Saturday, May 7, 2011
John Armlender
When speaking about Modernism, John Armlender says, "We think of modernism as being characterized by an obsession with “tomorrow,” but we’re now living in that tomorrow". I really agree with that statement. Back in the early 1900s people still used horses and carriages as a main form of transportation. People either spoke in person or wrote letters. The concept of being able to travel from 1 coast to the next in something that flew in the sky in roughly 6 hours was craziness. We have planes, computers that fit in our pockets, the ability to speak to someone face to face(Skpe) who is living on the other side of the world, cars are the main form of transportation. This is the future that people could only imagine. I think that is really quite amazing; 100 years ago none of these things where even possible. I can only imagine how terrifying it would be to be from the 1900-20s to time travel to 2011. What technology is capable of today is mind blowing. The way that technology changes things are going to be so much different in only ten years from now, let alone another 50 or 100.
I loved that Armlender said, "Most important, I've never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself". I think that as an artist you need to be aware that what you make is going to have a different effect on people. I think that an artist needs to be unbais about their own work...by not believing your own thoughts towards a piece has anything to do with the piece is the best way to separate yourself from the things you spill your heart and blood into.
Artist have been recycling forms and ideas for centuries. I liked how John Armlender simply put it, "form becomes effective merely because you are reusing". It adds a repetition and emphasis on something that may or may not have been important before; recycling it for your own will tends to make it more significant than it was previously. Art is always recycling itself. I guess I've always known that but it didn't really set in until this year in art history then the idea that art keeps playing on itself, borrowing things from the past, and pulling from other sources for inspiration.
I found it interesting that the only thing in the room of dots that was Armlender's was the dot painted "background" that he placed the found paintings, used dots, on top of. At this point in my life I don't think I would be very interested in doing work like that; who's to say 20 years from now I might be very into that type of thing. I can see myself slowly drifting into liking to work that way. Recently I've been more concerned with art as a process instead of a final product. While reading about the dot paintings I felt that the entire piece was based on research. Armlender had to find and decide what paintings he was going to show and how he would display them all. I liked his process for the final piece.
Precision and vagueness is a dialect that Armlender likes to think and work with. He thought of using and repeating certain objects to create a sense of dejavu. The fact that he repeated light sources was what made everything highly specific; on the other hand the light sources changed dramatically that the fact that they were so specific it became vague. I've thought about whether or not I work in that manner or not. While thinking about this, I don't think I work like this all the time but on occasion it happens. I never said to myself,"Hey, I'm going to make this thing very specific but because of how specific things are its going to end up being mudvayne". I think it just kinda comes, that's why I really liked Armlender's thought," Whenever you look at anything, it’s always with a mixture of vagueness and precision, especially if you’re talking about art." It reinforces how I think it's just always there. Leaves are very detailed and individual, but 1000s of leaves on a tree loose that specificity.
I don't believe in explaining things to an audience. I think it's the artworks job to communicate it to the viewers itself; if the art cannot speak for itself it wasn't executed well. I think that art is more interesting that way. If you throw all the answers out, nothing is left to question or up to interpretation.
I think John Armlender's way of going about making art is honest. I think its the only thing that matters is in making art is to make it for yourself. I think what Armlender was getting at was that he was remaining honest to himself while making art. I also think that creating things that everyone can enjoy is important. You want the smartest person and the dumbest person in the room to be able to view it and have some type of understanding.
I loved that Armlender said, "Most important, I've never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself". I think that as an artist you need to be aware that what you make is going to have a different effect on people. I think that an artist needs to be unbais about their own work...by not believing your own thoughts towards a piece has anything to do with the piece is the best way to separate yourself from the things you spill your heart and blood into.
Artist have been recycling forms and ideas for centuries. I liked how John Armlender simply put it, "form becomes effective merely because you are reusing". It adds a repetition and emphasis on something that may or may not have been important before; recycling it for your own will tends to make it more significant than it was previously. Art is always recycling itself. I guess I've always known that but it didn't really set in until this year in art history then the idea that art keeps playing on itself, borrowing things from the past, and pulling from other sources for inspiration.
I found it interesting that the only thing in the room of dots that was Armlender's was the dot painted "background" that he placed the found paintings, used dots, on top of. At this point in my life I don't think I would be very interested in doing work like that; who's to say 20 years from now I might be very into that type of thing. I can see myself slowly drifting into liking to work that way. Recently I've been more concerned with art as a process instead of a final product. While reading about the dot paintings I felt that the entire piece was based on research. Armlender had to find and decide what paintings he was going to show and how he would display them all. I liked his process for the final piece.
Precision and vagueness is a dialect that Armlender likes to think and work with. He thought of using and repeating certain objects to create a sense of dejavu. The fact that he repeated light sources was what made everything highly specific; on the other hand the light sources changed dramatically that the fact that they were so specific it became vague. I've thought about whether or not I work in that manner or not. While thinking about this, I don't think I work like this all the time but on occasion it happens. I never said to myself,"Hey, I'm going to make this thing very specific but because of how specific things are its going to end up being mudvayne". I think it just kinda comes, that's why I really liked Armlender's thought," Whenever you look at anything, it’s always with a mixture of vagueness and precision, especially if you’re talking about art." It reinforces how I think it's just always there. Leaves are very detailed and individual, but 1000s of leaves on a tree loose that specificity.
I don't believe in explaining things to an audience. I think it's the artworks job to communicate it to the viewers itself; if the art cannot speak for itself it wasn't executed well. I think that art is more interesting that way. If you throw all the answers out, nothing is left to question or up to interpretation.
I think John Armlender's way of going about making art is honest. I think its the only thing that matters is in making art is to make it for yourself. I think what Armlender was getting at was that he was remaining honest to himself while making art. I also think that creating things that everyone can enjoy is important. You want the smartest person and the dumbest person in the room to be able to view it and have some type of understanding.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Tyler vs. 36 Chambers
I was extremely surprised while watching 36th Chamber of the striking similarities it shared with Tyler/art school. I found myself shaking my head and thinking, "YES, YES, YES!" many times through the movie while thinking about it metaphorically.
I feel like the entire movie was an ongoing metaphor for art school and art in general. The main character wants to learn martial arts sooooooooooooo bad in order to better his wya of liveing and to make a difference. He jumps through all of these hoops to finally get to the school but then is stuck sweeping the floor, a task that must be done and is important but he feels it is irrelevent. When he is allowed into the program to learn martial arts he has to go through stages of task that seem crazy and impossible as a way opf learning.
It felt like an on going nightmare when I was going through the admission process at Tyler: grades didn't allow me to attend Temple, trouble transfering community college classes to Temple, new tyler portfolio review, Tyler lost my portfolio, waitlisted........ I was really happy to finially be going to art school this past fall but when it came down to do the work I found it conflicting. I wanted to make art and felt like all I was doing was completeing assignments that I needed to do, not anything that I wanted to make. I know those things that I was forced to do in foundation year were impoartant, but I did felt like they were pointless. I didn't want to make color charts or perspective drawings. The assignments that are given sometimes seems ridiculas and unachieveable: 50 city hall drawings, creating abstract narratives, or 6'x6' drawings.
My favorite part of the movie was when the main character invented the nunchucks. While he was hitting the tree in frustration an apifinany occured. I know through out this year at school I have been so frustrated and pissed off at projects and then out of know where a sinaps will happen and everything comes together.
I deffinitely think that artist are like monks.I think that monks like artist see a bigger picture in things that others may think is pointless and irrelevent to the situation. The only problem I have with compairing an artist to a monk is, usually when monks are thought about they are considered to be peaceful people. I feel like an artist who is at peace with the world has nothing to say. Art is about what we have to say to the world.
Abbot's quote "it's peaceful in this temple but outside is turbulen
I'm not really sure how art making is going to be like when I am out of school. About a year and half ago a met a man who had graduated from RISD with a painting major a few years prior; since the day he graduated he never picked up a paintbrush or made any art. He claimed school ruined art for him and eventually was the cause of him not liking it anymore. I can understand why this kid felt that way after going to art school for a year now. Art school is rough and cynical and you can easily get the feeling that nothing you make is good. Its a double ended sword though because I want school to be like that because what's going to push me if all I hear is positive input constantly. I think things ended up like that for him because he wasn't truly passionate towards what he was doing(at the time of the conversation he was attending a film school and so much happier with that). The way I make art after school ultimately depends on what type of person that this school twist me into. I'm pretty sure I'm going to making things till I die, after all I've been making things since I was old enough to hold crayons. I've beginning to realize that art is more about processes instead of the end product and I like that. I think that's what art making is going to be all about once I leave Tyler.
I feel like the entire movie was an ongoing metaphor for art school and art in general. The main character wants to learn martial arts sooooooooooooo bad in order to better his wya of liveing and to make a difference. He jumps through all of these hoops to finally get to the school but then is stuck sweeping the floor, a task that must be done and is important but he feels it is irrelevent. When he is allowed into the program to learn martial arts he has to go through stages of task that seem crazy and impossible as a way opf learning.
It felt like an on going nightmare when I was going through the admission process at Tyler: grades didn't allow me to attend Temple, trouble transfering community college classes to Temple, new tyler portfolio review, Tyler lost my portfolio, waitlisted........ I was really happy to finially be going to art school this past fall but when it came down to do the work I found it conflicting. I wanted to make art and felt like all I was doing was completeing assignments that I needed to do, not anything that I wanted to make. I know those things that I was forced to do in foundation year were impoartant, but I did felt like they were pointless. I didn't want to make color charts or perspective drawings. The assignments that are given sometimes seems ridiculas and unachieveable: 50 city hall drawings, creating abstract narratives, or 6'x6' drawings.
My favorite part of the movie was when the main character invented the nunchucks. While he was hitting the tree in frustration an apifinany occured. I know through out this year at school I have been so frustrated and pissed off at projects and then out of know where a sinaps will happen and everything comes together.
I deffinitely think that artist are like monks.I think that monks like artist see a bigger picture in things that others may think is pointless and irrelevent to the situation. The only problem I have with compairing an artist to a monk is, usually when monks are thought about they are considered to be peaceful people. I feel like an artist who is at peace with the world has nothing to say. Art is about what we have to say to the world.
Abbot's quote "it's peaceful in this temple but outside is turbulen
I'm not really sure how art making is going to be like when I am out of school. About a year and half ago a met a man who had graduated from RISD with a painting major a few years prior; since the day he graduated he never picked up a paintbrush or made any art. He claimed school ruined art for him and eventually was the cause of him not liking it anymore. I can understand why this kid felt that way after going to art school for a year now. Art school is rough and cynical and you can easily get the feeling that nothing you make is good. Its a double ended sword though because I want school to be like that because what's going to push me if all I hear is positive input constantly. I think things ended up like that for him because he wasn't truly passionate towards what he was doing(at the time of the conversation he was attending a film school and so much happier with that). The way I make art after school ultimately depends on what type of person that this school twist me into. I'm pretty sure I'm going to making things till I die, after all I've been making things since I was old enough to hold crayons. I've beginning to realize that art is more about processes instead of the end product and I like that. I think that's what art making is going to be all about once I leave Tyler.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Emily Rooney
There are photos pinned to the walls of woman (that remind me of disco) and a quarry. On the ground there is a black mat with various black objects on it: ceramic penny loafers, a squeegee with tar on it, burnt/melted records, fruit... Parallel from the black mat there are 2 sets of cinder-blocks. The first set has what looks like sparklers or incense placed on the top of them; the second set has ash in the same line (as the sparklers/incense) on them. Leaning on a wall there is metal. It is in the shape if a line, a rough heart, 'n','4', and an 'E'. In the other room there is a marble tub with a sheet of paper placed on the left hand side. There is also a black cloth that is hanging on the wall across from the tub. In the furthest section of the gallery space there is a film playing. It is of a woman who is dancing in slow motion. The music it plays sounds as if the speed on the turn table was turned down. You can hear the drowning sounds throughout the entire gallery.
I felt as if every single thing was picked for a specific reason, but I wasn't able to grasp why; it really frustrated me. The pieces all seemed to relate to each other in terms of color and subject. The black objects mirrored the after effects of a fire that was hinted at with the sparklers and ash. The black objects that were chosen even hinted at extreme heats/ fire with the tar and melted vinyl. The tub reflected on to the photo of the quarry, the woman dancing also was shown in the photograph of the woman pinned to the wall.
I feel like the scale of the objects was also very important. The first room seemed to be completely full because of the objects placed in the center of the floor and the metal propped up against the wall. In comparison to the first room the back two rooms was very open and airy.
I felt as if every single thing was picked for a specific reason, but I wasn't able to grasp why; it really frustrated me. The pieces all seemed to relate to each other in terms of color and subject. The black objects mirrored the after effects of a fire that was hinted at with the sparklers and ash. The black objects that were chosen even hinted at extreme heats/ fire with the tar and melted vinyl. The tub reflected on to the photo of the quarry, the woman dancing also was shown in the photograph of the woman pinned to the wall.
I feel like the scale of the objects was also very important. The first room seemed to be completely full because of the objects placed in the center of the floor and the metal propped up against the wall. In comparison to the first room the back two rooms was very open and airy.
I just wish I knew why everything was chosen and what the entire picture was conceptually.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
PMA (round II)
What I liked best about Étant donnés is it's mystery. I love how when you glance into the room it doesn't look like much: just a door on a wall. You have to walk close to it to realize that there is something more. You have to examine the door to notice two peep holes that can be looked through. A lot of people actaully don't spend the time to take the entire piece in; I started taking tallies of people who didn't realize that the piece was more than just the door. Within 5 minute time span 6 people did a quick glance into the room then proceeded to walk away.
The colors of this piece are broken up into what is on one side of the door and what is on the other side. On the viewers side, it is dark, dingy, and dimly lit; the door is brown, the bricks are a beige, the floor is also a brown. When you look through to the scene the colors are very different. There is a blue sky, green trees, and a blonde woman. What ties the colors of both sides together for me is that the figure is gray and lifeless compared to the rest of the scenery that surrounds her.
I'm not really sure that the colors bring me back to a time in my life. At the museum I didn't make the connection while taking notes but now that I'm formally writing it all down I realize that the piece as a whole reminds me of when I was no older than 5 years old. My grandfather is a dairy farmer. My family used to drive up to my grandparents home for the weekend, when we lived closer, every couple months. While we were there my grandfather would take us with him to the barn in the mornings. The barn door of the piece reminds me of that.
The museum itself has a dingy smell to it; everything smells old and sterile. When look through the peep holes of Etant donnes you can't but help smell the old wood that makes up the door; the scent cannot be escaped when you're standing that close to the door. The smell makes the piece seem more real. It makes it more realistic that you are a peeping tom.
Because Etant donnes is located in the left hand corner of the Duchamp gallery, I feel that the piece gets forgotten. Tying back to what I said a few paragraphs ago...many people glance quickly into the room realize it's dark and has a door and assume that's all there is to see so they walk away. The room seems separate from the rest of the works in the gallery. Even though it is right next to the ready-mades and erotic objects, it's placement doesn't relate. The installation is a separate room, alienating itself from everything else. Obviously, the piece is the largest thing in the exhibit, but it's separated from everything else so that connection isn't made.
Comments heard regarding Etant donnes:
Woman: "whoa she's in there!?........(walked to information posted on wall and reads) it's a secret, it doesn't even tell you!"
Young Child: "What is that?"
Father: "You know what that is. Looks like Mommy....when she's naked."
Woman: "awww the waterfall is sparkly"
The colors of this piece are broken up into what is on one side of the door and what is on the other side. On the viewers side, it is dark, dingy, and dimly lit; the door is brown, the bricks are a beige, the floor is also a brown. When you look through to the scene the colors are very different. There is a blue sky, green trees, and a blonde woman. What ties the colors of both sides together for me is that the figure is gray and lifeless compared to the rest of the scenery that surrounds her.
I'm not really sure that the colors bring me back to a time in my life. At the museum I didn't make the connection while taking notes but now that I'm formally writing it all down I realize that the piece as a whole reminds me of when I was no older than 5 years old. My grandfather is a dairy farmer. My family used to drive up to my grandparents home for the weekend, when we lived closer, every couple months. While we were there my grandfather would take us with him to the barn in the mornings. The barn door of the piece reminds me of that.
The museum itself has a dingy smell to it; everything smells old and sterile. When look through the peep holes of Etant donnes you can't but help smell the old wood that makes up the door; the scent cannot be escaped when you're standing that close to the door. The smell makes the piece seem more real. It makes it more realistic that you are a peeping tom.
Because Etant donnes is located in the left hand corner of the Duchamp gallery, I feel that the piece gets forgotten. Tying back to what I said a few paragraphs ago...many people glance quickly into the room realize it's dark and has a door and assume that's all there is to see so they walk away. The room seems separate from the rest of the works in the gallery. Even though it is right next to the ready-mades and erotic objects, it's placement doesn't relate. The installation is a separate room, alienating itself from everything else. Obviously, the piece is the largest thing in the exhibit, but it's separated from everything else so that connection isn't made.
Comments heard regarding Etant donnes:
Woman: "whoa she's in there!?........(walked to information posted on wall and reads) it's a secret, it doesn't even tell you!"
Young Child: "What is that?"
Father: "You know what that is. Looks like Mommy....when she's naked."
Woman: "awww the waterfall is sparkly"
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Marcel Duchamp: Étant donnés
When you walk into the Duchamp gallery at the PMA you see the Large Glass in the center of the room with readymades on the left hand side against the wall. In the corner, next to the readymades there is a dark little room that is roughly 10'x10'(this is an eye ball estimate). Walking into the room with a burlap floor, you see a wooden barn door; the closer you walk towards the door you realize that there are two peep holes. When to peer into the holes a scene of a nude woman holding a gas lantern while she is laying in a pile of leaves and tigs; no matter the angle you look into the holes you cannot see her face. She looks deathly. Her skin radiates coldness and death; the flesh in tinted with blues and grays. The mannequin of the woman has long blonde hair, even the hair itself looks dead; the blonde hair appears to be dirty. Just like the figure, the hair has a hint of gray to it. The only liveliness to the woman is that she is holding a lantern. Behind her is a lovely forest scene. There is a moving waterfall, bright blue sky, and cool green trees.
This happened, maybe the second or third time I went to the PMA but I was slightly shocked. A woman, man, and a young girl who was maybe 3 or 4 walked into the room to view the Illuminating Gas. The man and woman looked through the peep holes and were completely fascinated by what they has saw and started talking about the woman laying in the sticks. The little girl wanted to gaze into the holes like her parents had. They would not let her. They claimed it was not for little girls to see. Maybe I'll be an awful parent but I didn't see anything wrong with letting the girl view the image. I also found it funny that there are many paintings at the museum of people being slaughtered and dead animals, but Duchamp's piece wasn't acceptable. I don't quite understand that.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
"The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."
- Lawrence Weiner responding to a question from Liam Gillick in "Between Artists"
pg20
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)