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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)