When looking through the different options our class had as to what art exhibits we were able to go to, it astonished me that our local airport was on the list. This may be absurd for my generation but I have never been on a plane before and I would never have imagined that there an airport has art exhibitions going on. I spoke with my fellow blog members about it and we all agreed that we should make a trip to see it. The best time for all of us to go worked out to being over thanksgiving break since we all lived in the area and wouldn’t be going away for the holiday.
When we walked into the airport it wasn’t that hard to find the exhibition. It easily stood out from the rest of the airport since contemporary art has a tendency of doing so. The colors and the elements used were bright, in your face, and very imaginative. The different pieces of work were made from dishware to spools of thread to even pom-poms. All of the exhibits were fun to look at which made Kara, Hildy and I spent almost the same allotted time one would spend waiting for their flight to arrive there. Much more than any of us expected.
One piece of work that stood out to me the most when we were there was Seven Columns of Commerce and Pleasure by Chris Harvey. I do like Classical Greece artwork where their columns are still found in buildings today but these columns most likely wont be found anywhere but in an art exhibit. The columns were made out of dishware with each column having its own unique color contrast. The middle column was black and white while each column after that became brighter shade. This piece of artwork stuck with me after we left the airport because of how unique it was. Mr. Harvey obviously had a vision that he wanted to share with whoever wanted to view the exhibit and it was one of the most creative pieces of artwork I have ever scene. It was amazing to see how dishware could be made into something so creative such as columns. I also found it interesting how everything in the show was from locally renowned artists.
After going to the Albany International Airport art exhibit, I can honestly say it was more than I had ever expected it to be. I had pictured something a little better than going to a local restaurant where they hang paintings on the wall done by the local schoolchildren. This exhibition blew me away. I would have never thought our local airport could show such a passion for the local artists and gave them a place to display there work to the millions of people passing through. It is a great thing to welcome those coming into the capital region as well as getting the community involved. I can say that I will never stereotype a local art exhibit when I haven’t seen one before.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Hildy Exhibit Review
Over Thanksgiving break, the two members of my blog group (Kara and Chris) and I visited an exhibit being housed in the Albany Airport. The exhibit, entitled Out of this World featured seven artists whose colorful paintings and sculptures were not only intriguing to the eye, but also fun to look at. The subtitle of the exhibit, transcending the terrestrial in contemporary art, explains a lot to the reasoning behind Out of this World. The main goal for these arts was to bridge a gap between our natural world and the ever growing industry of materialism within America.
One of my favorite pieces within the exhibit was by Chris Harvey. Harvey’s Seven Columns of Commerce and Pleasure was a colorfully sculpture, consisting of seven structures/columns created with the use of bowls, plates, cups, etc. Each column had its own color scheme, which created an almost rainbow effect then looking at the entire piece. One could interpret Harvey’s sculpture as a commentary on the connection between materialism and pleasure. By stacking all sorts of bowls and plates, Harvey succeeded in creating a whimsical sculpture which attracts the eye .
Another of one of my favorite pieces from Out of this World, was Susie Brandt’s Stumps and Drains Series. Brandt uses an interesting medium through the use of hand hooked rugs to create these almost psychedelic looking blobs. These blobs, however, are meant to look like tree stumps. After careful examinations, Brandt’s rugs take on a different meaning. While tree stumps are normally brown and often dirty looking, the use of color transforms these natural elements into a newly appreciated object.
While Albany Airport often houses different art exhibits, Out of this World was an interesting choice on part of the curators who decide which exhibits to house in the airport. With all of the bright, magical colors, this exhibit seems entirely out of place within the confines of the airport. One does not expect to see this type of exhibit, with its lime green walls and colorful sculptures in the mundane gray and beige motif of the airport. This clash, however, further reinforces the uniqueness of the exhibit. Travelers can take a break from the often stressful act of traveling to enjoy artwork, which speaks to the more playful side of life.
“The Importance of Context Used as a Stage to Display Art”
Although Marcel Duchamp’s The Fountain was criticized for being a stolen urinal that Duchamp merely wrote initials on to make “art,” other conceptual artists who have taken Duchamp’s work to heart claim that the process of presenting an object can be considered art all in itself. Duchamp’s presentation of The Fountain forces a viewer to question what inspired the artist to create such an image, and what the process of building the image entailed. According to artist Fred Wilson, conceptual art is all about pushing art out of its normal boundaries: “‘It’s a way, once I have people disarmed to get them to push past their comfort zone’” (Buskirk 188). Basically, Duchamp not only valued the final product of his art work, but he valued the process of getting to the final product much more. Although many conceptual artists were inspired by Duchamp’s ability to designate objects as art only because of the work that went into creating them, more modern day conceptual artists incorporate Duchamp’s elements of conceptual art into their work in order to prove this belief and to make a shocking statement.
Within Martha Buskirk’s interview with conceptual artist, Fred Wilson, Buskirk touches upon the stark differences between museum exhibits and conceptual art exhibits. Wilson and Buskirk both came to the conclusion that art in a museum is something that all visitors can predict before they even see it. A museum is structured in a way that is very predictable to visitors and thus, there is very little shock factor. According to Wilson, when a person visits an art museum they: “‘expect some form of universal truth or knowledge…’” (Buskirk 187). However, through Wilson’s personal art exhibits, he claims that he withholds these truths and therefore allows an audience to really question the process behind his pieces. Within museum exhibits, curators create pieces of art that people will immediately understand and that has a definite purpose. Wilson, on the other hand, creates pieces that allow the freedom to really think about the piece and the process of making the piece, in order to give the audience a truly shocking experience. Wilson explains, “‘I’m always trying to push the exhibitions farther than I would expect a museum curator to go…’” (Buskirk 187). For example, Wilson once designed a room made entirely out of black and white squares. The process of making this exhibit took a lot of time and effort, and the actually designing of this piece of “art,” became more valuable to Wilson than the actual final product was. However, the room was already there, it was just Wilson’s redesign of the room that made it “art.” It is through pieces like this that Wilson models Duchamp’s theory of starting out with an initial design (that could be already used by another artist) and creating an innovative idea out of it. Wilson describes this process: “‘One could say that Conceptual art created a space in which people could understand the issues that you have dealt with in your work’” (Buskirk 189). In other words, Wilson took Duchamp’s idea that the process of creating a piece of art, or taking ideas from a past artist, is the most important part of the process.
Similarly, artist Louise Lawler, used Duchamp’s ideology that how and artist presents his or her work is quite possibly the most important aspect of the exhibit itself. Although Lawler didn’t realize this while she was young in art school, she eventually came to partial agreement with this concept: “‘One particularly important issue is the degree to which he thought very carefully about the nature of the work of art and how its meaning is shaped by the context in which it is presented’” (Buskirk 183). Lawler only developed a sort of reverence or relationship with Duchamp’s work later in life because she believed that: “‘there are many issues concerning context that can be referenced before and since Duchamp. Some attempt to eliminate it as a codified situation and others to exacerbate and make more evident in its conventions’” (Buskirk 184). Basically, Lawler explains that while some artists believe context is what makes the art, “art,” other artists believe that context take away from the actual piece itself. Therefore, Lawler has worked hard to try to identify with what ideology she believed in. Although she respects Duchamp for his work, she does not incorporate all of his practices into her own work. Collaboration of ideas is also a driving force behind Lawler’s works. In fact, within Lawler and Allan McDollum’s exhibit Ideal Settings for Presentation and Display, they collaborated in order to create a “show-room” piece that would emphasize the lighting and the context of the exhibit over the actually objects being displayed. Thus, the stage lights, pedestals and the back-drop became the main attraction within this work of “art.” This collaboration with McDollum allowed Lawler to focus more on Duchamp’s ideals because: “‘Collaborations can produce a shift in focus and concerns…’” (Buskirk 184). Basically, it took Lawler a period of experimenting and collaborating in order to truly appreciate Duchamp’s radical ideas.
Within Martha Buskierk’s interview with conceptual artist Sherrie Levine, Levine admits that she has taken Duchamp’s process of turning an original “readymade” into a fabricated “readymade.” In other words, you take an original object that was used within an exhibit, and make copies of the original. Thus, in order to do this, artists often take pieces of other artists’ artwork in order to create their own unique pieces. In Levine’s case, she bought a pair of shoes at a secondhand store and in order to make them art, she had to display them. Buskirk mentions, “‘It’s interesting that the shoes were in this very tenuous state between being art and not being art…’” (Buskirk 178). The whole purpose of this exhibit is to emphasize materiality in modern day society and to create an artistic scene that she wanted to view. Levine explains, “‘I always make things that I want to look at. Objects that help me understand something or experience something that I didn’t before’” (Buskirk 178). Levine learned to incorporate her own ideas with those of other artists’.
Another contemporary artist, Bruce Conner, used less of his own ideas and mimicked Duchamp in order to make a shocking statement. Conner suggested that Duchamp’s work was all about questioning. He explains, “‘I still feel that he dealt with enigmas and arbitrariness in the world with a sharp analytical mind’” (Buskirk 57). So, he used this curiosity in order to portray his own works with a lot of Duchamp references involved. For one, because Duchamp liked to sign things that he did not create, Conner came up with the idea to create a rubber stamp with his signature because he refused to sign anything. His partner in the project, Charles Alan, tried to set up a similar exhibit to a past one of Duchamp’s and would stamp Conner’s name. However, this exhibit never took place because Alan thought it wasn’t moral and Conner did not want to offend Duchamp. But, this image of taking credit for someone else’s “original” comes up again within Conner’s work. The most important aspect taken by Conner would be the idea of questioning.
Lastly, Ed Ruscha explained that the most valuable aspect he learned from Duchamp would be the concept of turning ordinary objects into something spectacular and exciting. Duchamp turned wheels, metal, and other random objects into something that created a shock-value for onlookers and this method went against traditional art. Ruscha also values the fact that he truly became a rebel within the art world and this inspired other young artists to step outside of the traditional art sphere in order to create something amazing and awe-inspiring. Thus, within his own work, he took past pieces of art that Duchamp made and added his own twist to them. Within The Marcel Duchamp Travelling Box, he turns an ordinary image into something very odd. Ruscha began to appreciate ordinary objects and brainstormed how to turn them into art.
Overall, Duchamp did have a major affect on aspiring conceptual artists. His belief that context and preparation were the main values behind a piece of art changed the way people and other artists viewed art work in general. The most important aspect that Duchamp’s legacy left artists and viewers alike would be to experience art during its creation process and to never be afraid to create something out of the ordinary-from an ordinary object.
Within Martha Buskirk’s interview with conceptual artist, Fred Wilson, Buskirk touches upon the stark differences between museum exhibits and conceptual art exhibits. Wilson and Buskirk both came to the conclusion that art in a museum is something that all visitors can predict before they even see it. A museum is structured in a way that is very predictable to visitors and thus, there is very little shock factor. According to Wilson, when a person visits an art museum they: “‘expect some form of universal truth or knowledge…’” (Buskirk 187). However, through Wilson’s personal art exhibits, he claims that he withholds these truths and therefore allows an audience to really question the process behind his pieces. Within museum exhibits, curators create pieces of art that people will immediately understand and that has a definite purpose. Wilson, on the other hand, creates pieces that allow the freedom to really think about the piece and the process of making the piece, in order to give the audience a truly shocking experience. Wilson explains, “‘I’m always trying to push the exhibitions farther than I would expect a museum curator to go…’” (Buskirk 187). For example, Wilson once designed a room made entirely out of black and white squares. The process of making this exhibit took a lot of time and effort, and the actually designing of this piece of “art,” became more valuable to Wilson than the actual final product was. However, the room was already there, it was just Wilson’s redesign of the room that made it “art.” It is through pieces like this that Wilson models Duchamp’s theory of starting out with an initial design (that could be already used by another artist) and creating an innovative idea out of it. Wilson describes this process: “‘One could say that Conceptual art created a space in which people could understand the issues that you have dealt with in your work’” (Buskirk 189). In other words, Wilson took Duchamp’s idea that the process of creating a piece of art, or taking ideas from a past artist, is the most important part of the process.
Similarly, artist Louise Lawler, used Duchamp’s ideology that how and artist presents his or her work is quite possibly the most important aspect of the exhibit itself. Although Lawler didn’t realize this while she was young in art school, she eventually came to partial agreement with this concept: “‘One particularly important issue is the degree to which he thought very carefully about the nature of the work of art and how its meaning is shaped by the context in which it is presented’” (Buskirk 183). Lawler only developed a sort of reverence or relationship with Duchamp’s work later in life because she believed that: “‘there are many issues concerning context that can be referenced before and since Duchamp. Some attempt to eliminate it as a codified situation and others to exacerbate and make more evident in its conventions’” (Buskirk 184). Basically, Lawler explains that while some artists believe context is what makes the art, “art,” other artists believe that context take away from the actual piece itself. Therefore, Lawler has worked hard to try to identify with what ideology she believed in. Although she respects Duchamp for his work, she does not incorporate all of his practices into her own work. Collaboration of ideas is also a driving force behind Lawler’s works. In fact, within Lawler and Allan McDollum’s exhibit Ideal Settings for Presentation and Display, they collaborated in order to create a “show-room” piece that would emphasize the lighting and the context of the exhibit over the actually objects being displayed. Thus, the stage lights, pedestals and the back-drop became the main attraction within this work of “art.” This collaboration with McDollum allowed Lawler to focus more on Duchamp’s ideals because: “‘Collaborations can produce a shift in focus and concerns…’” (Buskirk 184). Basically, it took Lawler a period of experimenting and collaborating in order to truly appreciate Duchamp’s radical ideas.
Within Martha Buskierk’s interview with conceptual artist Sherrie Levine, Levine admits that she has taken Duchamp’s process of turning an original “readymade” into a fabricated “readymade.” In other words, you take an original object that was used within an exhibit, and make copies of the original. Thus, in order to do this, artists often take pieces of other artists’ artwork in order to create their own unique pieces. In Levine’s case, she bought a pair of shoes at a secondhand store and in order to make them art, she had to display them. Buskirk mentions, “‘It’s interesting that the shoes were in this very tenuous state between being art and not being art…’” (Buskirk 178). The whole purpose of this exhibit is to emphasize materiality in modern day society and to create an artistic scene that she wanted to view. Levine explains, “‘I always make things that I want to look at. Objects that help me understand something or experience something that I didn’t before’” (Buskirk 178). Levine learned to incorporate her own ideas with those of other artists’.
Another contemporary artist, Bruce Conner, used less of his own ideas and mimicked Duchamp in order to make a shocking statement. Conner suggested that Duchamp’s work was all about questioning. He explains, “‘I still feel that he dealt with enigmas and arbitrariness in the world with a sharp analytical mind’” (Buskirk 57). So, he used this curiosity in order to portray his own works with a lot of Duchamp references involved. For one, because Duchamp liked to sign things that he did not create, Conner came up with the idea to create a rubber stamp with his signature because he refused to sign anything. His partner in the project, Charles Alan, tried to set up a similar exhibit to a past one of Duchamp’s and would stamp Conner’s name. However, this exhibit never took place because Alan thought it wasn’t moral and Conner did not want to offend Duchamp. But, this image of taking credit for someone else’s “original” comes up again within Conner’s work. The most important aspect taken by Conner would be the idea of questioning.
Lastly, Ed Ruscha explained that the most valuable aspect he learned from Duchamp would be the concept of turning ordinary objects into something spectacular and exciting. Duchamp turned wheels, metal, and other random objects into something that created a shock-value for onlookers and this method went against traditional art. Ruscha also values the fact that he truly became a rebel within the art world and this inspired other young artists to step outside of the traditional art sphere in order to create something amazing and awe-inspiring. Thus, within his own work, he took past pieces of art that Duchamp made and added his own twist to them. Within The Marcel Duchamp Travelling Box, he turns an ordinary image into something very odd. Ruscha began to appreciate ordinary objects and brainstormed how to turn them into art.
Overall, Duchamp did have a major affect on aspiring conceptual artists. His belief that context and preparation were the main values behind a piece of art changed the way people and other artists viewed art work in general. The most important aspect that Duchamp’s legacy left artists and viewers alike would be to experience art during its creation process and to never be afraid to create something out of the ordinary-from an ordinary object.
“When Art Becomes too Commercialized”
Dave Hickey, like many of us, is truly able to see that making money is often more important in today’s world than selling a product that is actual useful to its producer and to its buyer. Although this is unfortunate, it is the way of the world today in general-and it is also the way of the art world. Hickey clearly states within his speech Custodians of Culture: Schoolyard Art: Playing Fair Without the Referee that: “Artists like money better than art.” This may be hard to believe, but it becomes fairly evident when paintings and pictures are sold for millions of dollars by investors who know nothing about art. Thus, the artist does not care who the painting is going to, if the buyer actually enjoys art, or what will happen to his or her piece of art. It is all about the circulation of money and using capitalism to succeed on either end of the spectrum, buyer or artist, in the art world. Instead of collecting art that is not only appealing to the buyer but also appealing for the artist to create, it is all about getting buyers to bid top dollar; Hickey tries to convince his audience that the best way to distribute art is to sell art to members of the community who will promote it in a way that does not have to involve money.
Hickey uses a metaphor to really emphasize the exploitation of art due to the strong influence of capitalism. He refers to “hotel art shows,” in which artists display their work in different hotel rooms and people walk through the halls and pick and choose what they would be willing to pay for. In this sense, this is like walking through a grocery store while artists wait at the check-out ready to claim their profit. It is also like speed shopping; buyers are not looking merely at the work itself, they are looking at the price tag. This is not always the best way to shop. Hickey then compares this scenario to another scene that took place in Baghdad when criminals kept items they stole in hotel rooms for others to buy. Hickey refers to these scenarios as “absolute raw capitalism.” Within both scenarios, the artists and the criminals are not concerned with the quality of the items, they are concerned with profit.
Thus, Hickey promotes a policy that he believes to be the most successful way of “selling” art. Hickey explains that an artist should sell his or her piece to a gallery, the gallery should sell this piece to the community which would represent public virtue instead of mere capitalism, and finally the art would be sold to museums for profit. By selling art to community members, it is a form of public virtue because it allows people to see the influence and meaning of art and does not focus merely on capitalism. Then, when a member of the community is done with a specific piece, he or she can sell it to a museum for their own profit. Also, throughout this process, artists would not be the only ones raking in massive amounts of money. This is a fair, and virtuous way of “selling” and “distributing” art.
Now, Hickey finds it important for artists to reevaluate their process of creating art to sell. Hickey explains that artists, “need to show art that they like.” Basically, artists need to stop creating art that they know will sell and create art that they find to be meaningful and that they enjoy working on. It is a real shame that the process of creating art has turned into a process that is meaningless and comparative to an assembly line process, when artists and buyers value the price tag over the deeper content. As Hickey puts it so nicely and bluntly: “There is so much money out there it makes you cry.”
Hickey uses a metaphor to really emphasize the exploitation of art due to the strong influence of capitalism. He refers to “hotel art shows,” in which artists display their work in different hotel rooms and people walk through the halls and pick and choose what they would be willing to pay for. In this sense, this is like walking through a grocery store while artists wait at the check-out ready to claim their profit. It is also like speed shopping; buyers are not looking merely at the work itself, they are looking at the price tag. This is not always the best way to shop. Hickey then compares this scenario to another scene that took place in Baghdad when criminals kept items they stole in hotel rooms for others to buy. Hickey refers to these scenarios as “absolute raw capitalism.” Within both scenarios, the artists and the criminals are not concerned with the quality of the items, they are concerned with profit.
Thus, Hickey promotes a policy that he believes to be the most successful way of “selling” art. Hickey explains that an artist should sell his or her piece to a gallery, the gallery should sell this piece to the community which would represent public virtue instead of mere capitalism, and finally the art would be sold to museums for profit. By selling art to community members, it is a form of public virtue because it allows people to see the influence and meaning of art and does not focus merely on capitalism. Then, when a member of the community is done with a specific piece, he or she can sell it to a museum for their own profit. Also, throughout this process, artists would not be the only ones raking in massive amounts of money. This is a fair, and virtuous way of “selling” and “distributing” art.
Now, Hickey finds it important for artists to reevaluate their process of creating art to sell. Hickey explains that artists, “need to show art that they like.” Basically, artists need to stop creating art that they know will sell and create art that they find to be meaningful and that they enjoy working on. It is a real shame that the process of creating art has turned into a process that is meaningless and comparative to an assembly line process, when artists and buyers value the price tag over the deeper content. As Hickey puts it so nicely and bluntly: “There is so much money out there it makes you cry.”
“Gillian Wearing and Vanessa Beecroft Question Society’s Values”
Through art work, including performance art, Gillian Wearing and Vanessa Beecroft try to make a statement about the world they live in. Whether it is a statement about race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or social norms, Wearing and Beecroft are more than willing to express their opinions through their own, original pieces. By doing this, not only has it redefined what “art” means, it also drew attention to topics that still remain an issue in today’s society. It is evident through Wearing and Beecroft’s art work that they truly value the questioning of society and its ideals, and wish to challenge the current stereotypes that define different groups within society.
Gillian Wearing, who was born in the United States and moved to London to study art at universities there, started as a learning art student and turned artist who truly put her heart and opinions into her shocking pieces. Wearing is known as a conceptual artist who questions “concepts” and “ideals” that make up society. Through her hard work and dedication, she is a recipient of the Turner Prize. Through Wearing’s art work, she is known for choosing an aspect of society in which people generally consider to be truth, and prove it wrong through her pieces. Also, Wearing is known to exploit issues within society through her art work by letting the public display their feelings about it. By getting the public involved, it seems to be that her art work sometimes involves performance art. Also, by including the public, her art work is more apt to have an effect on a greater range of viewers because the common people have a say in her work. During one of her pieces, created in 1994, Wearing focuses on the issue of “confession” within a church setting. She exploits the idea that everyday people will most likely not confess what they are truly feeling to someone who knows who they actually are. So, within Wearing’s piece Confess All On Video. Don't Worry You Will Be in Disguise. Intrigued?, Wearing chooses people to confess on camera while she distorts their images. Thus, these subjects are free to confess anything that they want. By doing this, Wearing not only makes a statement by allowing these people to confess what they want, but also makes another statement by questioning and even mocking the whole idea of confessing within the church setting. Thus, she is trying to question values that are presented within society at that time. Similarly, she uncovers stereotypes in another of her conceptual art pieces, Signs that Say What You Want Them To Say and Not Signs that Say What Someone Else Wants You To Say, by reinventing the notion, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” What I mean by this is, is that she allowed random people on the street to write what they were thinking at that moment on a piece of paper and hold it up for a picture to be taken of them and their sign. While some people wrote what one would expect them to have written based on their race, gender, or even the clothing they were wearing, some people’s statements went against what anyone would have expected. For example, a woman in a fancy suit wrote, “I’m desperate,” which does not represent what people would think he would have been thinking at that time. With a nice suit, one would assume he had money and a good job, but apparently he was desperate within his own life at this time. Through Wearing’s work, she tried to prove general stereotypes wrong and provide the public with a chance to understand that everything is not as it seems.
Similarly, Vanessa Beecroft, an Italian contemporary artist, uses a bit of performance art and conceptual art to interact with a larger audience. While Wearing focuses on stereotypes and issues within society in general, Beecroft focuses most of her art work on women and gender issues. She likes to portray women as powerful people who remain united against all else. She hires models who usually stand naked and motionless in front of a live audience. The models do not make eye contact with anyone in particular, and stand as long as they can until they get too tired. Once they get too tired, the “piece of live art,” shifts and the change is noticeable to the audience. Beecroft focuses on the connection between the models, the audience, and her. Through these art pieces, Beecroft questions the larger issue of gender identity. I found one of her pieces to be particularly shocking and interesting. Her piece, Vanessa Beecroft Performance Piece For Shinsegae Department Store, shows rows of 31 women that are either dressed in mostly red, a mixture of red and gold, or all gold. The women who are a mix between red and gold stand in the middle of the rows. By doing this, Beecroft shows how although something is splitting the women in half, the women in the middle are drawing together similarities that eventually unite them all. As they all stand there for hours on end trying not to move, they eventually tilt toward each other which shows the larger message of togetherness and unity. They need each other’s support to survive in today’s world. Beecroft also includes the public as viewers within her performance pieces, thus spreading her message to many people.
Overall, I really enjoy researching and analyzing pieces that truly involve larger messages involving stereotypes and issues within today’s society. I think a small performance piece or conceptual art piece can have a powerful effect on the public, especially if the public is included. Once the public hears these messages, they can not only spread this message but also feel involved in art themselves. This is an excellent way to spread the value of art throughout the world.
~Kara Livingston
Gillian Wearing, who was born in the United States and moved to London to study art at universities there, started as a learning art student and turned artist who truly put her heart and opinions into her shocking pieces. Wearing is known as a conceptual artist who questions “concepts” and “ideals” that make up society. Through her hard work and dedication, she is a recipient of the Turner Prize. Through Wearing’s art work, she is known for choosing an aspect of society in which people generally consider to be truth, and prove it wrong through her pieces. Also, Wearing is known to exploit issues within society through her art work by letting the public display their feelings about it. By getting the public involved, it seems to be that her art work sometimes involves performance art. Also, by including the public, her art work is more apt to have an effect on a greater range of viewers because the common people have a say in her work. During one of her pieces, created in 1994, Wearing focuses on the issue of “confession” within a church setting. She exploits the idea that everyday people will most likely not confess what they are truly feeling to someone who knows who they actually are. So, within Wearing’s piece Confess All On Video. Don't Worry You Will Be in Disguise. Intrigued?, Wearing chooses people to confess on camera while she distorts their images. Thus, these subjects are free to confess anything that they want. By doing this, Wearing not only makes a statement by allowing these people to confess what they want, but also makes another statement by questioning and even mocking the whole idea of confessing within the church setting. Thus, she is trying to question values that are presented within society at that time. Similarly, she uncovers stereotypes in another of her conceptual art pieces, Signs that Say What You Want Them To Say and Not Signs that Say What Someone Else Wants You To Say, by reinventing the notion, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” What I mean by this is, is that she allowed random people on the street to write what they were thinking at that moment on a piece of paper and hold it up for a picture to be taken of them and their sign. While some people wrote what one would expect them to have written based on their race, gender, or even the clothing they were wearing, some people’s statements went against what anyone would have expected. For example, a woman in a fancy suit wrote, “I’m desperate,” which does not represent what people would think he would have been thinking at that time. With a nice suit, one would assume he had money and a good job, but apparently he was desperate within his own life at this time. Through Wearing’s work, she tried to prove general stereotypes wrong and provide the public with a chance to understand that everything is not as it seems.
Similarly, Vanessa Beecroft, an Italian contemporary artist, uses a bit of performance art and conceptual art to interact with a larger audience. While Wearing focuses on stereotypes and issues within society in general, Beecroft focuses most of her art work on women and gender issues. She likes to portray women as powerful people who remain united against all else. She hires models who usually stand naked and motionless in front of a live audience. The models do not make eye contact with anyone in particular, and stand as long as they can until they get too tired. Once they get too tired, the “piece of live art,” shifts and the change is noticeable to the audience. Beecroft focuses on the connection between the models, the audience, and her. Through these art pieces, Beecroft questions the larger issue of gender identity. I found one of her pieces to be particularly shocking and interesting. Her piece, Vanessa Beecroft Performance Piece For Shinsegae Department Store, shows rows of 31 women that are either dressed in mostly red, a mixture of red and gold, or all gold. The women who are a mix between red and gold stand in the middle of the rows. By doing this, Beecroft shows how although something is splitting the women in half, the women in the middle are drawing together similarities that eventually unite them all. As they all stand there for hours on end trying not to move, they eventually tilt toward each other which shows the larger message of togetherness and unity. They need each other’s support to survive in today’s world. Beecroft also includes the public as viewers within her performance pieces, thus spreading her message to many people.
Overall, I really enjoy researching and analyzing pieces that truly involve larger messages involving stereotypes and issues within today’s society. I think a small performance piece or conceptual art piece can have a powerful effect on the public, especially if the public is included. Once the public hears these messages, they can not only spread this message but also feel involved in art themselves. This is an excellent way to spread the value of art throughout the world.
~Kara Livingston
"Combining Nature & Science"
When Hildy and I went to the “Out of this World,” art exhibit in Albany International Airport, it really made me realize how artists often use their own works to reflect environmental and even political issues. As we both made our way through the different parts of the overall exhibit, it became apparent to me that this was unlike anything I had ever seen in person before. The exhibits were certainly not ordinary or expected. In fact, the exhibits that represent pieces of nature have mediums or are made out of materials that represent the morals within present-day society. What I mean by that is the materials used within the exhibit are often made in factories and are in turn mass-produced. I found this particularly interesting because the pieces themselves often represented the beauty of nature.
This particular exhibit intrigued me on another level because the artists turned ordinary things into pieces of art that make an observer ask themselves a lot of questions. One of my favorite parts of the exhibit was the piece, Seven Columns of Commerce and Pleasure by Chris Harvey. This piece was particularly puzzling for me to look at. In my first glance, it reminded me of the columns that are often outside of buildings that are important for the community. For example, a courthouse, a college building, a museum, or a legislative building may have pillars on the steps of the building to emphasize order and structure. Aesthetically, this makes a building look larger than life and emphasizes the fact that the community may need this building to keep law and order. Overall, it symbolizes importance, grandeur, and wealth. Although the pillars that Harvey created also stand tall and proud and could even represent order, they also represent a type of freedom that I really liked. The varied, vibrant colors exude a type of excitement that plain white pillars on a building do not. It seems as if these pillars represent some type of emotional or psychological freedom while the spacing between each pillar could at the same time represent order and stability. At first look I thought that these pillars may just be a way for Harvey to deviate from the norm, but at a second glance it seemed as if they may have deeper meaning. I could be overanalyzing this but it seems to me that these pillars represent the perfect way of living. It is necessary to have order, structure, and stability of some kind to succeed, but it is also just as important to have excitement, variety, and a sense of wonder in life in order to stay sane and lively at best. This piece of work really intrigued me despite the fact that my reading of it could be completely wrong.
I also thoroughly enjoyed one of David Miller’s pieces, Midnight in the Garden of the Sea. I thought this was very interesting because it depicted a very naturalistic scene while using the sciences as the materials to create it. For example, some of the ocean life is created out of geometric shapes. What I thought to be a worm-like creature swimming through this dark sea was made out of lines and circles. The geometry within this creature was emphasized with the red paint Miller used to draw it. He also separated each of the lines and made the creature appear more like an architectural design than an actual organism. All of the ocean life throughout this piece represents the “beauty” of geometry and design. I really liked the whole concept of combining nature with science and industry.
Overall this exhibit at the Albany International Airport was something that I had never even imagined would be created. I believe that this type of art work shows the artists’ concern with the environment and with the portrayal of the environment.
~Kara Livingston
Photographers Response by Chris Pearce
Venessa Beercroft uses conceptual issues and aesthetic concerns in her work. Her performance artwork usually involves nude female models and her work is recorded by film or photographed. Her performances have been viewed as fashionable, provocative, empowering and brilliant to name a few. Gillian Wearing uses photography and film as her main source of recording her artwork as well. Her work is not seen as provacotive as Ms. Beercroft’s though. Ms. Wearing’s most known work is Signs that say what you want them to say and not Signs that say what someone else wants you to say in which her subjects are in their everyday clothes and hold a sign that states what they are thinking.
When looking at these two artists, there are many similarities between the two. At first glance, they both are using photography and film to capture their artwork. This allows them to direct what they are trying to accomplish instead of creating it and painting what they are envisioning. They need to demonstrate their point and get their models to depict it for them.
Out of the two artists I felt Gillian Wearing’s work had the biggest impact on me. I felt her work was more appealing and made better points of what she was trying to get across to the viewers. I felt like I could connect to her work and thought her work in Signs that say what you want them to say and not Signs that say what someone else wants you to say was brilliant. Her depicting what people were saying on their signs with what they were wearing provoked many different emotions in me. I felt as though I could connect to the officer holding up the help sign. It was something that doesn’t have to be said but is given in his line of work. He represents help for his job and that is what most people would say about that type of job.
As for Venessa Beercroft I felt as though her work was much to provocative for me. I do not believe her point was well taken. I did not see what she was out to prove to her viewers when compared to Ms. Wearing’s. I felt as though Ms. Beeercrofts ideas were not as powerful as Ms. Wearings. I looked at Ms. Beercroft’s wok and did not believe the points she tried to make were as clear as Ms Wearing’s and I had a lot more fun getting to see Ms. Warning’s work than Ms. Beercrocft’s.
Overall, I believe these two artists have broke new ground fror new artists. I felt as though Ms. Wearing’s work brought out more emotions from the viewer than Ms. Beercrofts. It was a interesting looking at both artists work but I feel like Ms. Weraing’s work will be more successful in the long run than Ms. Beercrofts.
When looking at these two artists, there are many similarities between the two. At first glance, they both are using photography and film to capture their artwork. This allows them to direct what they are trying to accomplish instead of creating it and painting what they are envisioning. They need to demonstrate their point and get their models to depict it for them.
Out of the two artists I felt Gillian Wearing’s work had the biggest impact on me. I felt her work was more appealing and made better points of what she was trying to get across to the viewers. I felt like I could connect to her work and thought her work in Signs that say what you want them to say and not Signs that say what someone else wants you to say was brilliant. Her depicting what people were saying on their signs with what they were wearing provoked many different emotions in me. I felt as though I could connect to the officer holding up the help sign. It was something that doesn’t have to be said but is given in his line of work. He represents help for his job and that is what most people would say about that type of job.
As for Venessa Beercroft I felt as though her work was much to provocative for me. I do not believe her point was well taken. I did not see what she was out to prove to her viewers when compared to Ms. Wearing’s. I felt as though Ms. Beeercrofts ideas were not as powerful as Ms. Wearings. I looked at Ms. Beercroft’s wok and did not believe the points she tried to make were as clear as Ms Wearing’s and I had a lot more fun getting to see Ms. Warning’s work than Ms. Beercrocft’s.
Overall, I believe these two artists have broke new ground fror new artists. I felt as though Ms. Wearing’s work brought out more emotions from the viewer than Ms. Beercrofts. It was a interesting looking at both artists work but I feel like Ms. Weraing’s work will be more successful in the long run than Ms. Beercrofts.
Dave Hickey Response by Chris Pearce
In Custodians of culture: Schoolyard Art: Playing Without the Referee, Dave Hickey describes how the art world has transformed over the past years. What was once a prominent way of an artist expressing a point and being judged on how their work has depicted their emotions has turned into art dealers creating the real value of the work. Another critic who harbors the same feelings is Robert Hughes. In “The Mona Lisa Curse” Mr. Hughes describes how the art world has become corrupt by people who run up the price of the artwork because they merely can. Both critics are right in their assessment of the art world and have similar opinions on what has happened.
Mr. Hickey describes the art world as a “place to piss away money.” Artists use to work in their studios and then took their pieces to galleries. The galleries then sold the work to members of the community. When the community purchased a great deal of work from a certain artist type of art, then that work had some form of public virtue and had a public show at a museum. This does not happen anymore. Since the government has receeded in funding the art business, the art market has gone over the edge. Now, an art show is put on because it is economically beneficial to an institution. It is no longer just a great way to view art but is presented to the viewers to make an offer. The art dealers pride themselves in creating the value of the art buy how much they purchase it. Mr. Hickey is completely against this practice and wishes things were the way they use to be as the art market is ruining what art was meant to be.
Robert Hughes also agrees with Mr. Hickey’s views. He believes the art world has gone off the deep end and has made artists who do not deserve to be well known into some of the most popular artists known to date. Their work is only respected because of the price tags they draw. The artists were dubbed popular when someone is willing to purchase their work for what it is not even close to what the real value of their work should be. Mr. Hughes is disgruntled at this and how no one seems to see how the art world is run by those who have the money to spend on a certain piece of work. The whole documentary you can see his frustration on how the art world will never be the same to him as it once did when he was younger.
Both critics are able to provide a strong case for why the art world is not what it should be. The art world has turned into a place where anyone who creates what they call art and has a backing of someone who is willing to put their money behind that artists work can make that artist very successful. It is very disappointing to hear this because what will art be like for the next generation?
Mr. Hickey describes the art world as a “place to piss away money.” Artists use to work in their studios and then took their pieces to galleries. The galleries then sold the work to members of the community. When the community purchased a great deal of work from a certain artist type of art, then that work had some form of public virtue and had a public show at a museum. This does not happen anymore. Since the government has receeded in funding the art business, the art market has gone over the edge. Now, an art show is put on because it is economically beneficial to an institution. It is no longer just a great way to view art but is presented to the viewers to make an offer. The art dealers pride themselves in creating the value of the art buy how much they purchase it. Mr. Hickey is completely against this practice and wishes things were the way they use to be as the art market is ruining what art was meant to be.
Robert Hughes also agrees with Mr. Hickey’s views. He believes the art world has gone off the deep end and has made artists who do not deserve to be well known into some of the most popular artists known to date. Their work is only respected because of the price tags they draw. The artists were dubbed popular when someone is willing to purchase their work for what it is not even close to what the real value of their work should be. Mr. Hughes is disgruntled at this and how no one seems to see how the art world is run by those who have the money to spend on a certain piece of work. The whole documentary you can see his frustration on how the art world will never be the same to him as it once did when he was younger.
Both critics are able to provide a strong case for why the art world is not what it should be. The art world has turned into a place where anyone who creates what they call art and has a backing of someone who is willing to put their money behind that artists work can make that artist very successful. It is very disappointing to hear this because what will art be like for the next generation?
Midterm Part 2 by Chris Pearce
One could say that Marcel Duchamp is one of the most influential artists of all time. He has inspired many modern artists with his groundbreaking pieces of work. One of his most famous works of art of his is known as “The Fountain.” The controversial piece and other works of this famous artist has inspired five artists who are interviewed in The Duchamp Effect and how his work has affected their own.
The first artist in the interview is Bruce Conner. Mr. Conner is a leader of the assemblages movement where he uses items in his work such as dolls, fur, jewelry and even broken bicycle wheels. In the interview, Mr. Conner looks at Duchamp as an artist that is not easily understood but one who deserves the utmost respect. He describes growing up and first seeing Duchamp’s work and the first time he had the opportunity to collaberate with him. Conner’s stated he was too bashful to approach Duchamp with his ideas so it did not go as planned. Mr. Conner’s seemed like a little kid meeting his idol for the first time. In the interview it is easy to see that Duchamp is one of the most respected artists and has very much influenced Bruce Conner and helped inspire his many pieces of artwork.
The second artist to be interviewed was Sherrie Levine. Ms. Levine is known for her photography as well as a bronze urinal which was inspired by Marcel Duchamp’s. In the interview she describes what she accomplished when she moved to New York. What was her first big step forward was literally her work with shoes. She recreated a pair of shoes just like she recreated Duchamp’s urinal. The interview with Ms. Levine shows how she was greatly influenced by Marcel Duchamp’s work. He left a legacy that Sherrie Levine used for inspiration for her work to which she became a very successful artist.
The next artist to be interviewed was Louise Lawler. Ms. Lawler is known for her photography and creates her work by taking pictures of others artwork and showing the way it is viewed. She is a fan of pop art and believes that although Duchamp is an inspiration to many, there are other artists and their works that are inspirational as well. She also describes taking photograph’s of Duchamp’s work and how it gives his pieces a completely different angle of how to view his work. Ms. Lawler believes Marcel Duchamp is an artist who has left many skeptical when viewing his work but there are so many different ways to view his work that it is possible to find a way to connect with it.
The fourth artist interviewed is Fred Wilson who is known for his work as an artist as well as a curator. Although he considers himself a conceptual artist, he believes he does most of his work visually. He would bring things into the museum that most would not expect to find in a gallery or museum because they don’t consider them to normally be art. The interview clearly shows how Mr. Wilson was influenced by Duchamp’s work for Duchamp was very controversial in what he brought into museums and called art as well such as “The Fountain.”
Each of these artists have clearly been inspired by Marcel Duchamp’s work. He was a pioneer for artists to think outside the box and be unconventional. Duchamp has left the legacy behind to not be traditional and create artwork that makes people think and not go to a gallery or museum just to look at paintings and sculptures but rather make them surprised and wanting to see more.
Midterm Part 1 by Chris Pearce
Art comes in many shapes, sizes, and forms. It can be a sculpture, a painting, and even a performance. When I found out that our midterm constituted our class to design a performance piece my mind quickly went to work. I researched performance artists and found many interesting performances that I could not have ever thought of. One was Michael Lotito who ate unusual objects who most likely would have put fear factor contestants to shame. Another was Yves Klein who painted models and moved them around on white paper to leave their impression on it. These two artists inspired me to come up with my own ideas and to think outside of the box. I did not want to have my midterm project projecting something that truly didn’t mean anything to me or did not have a message for viewers of it.
I wrote down all of my ideas and what I would like to accomplish for the viewers. It had to be something that had a theme to it. As dorky as it sounds for a guy, I wanted to have the theme be love. Something a guy loved to do and made his day. Secondly, it had to be extraordinary. As a performance piece, I felt it had to be something that glorified what a performance piece could capture that everyday life did not.My list was long but it became clear to me as I narrowed it down that I knew what I wanted to do. My performance art would be of a man fly fishing midwinter in a parking lot . I believe it would capture what a man loves to do even when he does not have the ability to do it because of the time of the year. The man is fully dedicated to his passion and will not let snow or no open water dictate his time of enjoyment. All men have a place they like to do to get away from their life whether it is working out, watching tv, working on their car, etc. In this case, the man is depicting how he will not be denied his opportunity to his time. He decides he will not be denied and by doing it in a parking lot he is sharing to all his passion for his hobby.
There would not be any other props besides what the man would take to go fly fishing such as his fishing gear and fishing ensemble. There would not be any sound because the only sound a person has when going fishing is the sound of nature. As for the aspect of when it would take place it would have to be in the morning hours around dawn for that is when fish are more likely to be caught. The performance would last for around two hours and the man I would choose to recruit for the performance would have be someone in their mid 50’s who enjoys fly fishing as their favorite hobby.
To break down the performance the man would arrive at a parking lot in February about twenty minutes before dawn. He would get his fishing gear ready and cast away for the next two hours. The performance would depict the man enjoying his favorite hobby and having the opportunity to escape reality and collect his thoughts.
I believe my performance would be one that anyone can relate to. Everyone has a hobby that they put time aside as much as they can to do. It is a time where one can reflect on life as well as to escape any problems they are dealing with. In this case it is a man who does not have the ability to completely enjoy his hobby but he does his best to show his love for fly fishing.
Gillian Wearing and Vanessa Beecroft are two contemporary female artists whose use of performance art and the public sphere make their sometimes-shocking work even more influential. Both artists use performance art and/or public interactions as their median of self-expression.
Gillian Wearing was born in Birmingham, England and attended the prestigious Goldsmiths College. Much of Wearing’s works involves participation from complete strangers. Her first major work, “Signs that say what you want them to say and now Signs that say what someone else wants you to say” took place in 1992-1993. Within this work, Wearing found random strangers on the street and asked them to write anything they wanted on a piece of paper, which they then held up while Wearing photographed them. The responses we all different, ranging from a police officer who wrote “HELP!” to a businessman who wrote “I’m desperate”. Wearing’s interactions with strangers continued in 1994 when she asked random people to confess on video. While many of her works explore human emotions and intimacies, her work entitled “Drunk” is one that I have trouble understand. Within “Drunk”, Wearing filmed four drunk men wondering around a studio. This film does not seem to have any deeper meaning and it’s also unoriginal (any Siena student could film their drunk friend and have a similar outcome).
Similar to Gillian Wearing, Vanessa Beecroft uses the pubic sphere to hold many of her performance pieces. Beecroft, born in Genoa Italy, creates performance art pieces, often for specific places in order to comment on that locations history or social influence. Most of Beecroft’s performances involve live female models, which are often naked for the entirety of the performance. In 2005, Beecroft held her performance entitled “VB55” in the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin, Germany. VB55 was made up of 100 naked female models, wearing panty hose. The women were assembled according to hair color and the pattern in which they were placed resembled the colors of the German flag. Most of Beecroft’s performances are similar to VB55, which attempt to comment not only on the location, but also the use of female bodies.
Wearing and Beecrofts’s performance art pieces can be seen as a bit controversial, especially Beecrofts. The use of naked women poses some concerns, which causes many of her performances to be closed off to a large part of the public. While the two women take different approaches in using public interaction, they both succeed in expressing their creativity and artistic talent. When comparing their works, I favored Wearing’s over Beecroft’s because of Wearing’s ability to get complete strangers to confess their inner thoughts and feelings. Nevertheless, both women are seen as highly influential in the contemporary world of performance and public art.
By Hildy
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Reaction to Dave Hickey
Dave Hickey’s sense of humor and insight to the art world make his podcast, Custodians of Culture: School Yard Art: Playing Fair Without the Referee, a funny, yet serious insight to the new and modern art world. While at times he appears to lose his train of though, Hickey manages to present his listeners with the idea that over the past forty or so years the art world has undergone a vast transformation. This transformation revolves around the transition from art as a mode of expression to art as a part of capitalism and the economy.
A major aspect of Hickey’s talk revolved around the development of art as an expensive commodity. Hickey stated that in an “art bubble”, money gets sucked in but it breeds greedy artists and stupid collectors. He discusses how artists started pricing their works at astronomical prices in order to get the most money for their work. This concept was also touched upon in Robert Hughes' documentary The Mona Lisa Curse. Within the documentary, Hughes enlightens viewers as to the absurdly high prices that some art pieces have produced. Both Hughes and Hickey believe that this inflation in prices has caused Americans to lost site in the beauty of art, and instead have created “monsters” in the form of greedy artists and collectors whose sole purpose is to make the most money.
I found both Hickey’s talk and Hugh’s documentary interesting because of this idea of massive amount of money within the art world. Its sad in a way that art has lost some of its aesthetic value and for some it has merely become a numbers game. Both men discuss the decline of museums and their power, which is something one does not often think about during a museum visit. Within the documentary, Hughes mentioned the prices of both some “famous” works and newer works and its mind boggling that someone would spend millions of dollars on art merely as an investment. It’s refreshing to see people like Herb and Dorothy Vogel, who collected art for the love of the art. For every Herb and Dorothy, however, there are hundreds more collectors who are merely concerned with the prestige and economic gain from owning artwork.
Another interesting point presented by Hickey is his idea of the art market place. He explains that the market place is finite, meaning that there will always be more works of art than people to buy them. This causes a ripple effect; if art does not change, no one will buy more. The market place encourages change, however, Hickey feels that within the institutional market, nothing changes. He thinks that instillation art does not change and that arts recreate different works merely to make money.
Overall, Hickey feels that art has lost its public significance and virtue through the evolution of the art market. While fifty years ago art was displayed din museums for its aesthetic value and public virtue, art today is created for the mere purpose of making up to millions of dollars from collectors willing to pay the price for prestige within the art world. While there seems to be no cure for this growing trend, perhaps speakers like Hickey will be able to remind people of art’s aesthetic value, as opposed to its monetary value.
Hildy's Midterm
Part I: Performance Piece
If I were a performance artist, my main goal would be to surprise people. Unlike performance artists such as Marina Abramovic and Joseph Beuys, I would not want my performance to be advertised or expected; I would want it to be a spontaneous occurrence that catches people off guard.
My performance piece would take place in a busy shopping center, such as a mall or outside area, during the busy infamously busy Christmas shopping season. Throughout the weeks prior to Christmas, people tend to become overly materialistic, frantic, and even stressed due to the pressure placed upon the Christmas season. My performance piece’s main purpose will be to get people to stop their shopping and observe an unexpected art show. The message of the performance will attempt to remind people of the beauty of the holiday season, aside from all the gift giving. My intentions would be to avoid commenting on the religious aspects of the Christmas season, and instead focus on the natural beauty that occurs during this time.
The performance would involve a group of people, who have prior knowledge of the performance. It would take place in a pre-setup section of the mall. The setup would include a fenced in section of fake snow.
Script:
- One by one, members of the group enter the fake snow pit. At first they walk
around the fence, looking hesitant. Before they enter, they put on a hat, gloves,
and scarf.
- Once in the fake snow, they begin playing in it as children, making snow angels
and throwing the fake snow up into the air.
- As more performers enter the “snow pit”, whimsical music will start to play in
the background. It will begin softly, and gradually increase.
- As the music increases, the lighting behind the pit will slowly go down, until at one point it goes out. When it comes back on, fake snow will be falling from the season.
- Again the lights will dim, and the performers will get out of the snow, pick up their bags, and continue on their way.
While the performance is taking place, shoppers will hopefully stop and observe the performance. The feeling I would hope to provoke in them is a feeling of nostalgia for their childhood. By remembering how it was like to be a child during this time, the shoppers will hopefully take a break from their materialistic tendencies and come to appreciate the beauty of the season through the performers actions.
Part II
Despite his death in 1968, Marcel Duchamp’s legacy continues to impact conceptual artists. Whether or not they realize it, artists from the past thirty or so years have been influenced by Duchamp’s groundbreaking and original work. Within The Duchamp Effect, five different artists discuss how Duchamp took part in both the development of their own art and the art world in general. While some mention Duchamp’s actual artwork as influence, others talk about the meaning behind Duchamp's work and how they tried to incorporate this same meaning into their work.
Bruce Conner, an American artist born in 1933, is best known for his work in film and sculpture. In his interview, Conner comments on the idea that the main meaning behind Duchamp’s work is the “idea of questioning” (57). Conner not only thinks questioning is vital to Duchamp's work but he also believes that “questioning is an overriding characteristic of what his work and he represented” (57). Conner believes that this aspect of Duchamp’s artistic purpose is what makes him both so influential and controversial. Conner took this idea and incorporated it into his own work through the way in which Conner signed his artwork. He created a stamp of his signature, yet left it up to a gallery owner what got signed. This innovative way of signing artwork stems from Duchamp and his meaning of art.
Perhaps one of the ways in which Duchamp is best known is for his ready mades. Duchamp was infamous for taking ordinary objects and transforming them into art. Artist Sherrie Levine took Duchamp’s idea and made it her own by buying pairs of black shoes, which she eventually sold. She also took pictures of her readymade shoes, as well as recreated them. The interviewer comments that “it’s very Duchampian, this idea of taking the original readymade and making it into a fabricated readymade” (177). Levine agrees, expressing that she was very happy with this form of art. Levine recreated Duchamp’s famous Fountain by creating her own bronze urinal in order to further delve into the Duchampian ways of creating art.
Louise Lawler, an American artist and photographer, is quite honest in the opening of her interview. She states, “my own relationship to Duchamp is after the fact…to me Duchamp signaled a weird looking urinal…” (183). Lawler’s initial reaction to Duchamp’s work is similar to many people who initially find his work to be confusing, or not art at all. Lawler’s connection to Duchamp stems from his idea of art and its context. Lawler’s work consists primarily of photographing other art, which in turn creates a new work. Comically, at the end of the interview Lawler explains why she does not like interviews. She states that interviews “foreground the artist- tell too much about what wouldn’t be kwon be known when confronting the work” (186). I feel that Lawler’s quote stems from Duchamp's idea that art is about questioning, and probing an artist on their work only interferes with the desired impact of the art.
Fred Wilson provides an interesting insight because he is both and artist and a curator. He admits that most of his artwork “came from my experience in museums” (187). Wilson’s takes what would be consider artifacts of African American and Native American decent and pairs them with newer modes of art. He is “really interested in surprise and how one reacts on an emotion and intuitive level before the intellectual self kicks in” (188). Here, we can see the connection between Wilson and Duchamp. Duchamp liked to bend people’s realities and make them question and Wilson’s art essentially does this. Being a curator, Wilson has an insight to museums and how they work, which he used to create art shows that defy people’s views. This idea is also similar to how Duchamp used museum’s to show off his unusual artwork.
Ed Ruscha’s insight to Duchamp and his contribution to the art world was perhaps the most interesting. Ruscha, an American Pop Artist, discusses how Duchamp was taught in art school and how a major aspect of Duchamp’s appeal to young artist is his image of a rebel. Ruscha explains how Duchamp “was for the spirit of revolt”. The idea of rebellion is very appealing, and Ruscha admits that that is part of the reason why Duchamp had such a great influence upon his own work. Duchamp's idea of rebellion made Ruscha “aware that there was another way to think about things”, which is apparent in Ruscha’s artwork that uses odd ingredients as mediums.
After reading each of these interviews, it is very apparent that Duchamp continues to have an impact on the art world. Duchamp’s theory on the meaning behind art, what actual constitutes as art, and his overall “rebellious” style all contributed to his iconic legacy. While people might still be confused by his art, others have embraced that confusion and used it to inspire new artist forms, which will in turn continue to inspire both future artists and viewers.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
What is art today?
When someone is asked about what his or her favorite piece of art is, they normally would refer to either a painting or perhaps a sculpture. This is a case where the people of the present day have been subjected to what is socially acceptable. Who the artist is, how much it was sold for, or where the artwork was shown sets the standards in today’s society determines whether something is good art or bad art. It is not to say that sculptures and paintings are not great examples of fine art but rather it is as though a person has tunnel vision when thinking about what their favorite art is because they have not been subjected to biased opinions and not having the ability to see the many different art forms that are out there.
Suzi Gablik argues in her essay titled The Nature of Beauty In Contemporary Art that art is starting to become more than just going to a gallery. She describes how “a new paradigm of an engaged, participatory and socially relevant art is emerging.” Ms. Gablik shows how a majority of artists are selling their work to a dealer and the process they go through in doing so, it is not helping today’s society in any way. She finds out from one artist that “No artist has ever changed anything for better or worse." They believe they are not socially responsible for helping out the world and making it a better place. Ms. Gablik states this is completely wrong.
She then describes how one of her close friends her and friends take time once a month to go and clean garbage out of a river. She describes this as true art for it is helping the wellbeing of society. Her friend also makes a deep connection with the river to a point where the relationship is more than just how she was trying to help clean it out. The connection she makes is one that is deeper than she could have ever made with a painting or something she is viewing at an art gallery or a museum. It is because she is personally making her own connection with society and using the river as her landscape for creating her masterpiece. The connection she makes with the earth is far greater than one could ever make while stroking a brush a crossed a canvas because she is changing the earth for the better.
Joseph Beuys is an artist who is a bit exotic compared to others. He is known for his sculptures but one of his most famous pieces of work is his three night stay in New York City with a coyote. Mr. Beuys spent the time with the coyote in hopes of making a certain connection. This is far different from the concept of most artists work. Although the idea has sketched me out more than made me think of his artwork as unique and interesting, you still have to respect Mr. Beuys work for he is trying to help society for the better in the way he was trying to understand a form of life better.
Art has given the world many great contributions. The problem is the contributions have not helped the world’s society change for the good. Paintings will not pick up the garbage that is killing our environment. Sculptures do not help decrease the air pollution. Art comes in all shapes and forms so when someone is out in a ditch doing their part to help the environment I believe they are making a bigger connection with helping today’s society than an artist’s connection he is making with his work in a gallery with a viewer.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Working Too Hard to Make Art More “Natural”
Within Suzi Gablik’s article, “The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art,” she explains within an interview with James Hillman that: “‘Aesthetics doesn’t serve anything but itself and its own ends. I would like that to change’” (Gablik 7). In a way, I can agree with what Gablik is saying; to me, art has always been about winning the onlooker over with a work of art’s apparent physicality. The colors, texture, patterns within a painting are what is most important. In a sense, what makes the painting visually appealing to a large audience, or even to a single person, is what will make the artist money and give them the fame that they want. In this way of thinking, art is all about aesthetics. On the other hand, Suzi Gablik and fellow artist Joseph Beuys would both agree that art is so much more than the physical design of art to impress others and to make money, it is about creating something that will have a lasting impact on society, and returning to the natural root of the arts to truly send a message to others.
Although I agree that Suzi Gablik has some very innovative ideas regarding the new “paradigms,” in which contemporary art needs to stem from in order to thrive, I personally believe that both Gablik and Beuys are trying way too hard to revive the contemporary arts, and by doing so, trying to turn contemporary art into something that isn’t art at all. In a sense, I derived that Gablik is trying to make all things left alone in nature, art, and to bring the artist back to this natural world in everyday life. This is a bizarre phenomena all it itself. Within an interview with James Hillman discussing the River Project of Dominque Mazeaud, Gablik tries to emphasize the fact that art can truly be an artist who is socially active, picking trash out of a river. There doesn’t have to be a camera taking pictures, there doesn’t have to be a paintbrush making brush strokes on a canvas, or a pencil stenciling on paper. It just is. The scene of Mazeaud picking up trash throughout the river is a symbol of what should be done in today’s world. By suggesting these actions as an artist, Gablik tries to explain that by being socially and environmentally involved, the artist is taking a major role in promoting these very important ideas. Thus, the artist is taking art to a whole new level: to the community, aka “art in service of humanity” (Gablik 6). Therefore, art is no longer something beautiful with a face value. Art is something beautiful and natural; art is something that cannot be paid for. It is something that an artist has to work for without receiving cash back. An artist works for it to bring art back to its natural foundations while bringing the community together. I have to admit, that this is the most bizarre translation of art that I have ever read about. It is within this interview with Hillman, that I truly think Gablik and even Mazeaud are trying way too hard to turn contemporary art into something more natural than it has ever been. When I think of returning art to the natural world, I think of depicting nature within works more than actually “being” a part of the natural world. I’m not sure that the every-day art viewer would be able to agree or truly understand this message, because I certainly do not. As a beginner student, this is a very difficult concept to grasp.
Likewise, in a critical essay regarding the work of Joseph Beuys, entitled, “American Beuys,” by David Levi Strauss, I view Beuys as some sort of deranged art wizard who devotes his life to turning art into something that it is truly not. Beuys hosts a three-day exhibit in which he lives in a dark room with a coyote in order to bring art back to its natural realm. The Earth is art, in a sense. At one point in this bizarre exhibition, there is light that surfaced when ironically enough, a coyote peed all over the Wall Street Journal, in the middle of the dark room. Beuys instantly thought that that was a sign from the art gods that coyotes are trying to tell artists and mankind alike that it is time to reintroduce ourselves to nature. In a sense, this coyote symbol is a reference for all of us to reject the materialism that goes with art, and accept art for its natural beauty. Similar to Gablik’s thoughts, art should not just have a face value, it should have true meaning behind it that will change the minds of others.
I seem to agree that art work has become something that we have decided to hang on our walls and buy for high prices and not even think outside of the box. Although we expect artwork to be beautiful, we completely dismiss the fact that it should have a purpose, and that purpose could be to socially affect the minds of others. In my personal opinion, I think that cleaning a river is an act of service, not of art, and pretending to be a coyote for three days is just a bizarre cry for help.
Within Suzi Gablik’s article, “The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art,” she explains within an interview with James Hillman that: “‘Aesthetics doesn’t serve anything but itself and its own ends. I would like that to change’” (Gablik 7). In a way, I can agree with what Gablik is saying; to me, art has always been about winning the onlooker over with a work of art’s apparent physicality. The colors, texture, patterns within a painting are what is most important. In a sense, what makes the painting visually appealing to a large audience, or even to a single person, is what will make the artist money and give them the fame that they want. In this way of thinking, art is all about aesthetics. On the other hand, Suzi Gablik and fellow artist Joseph Beuys would both agree that art is so much more than the physical design of art to impress others and to make money, it is about creating something that will have a lasting impact on society, and returning to the natural root of the arts to truly send a message to others.
Although I agree that Suzi Gablik has some very innovative ideas regarding the new “paradigms,” in which contemporary art needs to stem from in order to thrive, I personally believe that both Gablik and Beuys are trying way too hard to revive the contemporary arts, and by doing so, trying to turn contemporary art into something that isn’t art at all. In a sense, I derived that Gablik is trying to make all things left alone in nature, art, and to bring the artist back to this natural world in everyday life. This is a bizarre phenomena all it itself. Within an interview with James Hillman discussing the River Project of Dominque Mazeaud, Gablik tries to emphasize the fact that art can truly be an artist who is socially active, picking trash out of a river. There doesn’t have to be a camera taking pictures, there doesn’t have to be a paintbrush making brush strokes on a canvas, or a pencil stenciling on paper. It just is. The scene of Mazeaud picking up trash throughout the river is a symbol of what should be done in today’s world. By suggesting these actions as an artist, Gablik tries to explain that by being socially and environmentally involved, the artist is taking a major role in promoting these very important ideas. Thus, the artist is taking art to a whole new level: to the community, aka “art in service of humanity” (Gablik 6). Therefore, art is no longer something beautiful with a face value. Art is something beautiful and natural; art is something that cannot be paid for. It is something that an artist has to work for without receiving cash back. An artist works for it to bring art back to its natural foundations while bringing the community together. I have to admit, that this is the most bizarre translation of art that I have ever read about. It is within this interview with Hillman, that I truly think Gablik and even Mazeaud are trying way too hard to turn contemporary art into something more natural than it has ever been. When I think of returning art to the natural world, I think of depicting nature within works more than actually “being” a part of the natural world. I’m not sure that the every-day art viewer would be able to agree or truly understand this message, because I certainly do not. As a beginner student, this is a very difficult concept to grasp.
Likewise, in a critical essay regarding the work of Joseph Beuys, entitled, “American Beuys,” by David Levi Strauss, I view Beuys as some sort of deranged art wizard who devotes his life to turning art into something that it is truly not. Beuys hosts a three-day exhibit in which he lives in a dark room with a coyote in order to bring art back to its natural realm. The Earth is art, in a sense. At one point in this bizarre exhibition, there is light that surfaced when ironically enough, a coyote peed all over the Wall Street Journal, in the middle of the dark room. Beuys instantly thought that that was a sign from the art gods that coyotes are trying to tell artists and mankind alike that it is time to reintroduce ourselves to nature. In a sense, this coyote symbol is a reference for all of us to reject the materialism that goes with art, and accept art for its natural beauty. Similar to Gablik’s thoughts, art should not just have a face value, it should have true meaning behind it that will change the minds of others.
I seem to agree that art work has become something that we have decided to hang on our walls and buy for high prices and not even think outside of the box. Although we expect artwork to be beautiful, we completely dismiss the fact that it should have a purpose, and that purpose could be to socially affect the minds of others. In my personal opinion, I think that cleaning a river is an act of service, not of art, and pretending to be a coyote for three days is just a bizarre cry for help.
-Kara Livingston
Artistic Responsibility in a Changing World
Suzi Gablik’s article “The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art” attempts to tackle the idea of social responsibility and how it relates to both artists and the art they create. She explains that while the older art paradigm placed little to no responsibility on artists, a newer vision has developed in which artists feel it is their societal duty to create different types of art, which ultimately comment on the world as a whole.
Gablik presents two different paradigms to define the “art world”. The first is the older, yet more traditional outlook on art. This world is comprised of the idea that artists are defined by whether or not their art is being shown or sold. As pointed out by Sandro Chia, this artistic world is influenced by the desire for “money, prestige, and power”, which is highly reflective upon society as a whole. This paradigm revolves around the idea that artists are reclusive beings, who are suppose to remain sheltered and oblivious to their social surroundings, resulting in a “relief of social responsibility”.
The second paradigm presented in Gablik’s article is a new movement within the art world, in which artists are realizing their role with in society and the importance that they develop a sense of “artistic responsibility”. This newfound artistic responsibility has caused many artists to begin addressing societal issues and crises within their work as a way of becoming more in tune with society. In order to do this, artist must shy away from the more traditional forms of art that hang in museums and instead choose to create a more “visible manifestation”. This form of art can be tied to David Levi Strauss’ essay “America Beuys”, which focuses on performance artists Joseph Beuys. While I cannot fully comprehend how Beuys’ performance of living with a coyote for three days constitutes as art, it is still an example of how an artist can choose to take a different route of expression to make a statement about society. Strauss theorizes that Beuys’ performance “called attention to the crisis brought about by mechanistic, materialistic, and positive thinking in the West”. Essentially, Beuys was making a social statement that humans need to be capable of adapting with a changing world.
Another main focus of Gablik’s article, which I personally found interesting, is the idea of beauty within art. Some art critics argue that when art is closely connected to the world, it loses its beauty. They feel that art should be pure and untainted by the evils of society. I, however, agree with Gablik’s opposing view; art that “compassionately responds” to whatever it is referring to makes the world more beautiful. I feel that this idea is closely connected to the emotional response one feels towards art, and as long as art creates some type of emotion, whether it be a positive or negative, it is beautiful.
In a conversation with Thomas Moore, Gablik ultimately concludes that placing the term “responsibility” upon artists gives it a negative connotation. Artist should not have to feel pressure to create art that critiques society, however, art should “celebrate and participate robustly in the life-world”. I particularly like Gablik’s use of the word celebrate. By viewing art as a celebration of life, society, and the world, it takes away some of the pressure of the world responsibility. While artists such as Beuys might not have been celebrating life, he was definitely using the newer paradigm to comment on his surroundings and to me art that it is socially aware and compassionate is exactly what this world needs to get people to stop and think.
By Hildy
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Lego Land or Broadway Boogie Woogie?
As I searched for a piece of artwork that was unusual, I came across Piet Mondrian's Broadway Boogie Woogie. This painting reminded me of my childhood days when I was obsessed with legos. I would avidly spend most of my afternoons building whatever my imagination was able to create on that certain day. Unfortunately, when I researched Mondrian's painting and his biography, he did not have the legos on his mind when he created one of his life's most famous works.
Piet Mondrian was born on March 7th, 1872 in Holland. His family was very artistic and gave him the chance to pursue his dream for the most part of becoming an artist for a living. His father was content on having Piet be able to make a living for himself besides just painting so he paid for his son to go to school to become an art teacher. Upon getting his degree for teaching, Piet wanted to pursue his real dream. Since his father could not afford for him to go to an art academy, his uncle Frits was able to obtain the money for him. There he studied full time or took night classes while also joined Artist Societies where he showed his work. During the rest of his time in Europe, Piet became known for his paintings as well as his articles that were published in a popular art magazine.
Mondrian ended up leaving Europe in 1940 due to the war, landing in New York City where he created Broadway Boogie Woogie. His abstract painting was done in his style which he deemed "Neoplasticism." Each of his paintings were done layer by layer until they were balanced by color, form and surface. In this last painting of his, Piet was said to be inspired by how fast New York City moved and its continuous motion. The yellow used in this painting were inspired by the yellow taxi cabs. He was fascinated by the way of life in the city and this painting was done to exhibit just that.
When I was done researching Piet Mondrian, I went back to viewing his last painting. It no longer appeared to me as something I could have created with my big box of legos when I was a child. The painting drew me in more, as I moved my eyes across the painting I could see how Mr. Mondrian would want his viewers to see why he created this piece of art. My eyes never stopped moving as his colors and patterns kept me occupied just as if New York City does to onlookers as they look around for the first time while visiting the big apple. I have learned through this assignment that with a little research abstract art is not as visually pleasing as I once thought it was. Before I looked at abstract art as boring because I did not understand that there is a reason for what the artist is trying to depict to a viewer. With realism the message was more direct to the viewer but abstract art must be looked at more than once and I am glad I have gotten a chance to understand this.
Chris
http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/mondrian2.html
http://paintings.name/piet-mondrian-biography.php
How Does Art Make You Feel?
As a child, I distinctly remember visiting the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and coming across a painting, which greatly confused me. There was nothing more to the painting other that the top half of the canvas was brown, and the bottom gray. After staring at the painting for a few minutes, I turned to my mother and said, “that’s not art, even I could paint that.” Even though many years have passed since I first came across this painting, Mark Rothko’s Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969 still causes me frustration. Can a painting involving two mundane colors on either half of the canvas really be considered art?
Mark Rothko was born in Dvinsk, Russia, but later immigrated to the United States. After growing up in Portland, Oregon, he attended Yale University, however, he dropped out in 1923 and moved to New York City. Rothko’s earlier paintings relied heavily upon an emotional approach, as well as a child-like take in terms of usage of color and shapes. (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/early5.shtm) As World War II approached, Rothko’s works took on a more symbolic approach. By using unnaturalistic forms of representation, he was able to comment on the changing world. During this time period, Rothko also developed a use for both mythology and religious influence in his paintings.
As the 1950s approached, Rothko’s style changed yet again, leading him to the style, which would eventually produce Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969. Rothko’s later work, called multi-forms, revolved around the use of “perceptual subtly” (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/late3.shtm). He began producing paintings using anywhere from one to four rectangular shapes in only a few different colors. He chose to not name these paintings, in fear of influencing the viewer’s perception or emotional connection to the painting.
Rothko’s Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969 is one of Rothko’s later paintings, using only two colors and on the entire canvas. After learning about its painter and the reasoning behind this type of art, I feel just as I did years ago. I am still confused about its meaning, purpose, and the fact that it is considered art. Are we supposed to appreciate the painting for its simplicity or use of the canvas? Critics have stated that unlike other abstract artist, Rothko did not abandon “the ability of abstract art to be experienced in emotionally expressive terms” (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/late7.shtm). This painting, however, draws no concrete emotion from me, nor does it make a grand statement about the human condition. The only emotion I feel is disappointment, because I cannot grasp its meaning. Perhaps this was Rothko’s ultimate goal, to create art that made people frustrated or confused. While I would love for Rothko’s painting to one day make sense to me, I feel that unfortunately I will never get this satisfaction, and that frustrating feeling I felt as a child will maintain steady in respect to Rothko’s artwork.
By Hildy Marinello
Lack of Proof is Frustrating
I could stare at some of Joan Mitchell’s abstract paintings for years and not understand its true meaning. If she never titled any of her paintings, I am certain that I would remain clueless as to what her true intent was when painting her “masterpieces.” Mitchell, who was born in Chicago, Illinois, and studied art and its history for most of her younger life, remains a mystery to me. Although she studied intensely at the Art Institute of Chicago, Columbia University, Hans Hofmann’s, and Smith’s College in order to ensure a solid education behind her passion for art, her paintings often appear meaningless and just plain confusing. It was a shock to find out on her website, www.joanmitchellfoundation.org, that she was actually influenced by Van Gogh. I never would’ve compared her paintings to his in a million years. She was known as a loyal, “American artist,” and wanted to portray the life of an American. Mitchell created vibrant paintings depicting the death of a sunflower, winter life living by a harbor, and she also had various untitled paintings that seem to have a life of their own. Although Mitchell studied at some of the best art universities in the nation, was influenced by other masters in art, and blends colors and designs that truly represent vibrancy, emotion, and life, I am still not convinced that some of her untitled and even titled paintings, are nothing more than blots and lines of paint on a canvas.
While I browsed a selection of Mitchell’s paintings, I came across a specific one, “The Marlin,” that was painted in 1960. Although it is one of her older paintings, it was one that intrigued me most because she uses a lot of bright blues and reds that almost seem as if they are in conflict with one another. If, in fact, Mitchell actually had an idea of what she was doing when painting “The Marlin,” it seems to me that this painting is not filled with happiness and content. The brush strokes alone seem to be filled with anger, resentment, and even danger of some sort. By just looking at the painting, I would never connect it with a “marlin.” However, once I read the title, the blue strokes became sort of an ocean. And the intense red strokes seem to be the marlin’s blood. Instantly I thought that maybe Mitchell was depicting a natural scene of life and death, because she was very into representing these processes in her other work. However, as I took a second glance, I noticed that the grey figures in the painting could possibly represent other fish along with the marlin. Thus, this could also represent the food-chain and the brutal process of death that comes with it. After a little research, I found out that the painting was supposed to represent a marlin trying to escape from a fisherman’s hook while it was already caught. Thus, the red strokes represent the marlin’s blood, while the blue strokes represent the water splashing as the marlin desperately tries to escape(http://americanart.si.edu/collections/).
What is so frustrating for me is the fact that if Mitchell removed the title, “The Marlin,” from her painting, I would never have guessed what the painting meant. What if I changed the title to, “Battlezone,” and claimed that the grey figures were that of soldiers, and the blood were that of their own as the run away from gun shots and bombings, which could be represented by the blue strokes? How could one deny that interpretation? What if I went further and labeled the painting, “Fireworks,” with all of the colors representing a beautiful Fourth of July display. How could one disprove this interpretation? They cannot if they had never seen Mitchell’s painting and title beforehand. This is what frustrates me most. Although the whole point of abstract art is to allow the viewer to interpret in as many ways as there are possible, it takes credit away from the artist. There is no way to prove that Mitchell really wanted to paint the scene of marlin catching, and not a battle scene, or even just random strokes on a piece of paper. It is her word against ours. In fact, Mitchell has defended her work in the past: “the freedom in my work is quite controlled. I don't close my eyes and hope for the best” (http://americanart.si.edu/collections).
-Kara Livingston
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Is Abstract Art Truly Art?
By Hildy Marinello
The debate over what constitutes as art is as old as the actual concept of art. Everyone from philosophers, critics, students, and “ordinary” people have discussed and argued how to define art. Throughout history, there have been many different movements within the art world, which have added to the growing debate. While there is by no means one singular definition of art, many critics have attempted to defend their theories. My own personal definition of art has always revolved around the idea that art must evoke an emotion out of the viewer. I prefer to look at a painting or sculpture and feel something than be confused by its abstract nature or design.
Fred Ross’ article “Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art” defines art as “a selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world” (Ross). Ross believes that abstract art is essentially useless due to its lack of deeper meaning and artistic skill involved. I agree with Ross’ idea that real art from artists such as Botticelli and Michelangelo require “highly trained skills and a mature mental vision” as opposed to arts such as Pollack whose art medium simply involved throwing paint on a canvas. Ross’ statement that “real art communicates or expresses compelling stories about the odyssey of human life” poetically sums up his idea that real art is about emotion, not about “abstract” uses of paint to create a meaningless piece of artwork.
Unlike Ross, other critics such as Clement Greenburg believe that abstract art has value. Greenburg’s article “Towards a Newer Laocoon” concentrates on the idea of abstract art and its development over time. He essentially defends abstract art using historical justification and by comparing it to the medium of literature. Greenburg states that abstract art “reflects social and other circumstances of the age in which its creator lived” while also using the term avant-garde to defend artists choice to be abstract. Some of the theories that Greenburg discusses revolve around the artists escape from ideas, which can hinder their creativity. He also discusses how Impressionism “abandoned common sense experience” (Greenburg).
While both Ross and Greenburg present strong arguments, I personally side with Ross’ interpretation of art. Art needs to be comprised of two essential qualities; someone with honed skill must create it and it must evoke an emotion. The idea of art as a mode of communication between artist and viewer is essential for deciphering “good” art from “bad” art. While Greenburg feels that abstract art must be taken for exactly what it is, I feel that true, real art is the type described by Ross.
The debate over what constitutes as art is as old as the actual concept of art. Everyone from philosophers, critics, students, and “ordinary” people have discussed and argued how to define art. Throughout history, there have been many different movements within the art world, which have added to the growing debate. While there is by no means one singular definition of art, many critics have attempted to defend their theories. My own personal definition of art has always revolved around the idea that art must evoke an emotion out of the viewer. I prefer to look at a painting or sculpture and feel something than be confused by its abstract nature or design.
Fred Ross’ article “Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art” defines art as “a selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world” (Ross). Ross believes that abstract art is essentially useless due to its lack of deeper meaning and artistic skill involved. I agree with Ross’ idea that real art from artists such as Botticelli and Michelangelo require “highly trained skills and a mature mental vision” as opposed to arts such as Pollack whose art medium simply involved throwing paint on a canvas. Ross’ statement that “real art communicates or expresses compelling stories about the odyssey of human life” poetically sums up his idea that real art is about emotion, not about “abstract” uses of paint to create a meaningless piece of artwork.
Unlike Ross, other critics such as Clement Greenburg believe that abstract art has value. Greenburg’s article “Towards a Newer Laocoon” concentrates on the idea of abstract art and its development over time. He essentially defends abstract art using historical justification and by comparing it to the medium of literature. Greenburg states that abstract art “reflects social and other circumstances of the age in which its creator lived” while also using the term avant-garde to defend artists choice to be abstract. Some of the theories that Greenburg discusses revolve around the artists escape from ideas, which can hinder their creativity. He also discusses how Impressionism “abandoned common sense experience” (Greenburg).
While both Ross and Greenburg present strong arguments, I personally side with Ross’ interpretation of art. Art needs to be comprised of two essential qualities; someone with honed skill must create it and it must evoke an emotion. The idea of art as a mode of communication between artist and viewer is essential for deciphering “good” art from “bad” art. While Greenburg feels that abstract art must be taken for exactly what it is, I feel that true, real art is the type described by Ross.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Realism Vs. Abstract
By Chris Pearce
Jackson Pollack was a master of creating what he called "true art." What most of us would think we could do in preschool by finger painting and throwing paint onto a sheet of paper he was doing and in doing so, he created some of his masterpieces. The problem with Jackson Pollack's paintings is that critics believe what he calls art is not as appealing as Pollack would believe it to be. Some critics describe his work as not showing a message where humans can react with their emotions because it does not depict images of events.
In "Abstract art is not abstract and definitely not art" by Fred Ross, Mr. Ross looks as Jackson Pollack as not a true artist for Pollack does not take into account the work of past artists. In Fred Ross' point of view, Mr. Pollack does not show in his paintings works of art that can fully bring out emotion from the viewers that would make them able to relate to his work in lifelike events. Those who view Jackson Pollack's work may think of it as abstract art that is well crafted but as for drawing the viewer in and making them connect with the painting in some way emotionally, that can not be delivered. Fred Ross describes how emotions are felt through viewing paintings as “The greatest works explore beauty or tragedy in life." Maybe if a child in preschool were viewing Jackson Pollack's paintings they can relate more towards what he has been able to create emotionally than most adults when viewing his work.
There have been some critics who have embraced Jackson Pollacks work. "Towards a Newer Laocoon" by Clement Greenberg, Greenberg describes Jackson's work as being motivation for aspiring artists because of its abstractness. Greenberg believes most critics are scared of abstract art becoming to dominant from that of past artists. He describes how mediums are used more in a obvious manor than a traditional artists.
Greenberg may have a point in how when looking at an abstract piece of art, it may invoke more reactions because of the mediums used and how there isn't a direct story being painted, but I agree more with Fred Ross. Ross believes abstract art isn't as definitive of what art should be looked at for it does not correlate what an artist as taken from past artists added his or her own spice to it. Realism brings out a raw emotion that is drawn from the viewer when they try to distinguish what the artist point is of trying to get across to them. An abstract artist may try to deliver a certain message but can be misinterpreted more easily than a realist painting can be taken as. In regard to these essays, I believe I agree more with Fred Ross because of the fact that emotions can be correctly drawn from the viewer through realism than through abstract art.
Jackson Pollack was a master of creating what he called "true art." What most of us would think we could do in preschool by finger painting and throwing paint onto a sheet of paper he was doing and in doing so, he created some of his masterpieces. The problem with Jackson Pollack's paintings is that critics believe what he calls art is not as appealing as Pollack would believe it to be. Some critics describe his work as not showing a message where humans can react with their emotions because it does not depict images of events.
In "Abstract art is not abstract and definitely not art" by Fred Ross, Mr. Ross looks as Jackson Pollack as not a true artist for Pollack does not take into account the work of past artists. In Fred Ross' point of view, Mr. Pollack does not show in his paintings works of art that can fully bring out emotion from the viewers that would make them able to relate to his work in lifelike events. Those who view Jackson Pollack's work may think of it as abstract art that is well crafted but as for drawing the viewer in and making them connect with the painting in some way emotionally, that can not be delivered. Fred Ross describes how emotions are felt through viewing paintings as “The greatest works explore beauty or tragedy in life." Maybe if a child in preschool were viewing Jackson Pollack's paintings they can relate more towards what he has been able to create emotionally than most adults when viewing his work.
There have been some critics who have embraced Jackson Pollacks work. "Towards a Newer Laocoon" by Clement Greenberg, Greenberg describes Jackson's work as being motivation for aspiring artists because of its abstractness. Greenberg believes most critics are scared of abstract art becoming to dominant from that of past artists. He describes how mediums are used more in a obvious manor than a traditional artists.
Greenberg may have a point in how when looking at an abstract piece of art, it may invoke more reactions because of the mediums used and how there isn't a direct story being painted, but I agree more with Fred Ross. Ross believes abstract art isn't as definitive of what art should be looked at for it does not correlate what an artist as taken from past artists added his or her own spice to it. Realism brings out a raw emotion that is drawn from the viewer when they try to distinguish what the artist point is of trying to get across to them. An abstract artist may try to deliver a certain message but can be misinterpreted more easily than a realist painting can be taken as. In regard to these essays, I believe I agree more with Fred Ross because of the fact that emotions can be correctly drawn from the viewer through realism than through abstract art.
Banjo Lesson
Banjo Lesson
Henry Ossawa Tanner
African American
1893
Realism
This piece by Henry O. Turner portrays an elderly African American teaching an African American boy how to play the banjo. It is a perfect representation of art because it is a perfect example of realism. The artist is clearly trying to show what African American life was like when slavery was still in effect. The elderly man has to have patients with the young boy and that is what slavery was like for the African Americans. They had a life of small simple pleasures, music being one of them. I enjoyed viewing this painting because of it's simplicity and how it depicts the way slaves tried to enjoy their free time. It is a part of our history to see how they were mistreated and this painting showed how they were trying to enjoy life through something such as music. Music was a way of helping them cope with their hard life and this painting is a perfect example of how their heritage passed down the tradition of music. The banjo brought join into their lives where pain was eased when listening to the sounds played by this specific instrument during that time period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)