So, I have always been of the impression that “I can’t” paint portraits. In fact, I “can’t” even draw faces that look anything like my subject.
Well, while I’m on lockdown I decided to give it a try and practice until I can. Admittedly I used a photo for reference for my first go.
It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.
Pablo Picasso
In what way do video installations differ from films shown in cinemas? List the Physical differences and use these as evidence to explain the differences in experience and aesthetic appreciation.
Think about the environment as well as the immediate space in which the film is shown. Consider the types of film and select an example for more detailed discussion. If you have not seen a video installation before now, try to make up for it by viewing available material on YouTube. (1000 words)
| Video Installation | Cinema Film |
| Environment: Shown in a Gallery, Museum or “Art” space | Environment: Shown in a public cinema |
| Often free to public | Charge per viewing |
| Audience: Seen by a smaller number of people – those willing to go deliberately to see it, or those who happen upon it during a visit | Audience: Seen by large numbers of people who go deliberately to view it |
| Environment: Often surrounded by other works of art – some may even be part of the same exhibition by the same artist | Environment: Often the sole focus of the viewer, with no other visual stimulus in the room |
| Environment: Sometimes can be viewed while standing in an empty room, sometimes there are chairs available | Environment: Chairs available and viewed en-masse at the same time as all other viewers |
| Piece: Usually not much of a “storyline” – leaving it to the viewer to interpret, out of the control of the artist. | Piece: Usually follows a strict specific storyline, which is revealed to the viewer as the creator wishes it to be revealed. |
| Piece: Sometimes low budget or poor quality of materials used | Piece: Usually have a high budget and good quality materials used |
| Audience: Not discussed in popular media to the same extent as cinema would be | Audience: Discussed and reviewed worldwide by popular media |
| Environment: Room could be dark or it could be lighted specifically to enhance the video or it could be daylight | Environment: Usually shown in a dark room |
| Piece: Sometimes looped over and over to allow new entrants to view the entire film | Piece: Usually played once at a scheduled time |
Having finished my list of Physical differences, I can see that they are broadly categorised into three specific points on which they differ; Environment, Audience and the Piece itself. I will use each category to explain the differences in experience and aesthetic appreciation.
Environment:
Cinema film, and also in some cases “home cinema”, is generally shown in a specific, similar environment. The room is generally dark, the audience are seated on comfortable chairs. Food and drink is encouraged and available. The film is promoted with several visual marketing pieces even before one enters the theatre; in the lobby, on the external building etc.
Installation video differs in terms of environment in that it is not specifically shown in a dark theatre room. Often, it is placed within an art gallery where lights are bright- even if the lighting has been dimmed in that room, the general experience will be brighter than that of a sealed cinema theatre. Seating is not always available, and even if it is, it is not guaranteed to be comfortable. Food and drink is generally discouraged in case it may damage the work (as seen recently at Galleria OMR[1]!). The work most likely is not marketed visually within the same building.
The difference in environments encourages different experiences; dark, cosy, comfortable environments mean that one can relax, maybe not even pay attention, but still enjoy the overall experience. The film actually doesn’t even need to be entertaining; food, drink and comfort are also provided. However, in a Gallery setting, one must pay attention. It may be for a shorter period, and it may be less comfortable, but the experience is one of urgency, importance, focus and mental involvement.
Audience:
The cinema theatre audience all know what they are there to see. They may have read synopsis’, they may have seen parts of the movie already in the adverts, they may have seen it before, they may know all of the actors, they may know the story that it will portray, they know the genre, they know the type of film (black and white, colour, loud, soft, violent, language, rating etc.). The audience will pay money each to view the work. They will often go in groups and discuss the piece in both that group and wider social circles. They are expecting to be entertained; to feel a specific emotion (based on their previous conceptions of what genre the movie is) and either feel satisfied to have experienced it as they wish, or disappointed it did not live up to their ideas.
Video installations are often a mystery to the audience (sometimes, even after they are seen!). The content of the piece may be explained briefly in the gallery listings, or on the artist detail post beside the work, or it may be left entirely up to the audience to interpret. The film might contain nudity, language, sounds, experiences, genres, violence etc. but the audience may not know that before they enter. They might experience the piece alone – not in large social groups – and may only discuss the work with other people in their social circle who would be interested in art. The visit is often free and can be seen at any time during the day when it suits the audience, not at a set time.
The audience are prepared to experience what they expect. If one expects a romantic film, then that is what one chooses to see. If one expects only that the piece will be film and will be in a gallery, there are less expectations to fulfil. The art installation may be experienced differently by each different member of the audience, and each member may take a different meaning or emotion away with them. Most likely, the audience returns from a cinema experience having felt what the director, writers and actors wanted them to experience.
Piece:
Cinema film is often hours long, divided into clear narratives and timelines, features famous people, amasses a huge amount of wealth for all parties involved. It may include live action, CGI, Animation, sound and colour; it takes a massive amount of money in order to create one.
Installation video “provided a cheap way of recording and representation through a dynamic new avenue, shattering an art world where forms such as painting, photography, and sculpture had been the long-held norm” (The Art Story, 2020). It does not have to cost millions to make, it does not have to feature famous people and most likely doesn’t, it does not make anyone else wealthy (other than the artist – and even then it is a maybe/if). It can still contain similar elements though; colour, light, sound, people, animals, storylines, moral messages etc. and that is what makes it similar.
Installation art is meant to be experienced on a deeper interactive level. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing as cinema film, but the meaning of the work is often profound. Cinema is generally experienced and enjoyed, beautiful in one way or another, and maybe watched dozens of times over by the audience and experienced the same way each time. Installation art is generally not for individual resale or watched dozens of times over by the audience.
While researching this piece, I came across the work of Douglas Gordon, which combines cinema and installation film with fantastic results.
Douglas Gordon Déjà Vu
This piece blurs the lines between cinema and installation, showing an actual movie scene on three different screens, with the left screen starting about 1 second before the middle screen, the right screen starting another second after the middle screen. The environment in which the installation was set also mimicked a cinema; darkness, the feeling of being far back and slightly below the screens themselves, the surrounding music. There can be no doubt that this is a cinema film rather than an installation because of the credits listed and the atmospheric music. However, the placement of this film within an art installation is extremely interesting; what is the difference? What makes this repeated scene, in this setting, art instead of cinema? Is there a difference?
Its difference is subtle. The scene does not last 3 minutes in total – and although the viewer instinctively knows that the movie itself is longer, the scene seems self-contained, there’s no eagerness to continue the narrative. The aural effect of the second delay between each screen is incredible. The timing of the spoken lines in the cinema film itself lends the experience of the repeated scene a kind of eery solidity that may not have been experienced in the cinema. The repeated screens and delayed playback are technical, physical differences to separate the exhibition from a cinema experience. However, the unmistakable difference really is the setting and the viewer. Most likely presented in a gallery space, the installation is intended to be experienced as art – not film. It is intended to be viewed by a smaller audience whose intention was to view an installation piece – not a cinematic piece. The use of a cinematic scene in the installation feeds into the title of the piece “Déjà vu” which is the feeling that one gets when viewing it. Yes, it’s cinema, but no, it’s an art installation. It’s disconcerting but also familiar and comfortable. It’s this reaction in the viewer that holds it apart from cinema film. This is how cinema and video installation differ – the experience of the audience.
REFERENCES
Gordon, D. (2012). Déjà Vu. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9uZA7JT53c [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
The Art Story. (2020). Video Art Movement Overview. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/movement/video-art/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
[1] https://news.artnet.com/market/art-critic-smashed-sculpture-zona-maco-1780827
Watch Richard Serra’s films Hand Catching Lead and Boomerang. Familiarise yourself with his work and say why you think he made these films.
Serra’s work varied but circulated around the idea that art work takes up space in realms other than the visual. To this end, he explored various mediums to communicate this idea. He often worked collaboratively with contemporary artists in various mediums; music, dance and video. These various mediums allowed him to share ideas on how to push the limit of the viewers experience of his art. (TheArtStory, 2020)
To say why he made these films is difficult to define; especially without much (that I could find) written by the artist himself. I feel that they were made in video because the medium was popular at the time and it allowed him to introduce movement into his work which otherwise might be lost. The choice of a silent movie for Hand Catching Lead was deliberate, I think, because it directs the viewer to the title of the work to determine what it is that the hand is catching. It feels as though he filmed his own hand, due to the closeness of the arm to the lens and the movement which seems to be correlating with the movement of the arm. It allows him to infiltrate not just the visual sense of the viewer but the physical reaction that we have to videos like this; where one can almost feel it within ourselves. It arouses emotions, physical sensations, within the viewer that would be difficult to replicate if the work had been a series of paintings or stills only.
Boomerang seems to be focused more on the viewer’s aural senses. The visual aspect is less interesting; and had it been a silent film it would have directed our interaction with the piece in another way. The sound of the woman’s voice is familiar, it could be our own. Since she is experiencing the delayed repitition of her words – just as we are – we experience all of the same emotions and reactions that she has, and we feel akin to, connected to, this work. It is so personal that it almost arouses feelings of anxiety; as though we have been sucked into this unusual world of slow speech and altered sound.
In each piece, the engagement of the viewer is heightened. The viewer is also vital to the work; it has very little aesthetic attraction and therefore it is designed to function as an almost interactive piece, even if the interaction is only on a mental level.
References
The Art Story. (2020). Richard Serra Sculptures, Bio, Ideas. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/artist/serra-richard/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].
Does institutional critique presuppose an ‘insider’ audience requiring familiarity with artworld topics and issues or can it be understood by almost anyone spending an hour or two in a gallery?
According to the Tate Museum definition Institutional Critique is “the act of critiquing an institution as artistic practice, the institution usually being a museum or an art gallery.” (Tate, 2020). In direct association with this quote, I believe that it presupposes an “insider” audience in order to be taken as critique and not general criticism.
While I think that many people of the general public have some kind of notion towards art as an institution – it’s only art if it’s in a museum, if it’s worth millions, if the artist is dead etc. – but they would not have the intimate knowledge of the subject required to make a critique of it. Their opinions – whether for or against – are just their opinions; and since they (the public) are “outside” the institution in terms of belonging, their criticisms are directed to dismiss or hurt or damage the institution, whereas the artists critique is more about exposing that which has been hidden and should be brought to light in order to enhance the institution.
Personal Notes on the exercise
Having read some more work on Institutional Critique and “site specifity”, I have now come to understand the term in a much more detailed light.
Institutional Critique is about how the artist produces work that will highlight – not alienate – the meanings behind the site in which the work is to be displayed (the Institution). It can also comment on the art market, on art history, on the studio, gallery, museum, etc. The act of addressing the site – the framework – in which the work is to be displayed is required and perhaps inherent in all works of art, in order to be seen and understood in a social context. As Daniel Buren put it, “any work presented in that framework [museum], if it does not explicitly examine the influence of the framework upon itself, falls into the illusion of self-sufficiency”(Buren, 1973). Any work that believes itself to be self-sufficient is no longer a part of the Institution of Art – and isn’t it the very recognition of the Institution which makes something “art”?
Interesting to me is the underlying rebelliousness against the very institution that holds us all; the rebellion against the very art market which most artists require in order to make money, in order to survive. For example, creating site-specific works means that the work is only understood within that space and cannot be translated anywhere. It is therefore not sellable, it cannot be traded and shipped and transferred as other pieces might[1]. The feeling I get from this type of work is that the artist is aware that the work cannot continue indefinitely (for what site avoids change?) and therefore is “mortal” in a way that other art might not be. It must be recognised by the Institution, but it cannot be taken by the Institution. It cannot be used to further the disenchantment that the artist might have with the Institution of art; the haughtiness, the extreme monetary values placed on such a small minority of works. The site-specific artist removes any boundaries between his work and the public; it is open and free to be interpreted, loved, hated, defaced, enhanced, or destroyed, as the public see fit. It is not protected by glass and walls and security. It is much more exposed to the world; and to me that feels very personal, like the artist themselves is standing out in public being adored or hated or damaged but continuing to be just the same. It’s an extremely interesting subject.
References
Buren, D. (1973). Function of the Museum. [ebook] Available at: https://bortolamigallery.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Buren-museum.pdf [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].
Tate. (2020). Institutional critique – Art Term | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/i/institutional-critique [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].
Footnotes
[1] Mostly this idea comes from reading “One Place after Another: notes on Site Specifity” by Miwon Kwon cam.usf.edu/CAM/exhibitions/2008_8_Torolab/Readings/One_Place_After_AnoterMKwon.pdf
Take a work of contemporary art and imagine it was not and never had been a work of art.
What is the difference? (100 words)
For this exercise I am taking Richard Wright’s installation at the Modern Institure of Art (Glasgow) – photo above
I enter a building with four skylights in the roof. The function of these skylights is to add light to a room with no peripheral windows. They are punctuated by the wire caging above them, intended to stop people/objects fall through from above.
The provide adequate light within the room, assuming the day is bright enough to do so. I am oblivious to them, unless I require light in that room to be adequate. Should they fail due to low external light or dirt, I will use Electric Lighting. They do not hold the attention of anyone for any reason other than providing or failing to provide light.
Image taken from https://www.themoderninstitute.com/artists/richard-wright/exhibitions/the-modern-institute-airds-lane-glasgow-2014-06-25/4840/
What would be the significance of reversing the arrows in Barr’s chart? Make two columns – one ‘forwards’ the other ‘back’. List as many relevant concepts as you are able to develop the contrast between the two columns. Feel free to ‘cheat’ with a thesaurus.
This exercise allowed me to go back and review Barr’s Chart step by step, which is really helpful to get a grip on the various terms/movements/styles and their timelines.
Considering the reversal of this chart was interesting. Since, in most accounts that I have read, one movement or style leads on to the next, inspiring change as they go. Therefore, to consider the reversal is to consider a reversed role of inspiration.
What struck me the most having reversed the arrows was that the start and finish “style” was reversed; our current “contemporary” art would be based on the neo-impressionist style. How interesting that would be! Not that our current contemporary style is not appealing, but the emphasis on colour and brush strokes, pointilism, juxtaposed colours, vague anarchist undertones; I feel like we have lost out on something.
One stumbling block in reversal that I came across was the jump from Surrealism back to Expressionism; while I believe the style could easily have developed in reverse, I think that the most influential world events would be in the wrong order here. Specifically, the development of psychoanalysis. In the reversed order, psychoanalysis would have come before Expressionism, which according to The Art Story was developed in responce to “widespread anxienty about humanity’s increasingly discordant relationship with the world” (The Art Story). As a student of psychotherapy myself, I can’t help but wonder if Psychoanalysis had come first, then such widespread anxiety could have been avoided. But what affect would that have had on the art world? It would be a shame to be missing a section of some of the greatest art in history. One could also argue that Psychoanalysis would not have developed, had the anxieties of 1905-1920 occured.
I found this a very interesting exercise; however I did not structure my response as was directed in the question. I found that the idea of two columns with similarities did not do justice to my thoughts on the exercise.
Access a summary of Kant’s Critique of Judgement and select three key points that you should then further summarize in approx. 50 words each.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/section3.rhtml
“Judgement of taste” is different to judgement of pleasure or of ‘goodness’. A judgement of pleasure can only be established if the item we perceive happens to bring us pleasure – but it’s ability to do so depends on what I find pleasurable, what you find pleasurable, what another person finds pleasurable – and we will not all have the same wants and needs in this regard. Therefore, a judgement of pleasure is individually subjective, and based on the object providing us with something.
A “judgement of ‘goodness'” brings about a feeling of pleasure for us because it completes our expectations of social norms and requirements. This, in turn, makes us feel as though the object is acceptable within our social group and that allows us to feel approval and possibly pride towards the object. Of course, what is morally acceptable in my social circle may not be acceptable in yours; and some people may find pleasure in admiring those objects that do NOT fit in with ‘goodness’ of their society. Therefore, this type of appreciation is personal, individual and subjective.
By saying that a “judgement of taste is “disinterested””, Kant is saying that we do not have an interest – a vested interest – in the object except for it’s aesthetic appeal. One does not appreciate the aesthetics of a large stately home, for example, without all of the needs that this home fulfills; warmth, shelter, social status, wealth, investment, equity, ownership, pride etc. In order for an object to be judged by taste, we must find them appealing without their fulfilling any other needs. We appreciate the object without the need to have it, or own it or belong to it etc.
Read the first three pages (at least) of Arthur Danto’s essay ‘Works of Art and Mere Real Things’ in his book The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. http://pcnw.org/files/Danto.pdf
Then conduct your own ‘thought experiment’ by choosing a picture or object that is, or you can imagine to be, a work of art. Give this ‘work’ three or more different titles, then reflect on the effect of the title on the work and the work on the title.
Title One: Marlyn at Rest
This personalises the image. It brings a sense of the artists life into the work. It removes some of the movement from the stature of the dog with the word “Rest”. The name Marlyn conjures references to Marilyn Monroe and the eyelashes on the dog underpin this relationship. It feels like a quick, homely sketch of a loved pet.
Title Two: Flight
This title gives the image movement. The lack of a ground on which to place the figure, along with the title, creates a feeling of speed and agility that is counter intuitive to the portly shape of the dog. It seems a cheerful, lively piece, sketched “on-the-go” or of some memory. It does not necessarily have to be the artists dog, since it is not named, there is no personal connection created. In fact, it is reminiscent of something seen in ancient cave drawings.
Title Three: Drawing #4
This depersonalises the image. It is not a specific dog, it is just a dog. It is not realistic or even anatomically correct. It is intended to inform, rather than to please the eye (although, the eyelashes might suggest otherwise). The yellow background, the vague title, the lack of accurate line work or anatomy suggests that this was an “idea” for a sketch or painting, rather than a finished piece. Is it a finished piece?
Reflection:
One part that is left out of this exercise is the addition of “size” – nowadays, we see a lot of art on screens. One cannot tell whether a painting is the size of a building or the size of a postage stamp. I think varying sizes would also have an effect on the title and therefore the work.
I found it unusual to be asked what the effect of the title was on the work, I had always assumed and experienced it to be the other way around – where the title came first. I suppose it would be possible to create title first and work from that. Or to choose a random word and assign it as title – with little connection to the work – but I find that a little false.
For this assignment, I have chosen to examine Portrait of V.I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock, 1980, by Art & Language.
As the topic of this essay is difference, I found I was drawn to this painting in particular above other subjects. The portrait grabbed my attention initially, as a sort of pareidolia, where the painting was quite clearly abstract, but at the same time a very clear image of a portrait could be identified.
Defining the question with which we are tasked to answer is the best starting point. “Explore [it’s] possible interpretations in terms of difference”. There are two types of difference to be considered here. One; the traditional, common idea of difference where two items of the same category are compared for contrasting detail – these are both horses, but one is coloured black and one is coloured white. In such cases, the identity of the items has been established before the comparison is made, in other words, “identity comes first” (Cubitt, 2019). Two; the more detailed, philosophical idea of difference as an aspect which comes before the identity of the object; before I can establish that one horse is black and one is white, I have established that they are horses as opposed to Ducks. This essay shall discuss both, resulting in a conclusive paragraph on the nature of difference in itself.
Art & Language is the name of a group of artists in a collective, which also became the title of a conceptual art journal. Art & Language developed the work started by Duchamp and others, into critical and conceptual work in the arts. They produce work in written text, stemming from debates between members as well as visual and physical art. Publications, such as their journal, were key to exploring and communicating their ideas, and often the title of artwork is intended to be considered part of the work – as with Portrait of V.I. Lenin series (Bbc.co.uk, 2019). The combination of style and textual information is intended to inspire the thought process of the observer, for the observer to develop their own critical conception of the work rather than just “appreciate” it for aesthetic style.
To understand the concept of such a painting as Portrait of V.I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock, we should understand something of the men within the title itself, and then view them as Art & Language did.
Jackson Pollock was born in 1912 in Wyoming, the son of a farmer. He grew up in Arizona and California, experiencing Native American culture while travelling with his father in his later job as a Government Surveyor. Pollock studied in New York, working in several styles of painting including Regionalist, Muralist and Surrealism. In 1939, following a Picasso exhibit, Pollock recognised the power of European Modernism and he began a new style of abstract compositions. Following World War Two, and the beginnings of Abstract Expressionism, Pollock began to express his feelings about society and his concerns. In the mid 1940’s, he introduced his famous drip paintings. These paintings were unlike anything to come before them – allowing paint to drip from the can directly to the canvas, separating line and colour. Based on comments from interviews, it appears that he felt the paintings brought themselves to life, through him, and he had very little control. He allowed paintings to emerge, successfully or not, with no fear of destroying the work or failure.
“When I am in my painting, I’m not aware of what I’m doing. It is only after a sort of ‘get acquainted’ period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.”
Jackson-pollock.org, 2019
Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov was born in 1870 into a well-educated family. He went to university to study Law, where he became involved in radical thinking and revolutionary groups. After completing his degree in 1891, he became a “professional revolutionary” and was exiled to Siberia along with other revolutionaries of the time. Here, he adopted the pseudonym “Lenin”. After World War One, he returned to Russia – now leading the Bolshevik faction of the RSDWP and led the “October Revolution” which led to years of civil war. He was found to be disregarding of the suffering of his countrymen and a ruthless leader, however he was also known for introducing the New Economic Policy which attempted to transform the economy in Russia. He died two years after an assassination attempt, in 1924. (Bbc.co.uk, 2019)
“Every question “runs in a vicious circle” because political life as a whole is an endless chain consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain”
Marxists.org, 2019
It is tempting given the course of study to focus more on difference in itself, or “type two” from my first paragraph. This concept seems much more detailed and scholarly than the simple difference of everyday speech. However, the merits of general difference should not be overlooked, specifically in this case. While it may be possible, and increasingly more likely as time progresses, that people are unaware of who Lenin was, right now it is likely that observers of this artwork are knowledgeable enough of Lenin – so that his inclusion in the title of the painting would draw the eye and the memory back to his historical reference. Since, in order to discuss the idea of difference in the “common” sense requires two similar items, let us look at both Art & Language’s portrait versus an original image of Lenin:
Seen side by side, the differences can be listed quite easily:
Colour; the A&L piece appearing in white, black, yellow and red. The original image in black and white only.
Style; the A&L piece appearing much more loose and active, with swirly paint and movement. The original image rigid and simple.
Image clarity; Art & Language clearly trying to make the image part-of or contained within an aesthetic image. The original image is simply that; an original, clear image of the man himself with little aesthetic appeal
This kind of difference is important and I feel that Art & Language would have accepted that it was; they expected and prepared for all types of observers – those who knew Jackson Pollock, those who knew of Lenin, those who knew of one but not the other and those who knew nothing of either. Their inclusion of such detailed titles shows us this, and leads us to believe that they expected different interpretations by different types of observer. This is quite an interesting aspect of the work to note and highlights to us that this collective of artists had such expectations of their work as to include very detailed information to help us establish meaning. (Cubitt, 2019)
““Difference in itself” is difference that is freed from identities seen as metaphysically primary.”
Plato.stanford.edu, 2019
Having established this “common” type of difference, we then turn to difference-in-itself. At this level, we are more interested in viewing the work as being attributed to Pollock, and an image of Lenin, and the meaning of that combination, before we are interested in the simple difference discussed in the previous paragraph. We are interpreting difference at a conceptual level.
From an interview with Art & Language “About Portraits of Lenin in the style of Jackson Pollock (Art & Language, 2013), Art & Language were quoted “we were bringing together two things which could not coexist”. The painting incorporates two radically different concepts who we would expect to be opposed and incompatible, but at the same time, this particular painting could not exist without both Lenin and Pollock, they must coexist in order for this painting to be.
The basis for the painting itself came from “the title’s ‘linguistic description, an ironic proposal for an impossible picture, a kind of exasperated joke’” (Tate, 2019). As discussed earlier, Lenin was (and is still seen as) the symbol of revolution in Russia and the leader of the “Bolshevik” faction of the RSDWP (Bbc.co.uk, 2019). This powerful, controversial figure symbolises power, revolution, war, cruelty, pragmatism. His image was often used in propaganda pieces, promotional works in favour of the Bolshevik party, and is included in history textbooks in schools worldwide.
Pollock, on the other hand, has a style that is synonymous with creativity; creation of the new, embracing seemingly imperfect formats, allowing images to appear from the paint as opposed to preplanning, enjoying and embracing fluidity in art. (Homepages.neiu.edu, 2019)
In fact, it quite goes against Pollock style to have a portrait within the painting at all. To have the stern, political portrait of Lenin but painted within the loose, abstract style of Pollock is in itself a contradiction.
This experience allows us to apply and develop new meaning from the work. We can approach it as a portrait, we can approach it as a commentary, we can approach it as a humorous colliding of symbols, we can approach it as an aesthetic piece, we can approach it as a pareidolia. The possibilities are endless. And in this way, we are discussing the various differences of this one piece – not as a painting – but at a conceptual level, before we even discuss the painting itself.
In conclusion, it is the very difference within this work that brings about it’s complexity and it’s relevance. The many aspects of the painting, the many different viewpoints it can be discussed from, the detail of the inspiration for the painting and how we view it today all combine to make an incredibly interesting work of art. Part of the question brief for this assignment mentioned that “we can show that some works invite a differential interpretation more than others.” (OCA Assignment Brief), I hope that I have shown the differential interpretations of Portrait of V.I. Lenin in the style of Jackson Pollock clearly in my writing.
Homepages.neiu.edu. (2019). Available at: http://homepages.neiu.edu/~wbsieger/Art201/201Read/201-Pollock.pdf [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
Bbc.co.uk. (2019). BBC – Coventry and Warwickshire Culture – Art and Language. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/coventry/culture/stories/2003/04/art-and-language.shtml [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
Bbc.co.uk. (2019). BBC – History – Historic Figures: Vladimir Lenin (1870 – 1924). [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/lenin_vladimir.shtml [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
Cubitt, M. (2019). [ebook] Available at: https://megcubittvisualculture.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/assignment-four.pdf#page=6&zoom=100,0,140 [Accessed 30 Oct. 2019].
Plato.stanford.edu. (2019). Gilles Deleuze (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/ [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
Jackson-pollock.org. (2019). Jackson Pollock’ Biography. [online] Available at: https://www.jackson-pollock.org/biography.jsp [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
Marxists.org. (2019). Lenin Quotes. [online] Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/quotes.htm [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
Portrait of V.I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock. (2019). [image] Available at: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/art-and-language-portrait-of-vi-lenin-in-the-style-of-jackson-pollock-vii [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
I struggled with this section quite a bit. The idea of difference in itself is something that I do understand, but I found very difficult to locate a concise definition of the term in my research. Reading Deleuze in order to find this definition turned out to be near impossible and so I turned to the Student Chat rooms for assistance.
A lady from the OCA library helped me to locate some relevant research material and other students encouraged me not to give up! This was a lovely surprise when I initially considered that I would not be able to write anything at all for this piece.
In my honest opinion, I think that this level of philosophical inquiry is too much in module 1 of year 1 – especially without the benefit of an actual lecture on the subject, any actual workshops where we can ask questions and get clarity, some kind of discussion group. With all the students being at different stages in each module, it’s very difficult to get together with someone at the same stage as me. I am looking forward to section 5, but I am apprehensive. I feel that the OCA should review the content of this module and consider splitting it across two years rather than one, broken up with making in between. However, I did get to the end of it eventually and I look forward to my feedback from my tutor.
Apply the Dialectic diagram to Barr’s. What could count as a thesis, an antithesis and a synthesis. You will need to refer to images of art works for a pursuasive answer.
THESIS: Cubism
ANTITHESIS: Expressionism
SYNTHESIS: Dadism
The Cubism movement was embodied by the abandonment of perspective which had been important during the Renaissance period. Cubism involved the blending of the background and the foreground, using sharp, pointed figures rather than realistic models and often using non art materials such as cloth, cardboard or newspaper. There was often a focus on current events, with the use of newspapers and article clippings later in the movement, which historians believe showed that the work was made with the artists opinions on current events to the fore. There was a clear unity between the scene and the canvas, with emphasis on the texture of the canvas to become part of the scene itself.
An example of Cubism that embodies all of these main points would be Man with a Hat and a Violin, Pablo Picasso
Expressionism on the other hand was quite opposed to Cubism in it’s style and palette, but it did hold some similarities for us to investigate.
Expressionism, in contrast to Cubism, focused on the artists emotional state in relation to the scene, rather than the emotions embodied by the scene itself. The emotional state of the artist is conveyed through fluid, swirling brushstrokes and bright palettes; embodying the scene but considered to be filtered through the artists emotions at the time of painting. Figures were often based on current events and involved social criticism – similar to Cubism – however their style differentiates them from Cubist commentary. Expressionist social criticism often involved rendering serpentine figures and bold colours, as opposed to sharp shapes and readymade materials of Cubism.
An example of Expressionism which shows us the comparison to Cubism in terms of colour and brushstrokes would be the most obvious, The Starry Night by Van Gogh.
Dadaism, which emerged around 1915 seems to be a melding of the two previous movements; incorporating elements from both, while remaining an individual movement in itself. Dadaism was a criticism on art itself; opposing the norms of traditional painting by incorporating ready made, non art materials with very little manipulation by the artist which are then presented as Art. Social criticism seems to focus more on criticism of the previous art movements and is distinctly not focused on aesthetics of art making; this could be considered similar to Cubism and Expressionism, which both rejected traditional figurines for more abstract versions. Dadaism also rejected the concept of planning and meticulous work, allowing the art to speak for itself. I found this to be similar to Cubism & Expressionism, in that the shapes are dictated by the interpretation of the scene rather than the intended aesthetic result. What makes it different to both previous movements is the focus on art itself, rather than social criticism.
An example of Dadaism would be The Art Critic by Raoul Hausmann
REFERENCES:
The Art Story. (2019). Cubism – Top Paintings and Sculptures. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/movement/cubism/artworks/#pnt_5 [Accessed 24 Sep. 2019].
Tate. (2019). Dada – Art Term | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/d/dada [Accessed 24 Sep. 2019].
Google Arts & Culture. (2019). The Starry Night – Vincent van Gogh – Google Arts & Culture. [online] Available at: https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-starry-night/bgEuwDxel93-Pg?hl=en-GB [Accessed 24 Sep. 2019].
NOTES ON EXERCISE
While I felt I understood the concept of the exercise, I felt that it was a little too wide-reaching for just an exercise. Quite a lot more could be done with this exercise as a larger piece of work, which I think I would actually find quite interesting and extremely useful in terms of understanding art movements, but I simply didn’t have the time to give to it at this stage of the coursework.
I may return to this as research and reflection later in the term, it seems like a wonderful way to understand the relationships between the art movements, which can at times seem like an endless web with no beginning or end!
UVC - Shóna 