I liked the concept behind Jason, Geoff, Alaina, and Maia's mapping project and I thought that the finished product had a kind of splendor; it was cosmic chaos.
On the first critique day, I liked their initial idea. They would plot out the points of certain constellations and find where they landed on a map of the twin cities. Then, they would pick a few of these points and travel there. The goal was to find works of art in and around the area of the point. It was complicated but once it was all worked out it seemed as if it would make sense.
I was impressed with their presentation. Their map was well put together and aesthetically pleasing. However, I felt that some things could have been done to make it a little clearer for the viewer. An explanation of how the stars were plotted out might have helped. It was explained in the presentation of it but for a first time viewer with no background it might be necessary. Also, although it was easy to pick out the subjects that this group chose (per the assignment requirements) it was difficult to see a correlation between those subjects and the Walker. I would have like to have seen the Walker used more effectively.
Ultimately, I feel that with a little more time each of the projects presented at last weeks critique could have been very impressive. As it was, we did what we could and our finished projects are all very interesting.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Walker Art Center
Richard Prince on Art Critics: " I guess in those days I didn't particularly understand the relationship between artist and critic, and I didn't care to establish any relationship. Critics tried to tell you what you were doing, and wanted you to make the kind of work that they were thinking about. I probably resented that."
The piece that I would like to focus on is called, “Was That a Girl” by Richard Prince. The artist used two very modern colors (lavender and light green) and bisected the middle by writing, “I met my first girl. Her name was Sally. Was that a girl, was that a girl. That’s what people kept asking.” At first, I was negatively drawn to this piece. I thought it was plain and its meaning was, at first, lost on me. I wanted something that I could instantly understand like Warhol’s “Nine Jackies” (http://www.andywarholposter.com/Nine-Jackies-1964_Print_84.html). But as our tour guide began to talk more about “Was That a Girl” I began to understand and, ultimately, like it better.
This painting confronts sexism with an interesting kind of complexity. Mary Stewart wrote of many different kinds of complexities in “Launching the Imagination” and this painting is most like “Risk-Taking and Safe-Keeping”. One can either read the text as an exclamation, “Boy, was that a girl!” That one, I believe would be “safe-keeping”. The interpreter confronts the phrase “was that a girl” in a way that is most comfortable and, perhaps, follows the rules. Or, it can be read as a question, “Was that a girl?” And that one, I believe, is “risk-taking”. The interpreter confronts the phrase “was that a girl” in a open-ended, surprised kind of way.
I first saw it as a question, “Was that a girl?” And it wasn’t that I took offense to it, I was just put off by it. I felt that it was typical of a modern artist to raise a question like that. I wanted to find something in the modern art section that surprised me. It wasn’t until our tour guide pointed out the two ways that “Was That a Girl” could be interpreted, that I was finally intrigued. This painting, depending on which way you understand it, can give you a very different feeling. I found an article written by Peggy Orenstein for the New York Times that explains how I feel about the piece, “There is something mysterious at work, then, that makes us who we are, something internally driven. Maybe it’s about our innate need to categorize the world around us. My guess, however, is that it’s deeper than that, something that transcends objectivity, defies explanation.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13FOB-WWLN-t.html)
The piece that I would like to focus on is called, “Was That a Girl” by Richard Prince. The artist used two very modern colors (lavender and light green) and bisected the middle by writing, “I met my first girl. Her name was Sally. Was that a girl, was that a girl. That’s what people kept asking.” At first, I was negatively drawn to this piece. I thought it was plain and its meaning was, at first, lost on me. I wanted something that I could instantly understand like Warhol’s “Nine Jackies” (http://www.andywarholposter.com/Nine-Jackies-1964_Print_84.html). But as our tour guide began to talk more about “Was That a Girl” I began to understand and, ultimately, like it better.
This painting confronts sexism with an interesting kind of complexity. Mary Stewart wrote of many different kinds of complexities in “Launching the Imagination” and this painting is most like “Risk-Taking and Safe-Keeping”. One can either read the text as an exclamation, “Boy, was that a girl!” That one, I believe would be “safe-keeping”. The interpreter confronts the phrase “was that a girl” in a way that is most comfortable and, perhaps, follows the rules. Or, it can be read as a question, “Was that a girl?” And that one, I believe, is “risk-taking”. The interpreter confronts the phrase “was that a girl” in a open-ended, surprised kind of way.
I first saw it as a question, “Was that a girl?” And it wasn’t that I took offense to it, I was just put off by it. I felt that it was typical of a modern artist to raise a question like that. I wanted to find something in the modern art section that surprised me. It wasn’t until our tour guide pointed out the two ways that “Was That a Girl” could be interpreted, that I was finally intrigued. This painting, depending on which way you understand it, can give you a very different feeling. I found an article written by Peggy Orenstein for the New York Times that explains how I feel about the piece, “There is something mysterious at work, then, that makes us who we are, something internally driven. Maybe it’s about our innate need to categorize the world around us. My guess, however, is that it’s deeper than that, something that transcends objectivity, defies explanation.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13FOB-WWLN-t.html)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Midway Contemporary
"Secret Life of Objects"
Midway Contemporary was an exciting experience. It was filled with such random art. Some pieces were easy to relate to and others made me raise my eyebrow in confu
sion. I liked almost all of the work but picking one that I negatively responded to was quite easy. In the first room there was a piece that I believe was called "Untitled" by Nate Hylden (Sorry for the poor quality of the photo). It was acrylic on aluminum. Usually I look at this type of work and I really like it. I like the dripping of paint and the "careless" nature of the work. But there was something different about this one. It was dizzying. It looked as if it had been screened on or too layered and was a little blurry. I felt like I was trying to look at something interesting but someone kept holding something up to my face and obstructing the view. In fact, while I looked at this painting I felt like I was wearing glasses with the wrong prescription. I believe that if it had been clearer it would have been more effective. But perhaps the artist used the obstructive view to mean something. Perhaps I missed that point...
Things that came to mind while viewing "Untitled": Mass confusion, obsctructed views, listening to Nirvana , accidents happen, bad ruckus
The peice that I was positively drawn to was called "Lonesome Boogie Rattler" by Cameron Jamie. I loved it! It was ink on paper on board. I love works that are inky & drippy and generally messy. I felt that this peice had a lot of motion through out it. The artist used all sorts of curves and weights to give character to the work. I could even make out a story. What drew me in to this piece was the fact that looking from far away it just looked like lots of ink; as if someone had spilled their ink well. But when you got closer you saw the finer details, the smudges and lines were no mistake.
Things that came to mind while viewing "Lonesome Boogie Rattler": lines in motion, "visceral", agony and/or ecstasy, listening to a Kinks song, definite, Edgar Allen Poe, good ruckus
Ultimately, Midway was great and I would like to go back soon to visit their library and rummage through what they've got more thoroughly.
- m
Midway Contemporary was an exciting experience. It was filled with such random art. Some pieces were easy to relate to and others made me raise my eyebrow in confu
sion. I liked almost all of the work but picking one that I negatively responded to was quite easy. In the first room there was a piece that I believe was called "Untitled" by Nate Hylden (Sorry for the poor quality of the photo). It was acrylic on aluminum. Usually I look at this type of work and I really like it. I like the dripping of paint and the "careless" nature of the work. But there was something different about this one. It was dizzying. It looked as if it had been screened on or too layered and was a little blurry. I felt like I was trying to look at something interesting but someone kept holding something up to my face and obstructing the view. In fact, while I looked at this painting I felt like I was wearing glasses with the wrong prescription. I believe that if it had been clearer it would have been more effective. But perhaps the artist used the obstructive view to mean something. Perhaps I missed that point...Things that came to mind while viewing "Untitled": Mass confusion, obsctructed views, listening to Nirvana , accidents happen, bad ruckus
The peice that I was positively drawn to was called "Lonesome Boogie Rattler" by Cameron Jamie. I loved it! It was ink on paper on board. I love works that are inky & drippy and generally messy. I felt that this peice had a lot of motion through out it. The artist used all sorts of curves and weights to give character to the work. I could even make out a story. What drew me in to this piece was the fact that looking from far away it just looked like lots of ink; as if someone had spilled their ink well. But when you got closer you saw the finer details, the smudges and lines were no mistake.
Things that came to mind while viewing "Lonesome Boogie Rattler": lines in motion, "visceral", agony and/or ecstasy, listening to a Kinks song, definite, Edgar Allen Poe, good ruckus
Ultimately, Midway was great and I would like to go back soon to visit their library and rummage through what they've got more thoroughly.
- m
Thursday, September 24, 2009
DELETE?!
HA HA HA. I love this piece. But imagine if it had been made a decade ago. Would it have been as effective? Nooooooo.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Installation Piece- A trip to the MIA
The Period Rooms at the Minneapolis Institute of Art are an interesting gateway into the past. The Northumberland Room, for example, is an uptight sitting room filled with knickknacks and material objects that make up the owners possessions; chairs bought out of necessity, gifts received out of thoughtfulness, and portraits painted to show the grandeur of the family name. Chairs are placed puzzlingly far away from each. Portraits paint a picture of a rigid and uptight lifestyle. It’s as if everything in the Northumberland Room is for show. There is nothing comfortable about this room. You get no emotion from it except an inexplicable sadness. You might wonder how anyone could stand living in such a lackluster place. It is a room that exemplifies the time but favors material objects more than anything else. One is left to wonder about the feelings behind the material objects. Did the chair mean anything to them? Is it comfortable? Have the books on the shelves been read? What do you do in a room like this but sit and stare?
(Photo is of the Northumberland Room)
It’s an interesting shift, then, to look at “The Studio” by Larry Rivers. This modern painting is vibrant and full of life. It shows the lapsing of time and the emotions that come with it. Four figures are shown and each one is copied and replaced on top of itself in a slightly different position. There are facial expressions, movement of limbs, and shapes that give the painting an emotive quality. It is extremely expressive. In line with the theory of Modernism, this piece puts a spotlight on the why’s and how’s of life at the time. It confronts social problems (there is an image of a black woman holding a sign that says “liberty”) and focuses on a room that is not filled with material possessions but instead with a lifetime worth of emotive and self-made work.
(Photo is of a portion of "The Studio" by Larry Rivers)
I would love to create an installation peice that takes the Northumberland Room but adds elements from "The Studio" to it, as well. I would rearrange the chairs in strange ways. One chair might be placed on top of the other. Or, two identical chairs could be cut and and fused together to give the idea that over time the chair has been moved just a little. The art on the walls would be much the same but I would take the elegant paintings, copy the person depicted, and place it on top of the image only moved slightly. I might place the teacups on the table but set them up in a way that someone would look at it and ask, "Why would you use it like that?" I would like to fuse the Northumberland Room and The Studio together because they are two very different rooms and yet they both show important aspects of a persons life (i.e. things that belong to them and define the time). I think that with the two fused together you'll get a really interesting perspective.
- m
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Postmodern Standpoint
Keith William’s “Figure Ground Teapots” are currently on display at the Concordia University Art Gallery. These pieces of art are reminiscent of ancient pottery because of their simple design and rich color. However, the thing that separates these pieces of art from ancient pottery is the exaggeration of their porportions. They are both tall, thin, teapots that seem to be slightly twisted out of proportion. They almost look like they are melting. This design reminds me of the work of a postmodern artist mentioned in our book named Sherrie Levine. She took works of art that were already created by other artists and added her own spin to them. The pots that I viewed seemed as if they followed that same design. They could be ancient pottery but there are details on them that are too new. Keith William’s may have borrowed techniques from early potters but it is clear that he has added his own style to them.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
