Category: Daily Notes

Exercise 5.3

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/

Exercise 5.2

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.

References:

https://www.theartstory.org/movement/expressionism/)

work in progress

I normally paint fast. Oil paint with a palette knife, just painting what I feel at that moment.

previous seascape, oil on canvas

Right now, I’m trying to calm my mind, focus on a scene that I want to emulate by an artist I recently discovered called Ivan Aivazovsky

I’m working slowly -over two days so far which is a massive change for me.

We will see how it turns out!

Here it is as of now.

day two

What I like about his work is the transparency of the sea, so that’s what I’m looking for.

Ivan Aivazovsky ship on a stormy sea

Cornelia Parker – Daily Notes

I came across an article about Cornelia Parker’s “Exploded shed” works and I found it so intriguing.

Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View 1991 Cornelia Parker born 1956 Presented by the Patrons of New Art (Special Purchase Fund) through the Tate Gallery Foundation 1995 http://www.tate.org.uk/art/work/T06949

The concept behind the piece is described by the artist as creating a lasting version of an instantaneous event (an explosion), which is something that we are constantly exposed to in our lives, but using a mundane yet sentimentally important area of our lives, the garden shed. Parker’s comments on sheds are quite romantic; as the place to store items that are no longer of use, but which one simply cannot throw away.

For the creation of this piece, she had a shed constructed specifically to be blown up. While she could have used a “found” shed, she felt that it would be much too personal to blow us “someone’s” shed. She then filled it with various bits and bobs, from car boot sales and some items of her own. Then, she simply blew it up!

One part of this that I found particularly interesting is her involvement of the army in creating the explosion. I think I found it surprising because I always feel that work – including installation work – is really the artists creation alone, and the idea that other people (especially people who are not artistically involved) would be involved surprised me. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, having recently discussed House in a course exercise.

The finished piece is so wonderful to look at. The shapes, the shadows, the suspended feeling, the feeling that at any moment it should resume it’s force and come towards the observer. I would love to see it up close, the view what is left on the inside of the wooden pieces, what survived the wreckage. It also makes me think of death, of returning to some atomic level of being, the light shining from within. I find it quite comforting.

Part Three – Self Assessment

Understanding Visual Culture:  Assessment Criteria:  Part Four

Demonstration of subject based knowledge and understanding

I feel I presented my work a bit better this module; I had been having difficulty with structuring my exercises and being coherent in my arguements. I feel I demonstrated my understanding much better this time around. I work very hard on it. I still feel I am lacking a bit of subject knowledge especially around philosophical ideas, but that can only come with more exposure to the subject.

Demonstration of research skills

I tried to incorporate Referencing into all of my exercises as well as my assignment in Module 3. I found that a lot of my references are secondary, but I think that comes with the territory of Art History in general, as a lot of it is theory based on historical works.

Demonstration of critical and evaluation skills

I need to work on coming up with a coherent conclusion to my arguements. While I find it quite easy to argue two different sides of a theory, I find it difficult to settle on one at the end. One of the exercises in Part three required a conclusion paragraph, which I found difficult.

Communication

I have not kept up with my daily notes or creating work during part three, for various reasons. I found this section extremely difficult, whether it was my own mental block to the subject matter or just a lack of energy to apply to it, I’m not sure. I was ill for several weeks and during that time I didn’t have any energy to create anything. I did, however, relocate my studio to a larger room in my house and organised thinsg properly, so I hope to do some more “making” this weekend as I launch into Part 4.

Exercise 3.4

Write 10 sentences containing any off the following words: origin, original, originality. Is the meaning much the same in each example or are there significant differences?

  1. Charles Darwin wrote a book called Origin of the Species
  2. The piece of furniture was of unknown origin.
  3. The originality of the musical composition was impressive.
  4. The students all showed great originality in their work.
  5. The origin of the word “martian” is the latin word mars.
  6. Mars was the Roman name for the original Greek God, Aries
  7. The primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production
  8. Every student hopes to be an original artist
  9. The extension was built to the rear of the original property
  10. I hope to always keep my originality

Is the meaning much the same in each example?

ORIGIN

Origin is used in bullet points 1, 2 & 5. The meaning is almost the same in each one; in each case it refers to the beginning or birth of something. For example, Darwin’s book referenced the beginning of human beings through evolution, furniture was created somewhere by someone at a specific time, and most of our contemporary language can be traced back to it’s beginnings in Latin.

ORIGINAL

Original is used in bullet points 6, 7,8 & 9. In this case, they are not exactly similar in meaning. For example, points 6, 7 and 9 suggest that “original” means first, but point 8 means something different in a social context; it would be understood as unique, unusual. I suppose they could be considered similar in some ways, because the unique artist would be considered the first of their kind.

ORIGINALITY

Originality is used in bullet points 3, 4 & 10. In these sentences, I would consider the meaning to be similar, and to reference an aspect of the object or work. For example, the defining aspect or style of the music or artists work. It is this style which defines the work against other works in the same field.

After death

I came across an interesting article this morning on artnet about an exhibition of personal photographs which were found posthumously.

The photographer had been a commercial photographer, described as quiet and “average”. The photographs were found to contain personal images of the photographer identifying as a woman, whom he called April Dawn Allison.

What was interesting to me about the article was the question “should we be looking?”. Although the author doesn’t explain how the photos came in t o the possession of this curator, it feels almost inappropriate to me. Not, obviously, the content or the skill demonstrated in the photographs themselves but because of the concerted effort at keeping them private by the photographer himself. They were captured on Polaroid to avoid external processing, he apparently didn’t introduce April to friends or colleagues, no-one else appears in the photos. They are extremely powerful to look at and definitely speak to us as observers, with very strong emotions; but that emotional connection between photographer and subject – in this case – was not intended to be seen.

It’s interesting to me that this question is raised, stated, displayed as the museum nevertheless holds the exhibition and it reminds me of my recent feelings about over analysis in art studies. Do we as artists lose all right to privacy when we choose to display one area of our lives? When does the choice end – is it after death? Are contemporary artists forced to share more than their work, share part of their lives and inner thoughts in order to be “seen”; especially in the age of social media?

The article is here if you want to read it. I would love to hear your thoughts, if you feel like commenting below.