natural world from our own actions because in removing ourselves from it conceptually we have put up this barrier… one I feel is imaginary. No matter how far removed we think we are, we are firmly rooted and tied to its fate.
Kac asked should we do things because we can? Or, are there limits to what we should explore, create, and perform? How about Cloning? Is that art? This large debate about how much is science and how much is art seems tricky. If all the artist needs to do is declare it art than it is? Or isn’t it?
Art and Deformation
This chapter I found less visually appealing. Perhaps that was the point of the chapter and the conceptual element of the work shown in the text however it did not hold my interest.
If a piece makes us turn away with disgust, embarrassment, or for any other reason has it done its job or not? If we do turn away abruptly and do not truly explore the piece in its entirety the message will be lost, in which case, only those that are coming to it without preconceived notions, expectations, and the fortitude can with stand it and receive its message. Generally speaking those that can do that is the institutional art community. Does this make this an elitist form of art if the message is lost on a majority of viewers?
Is this art form more difficult to place in a gallery?
I understand that deformative art represents this disruption of the typical flow to our world and the fact that the use of taboo imagery like bodily fluids, sex, decay, ect is conceptually loaded. But, these are the things of interest to the mentally deranged, the sociopathic, and the unstable. I am not suggesting that only the deranged think of these things merely questioning what our society has come to in which this is the solution that artist have come up with to disrupt the flow of culture.
I find it fascinating that we seem to be obsessed with this deformative form of art. To a lesser degree tv shows exploit the freak, movies are made about the sociopathic, the deranged, and the “Sick”. Where do you suppose this fascination comes from?
The chapter pointed out the fact that we as human beings have become more comfortable with the simulated world than the natural one. We have carved out these spaces within the natural world and hardly venture to the barrier that seems to hold back the darkness. When did the wilderness become such a dark and ominous place? At least at some point humanity existed within the natural world and it was a sacred place. What happened?
Is it hypocritical to expend massive amounts of resources in the creation of art to raise awareness for the natural environment? Perhaps the question is strange…
Where is this line between environmental activist and environmental artist that advocates for the environment? There are many activists who plant trees that do not consider themselves to be artist however, there are artist whose art is planting trees.
I thought the idea presented in the text referring to the natural environment needing to be sheltered from us was a profound statement. Historically speaking it was Humanity that needed to seek shelter from the natural world. We have somehow changed things to such a degree that we think it needs to be protected from us. I disagree. I believe that we must protect the natural world from our own actions because in removing ourselves from it conceptually we have put up this barrier… one I feel is imaginary. No matter how far removed we think we are, we are firmly rooted and tied to its fate.
Kac asked should we do things because we can? Or, are there limits to what we should explore, create, and perform? How about Cloning? Is that art? This large debate about how much is science and how much is art seems tricky. If all the artist needs to do is declare it art than it is? Or isn’t it?
Art and Deformation
This chapter I found less visually appealing. Perhaps that was the point of the chapter and the conceptual element of the work shown in the text however it did not hold my interest.
If a piece makes us turn away with disgust, embarrassment, or for any other reason has it done its job or not? If we do turn away abruptly and do not truly explore the piece in its entirety the message will be lost, in which case, only those that are coming to it without preconceived notions, expectations, and the fortitude can with stand it and receive its message. Generally speaking those that can do that is the institutional art community. Does this make this an elitist form of art if the message is lost on a majority of viewers?
Is this art form more difficult to place in a gallery?
I understand that deformative art represents this disruption of the typical flow to our world and the fact that the use of taboo imagery like bodily fluids, sex, decay, ect is conceptually loaded. But, these are the things of interest to the mentally deranged, the sociopathic, and the unstable. I am not suggesting that only the deranged think of these things merely questioning what our society has come to in which this is the solution that artist have come up with to disrupt the flow of culture.
I find it fascinating that we seem to be obsessed with this deformative form of art. To a lesser degree tv shows exploit the freak, movies are made about the sociopathic, the deranged, and the “Sick”. Where do you suppose this fascination comes from?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Art and Narratives
Art and Narratives
It is not a stretch to say that Narratives make their way into art. I really liked the quote, “story telling is a powerful engine for human expression”. Story telling is so deeply rooted into our culture from millennium ago until today with the use of film, novels, and other art forms. It is a great means of communication one that is one of the oldest ways of record keeping. I was surprised at the briefness of this chapter.
I don’t think the chapter fully explored the means of storytelling in a diverse enough manner; it mainly being photographs and video projections with a few exceptions. I would have been nice to see more sculpture. Weavings, found objects, and many other traditional methods of storytelling were left out. Perhaps it is part of the times. Using the technology of the day and age is important in presenting an idea however I feel strongly that we shouldn’t lose touch with these previous and or more “primitive” means of narration.
I was taken by Barney’s 5 part movie series “Cremaster” I would like to see it, perhaps not in its 12 hour entirety but I like the idea of this alternate universe, one that uses music, mythology, and social issues without the use of dialog.
What is the next step in the story telling process? Where do we (as a class) seem to think the next technology to take over story telling?
Stories being a complicated mass symbols/containing symbols using metaphors and complex themes and plots, is it possible to say all art in some fashion tells at least on some level falls into the narrative category of art?
It is not a stretch to say that Narratives make their way into art. I really liked the quote, “story telling is a powerful engine for human expression”. Story telling is so deeply rooted into our culture from millennium ago until today with the use of film, novels, and other art forms. It is a great means of communication one that is one of the oldest ways of record keeping. I was surprised at the briefness of this chapter.
I don’t think the chapter fully explored the means of storytelling in a diverse enough manner; it mainly being photographs and video projections with a few exceptions. I would have been nice to see more sculpture. Weavings, found objects, and many other traditional methods of storytelling were left out. Perhaps it is part of the times. Using the technology of the day and age is important in presenting an idea however I feel strongly that we shouldn’t lose touch with these previous and or more “primitive” means of narration.
I was taken by Barney’s 5 part movie series “Cremaster” I would like to see it, perhaps not in its 12 hour entirety but I like the idea of this alternate universe, one that uses music, mythology, and social issues without the use of dialog.
What is the next step in the story telling process? Where do we (as a class) seem to think the next technology to take over story telling?
Stories being a complicated mass symbols/containing symbols using metaphors and complex themes and plots, is it possible to say all art in some fashion tells at least on some level falls into the narrative category of art?
Art and Represenation
Art and Representation
The camera can be made to lie… I agree with Hockney. I have always felt that photography along with other art forms is subjective. In photography you see a fraction of a seconds worth of information, no more. There is going to be a great deal of the story that is left out. We as the viewers will never fully realize the events that occurred prior or post photograph. Being handed a relatively small amount of information we can my insightful observations but the photograph can and often is misleading.
"For a work of art you need the hand, the eye and the heart. Many people would video that moment, but again, the video would turn it into a performance. Fellini says everything in front of the camera's a performance."
This passage references a lot of what we have been discussing. How far can the artist be removed from the working process before it is no longer his work of art? I am relatively unfamiliar with video/performance based work. This being said I would argue that tenderness can be conveyed and the fact that it may or may not be stage is irrelevant to the emotions being conveyed. If it is fact or fiction is not the argument but whether or not the moment holds emotion. I would say that video, film, and paintings all can and have captured emotion.
I have never read Plato’s Republic however; I was shocked to read that Artist would be removed for their representation of lies. What is a culture a society without art? Artistic social critics are essential for cultural growth especially in a system like a Republic where peoples’ voices are heard.
I was taken by Gerhard Richter work. His work appeared highly spiritual. It was described as dreamlike and that seems to me to be a very accurate assessment. I felt as though he might have been referencing some of the work Yves Kline was doing as well.
Photography freed Art by allowing it to focus on ideology rather than representation. Is this true? Throughout the majority of Art History, art has been focused on interpreting the world around us. The meaning behind much of the art done prior to written record is, of course, up for interpretation, however it clearly does seem to represent the natural world and the influence it has on us as human beings. I am sure there have always been those that use art as a means representation but there have been those that used it to convey higher meaning pushing it in a more ideological direction. I do suspect photography helped push art into a more conceptual oriented route though not the only cause. As time progresses societies have a tendency to become more and more complex and this too would affect the art world.
The camera can be made to lie… I agree with Hockney. I have always felt that photography along with other art forms is subjective. In photography you see a fraction of a seconds worth of information, no more. There is going to be a great deal of the story that is left out. We as the viewers will never fully realize the events that occurred prior or post photograph. Being handed a relatively small amount of information we can my insightful observations but the photograph can and often is misleading.
"For a work of art you need the hand, the eye and the heart. Many people would video that moment, but again, the video would turn it into a performance. Fellini says everything in front of the camera's a performance."
This passage references a lot of what we have been discussing. How far can the artist be removed from the working process before it is no longer his work of art? I am relatively unfamiliar with video/performance based work. This being said I would argue that tenderness can be conveyed and the fact that it may or may not be stage is irrelevant to the emotions being conveyed. If it is fact or fiction is not the argument but whether or not the moment holds emotion. I would say that video, film, and paintings all can and have captured emotion.
I have never read Plato’s Republic however; I was shocked to read that Artist would be removed for their representation of lies. What is a culture a society without art? Artistic social critics are essential for cultural growth especially in a system like a Republic where peoples’ voices are heard.
I was taken by Gerhard Richter work. His work appeared highly spiritual. It was described as dreamlike and that seems to me to be a very accurate assessment. I felt as though he might have been referencing some of the work Yves Kline was doing as well.
Photography freed Art by allowing it to focus on ideology rather than representation. Is this true? Throughout the majority of Art History, art has been focused on interpreting the world around us. The meaning behind much of the art done prior to written record is, of course, up for interpretation, however it clearly does seem to represent the natural world and the influence it has on us as human beings. I am sure there have always been those that use art as a means representation but there have been those that used it to convey higher meaning pushing it in a more ideological direction. I do suspect photography helped push art into a more conceptual oriented route though not the only cause. As time progresses societies have a tendency to become more and more complex and this too would affect the art world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)