Todays lecture was one of the most interesting lectures I've ever listened to and I seriously enjoyed it. Our lecture was great because he was so passionate and interested in the themes he was talking about, theyre also things I'm really interested in and have a lot of opinions about. I've tried to summarise the lecture and take out non important aspects but that was pretty hard! I've typed up the main points and ideas we were introduced to today in my own words along with some of my own thoughts and opinions mixed in throughout, I think I just think and write better this way instead of splitting things up.
- History is not necessarily linear, one event does not cause one more then one more then one more, it is more tangental and complex than that
- the power of the image is a primal mystical power
- Pre historic cave drawings - no one really understands what they're about (as they're pre history) there is only speculation on their meaning. The best or most interesting theories are that they're attempts to communicate with a higher power, they hold magic and mysticism. they're spectral images attempting to achieve something powerful magical with.
- Cy Twombly - a similar concept, his work is not just created by chucking paint at a canvas, its actually something more spiritual and primal than that, theres more energy and meaning in them.
- Richard Long red earth circle - aboriginal sand painting to try and prove the point that theres similarities between ancient aboriginal art and western conceptual artists, theres a continuity, something core that relates to us all as people. Very controversial piece, criticised for cultural appropriation and cultural imperialism. third world being roped into the western worlds endgame story.
- Rothko Chapel Texas - If you look into a Rothko painting its like looking into the abyss, the paintings are dark maroon painted on black mixed with a wax so that theres no reflection. they are described as a spiritual and emotional experience. Rothko actually killed himself, the idea is that when you look at his work you feel his tragedy as well. He was interestingly commissioned for the 4 seasons restaurant in new york but felt so guilty (anti capitalist) that he said he wanted everyone who looked at the paintings to feel physically sick, naturally when they found this out they didn't take his commission, the paintings are now hanging in the Rothko room in Texas. In the room these paintings are now displayed its 2 degrees colder and it is the only room in the gallery that's not white but is a pale shade of grey, apparently people actually sit in front of these paintings and cry. Is that a genuine response? Is there something in visual communication that hooks our soul or is it just in the institutional framing and authority of the art which causes this? Anything in a prestigious gallery automatically seems more important than it actually is or what it was before it was curated in such a way. Certain galleries and University's actually make things important. Are you crying at the Rothko because its a genuine human response or because that is how your expected to feel?
- similarities exist between churches and galleries, you go to them, they do not come to you, its like a pilgrimage where you bow down to the alter of culture. This tells you something about institutions and their power over us.
- louvre - interestingly the Louvre is actually a palace turned gallery. The Mona Lisa is kept there behind bulletproof glass, the room is always full of tourists and theres sign posts around the whole gallery to the Mona Lisa like its the only thing of importance. It already sounds like a religious experience; worship at the alter of the Mona Lisa! It's not really a very fulfilling experience (how can it be surrounded by so many smart phones) your not moved emotionally. No one really knows why its the most famous painting in the world, the price alone gives it half its intrigue, decide a painting is worth millions of dollars and it becomes culturally valuable it seems. The Mona Lisa certainly isn't famous because everyone who sees it is bowled over by its majesty. I went to see it years ago in Paris and to be honest its shit. Da Vinchi is so much more than that one painting. Is this painting meaningful because of its essential characteristics or is it because its behind a bullet proof piece of glass.
- Duchamp 1919 LHOOQ - if you say the name of this piece fast it sounds like 'she's got a hot ass' in french. Duchamp's piece was about attacking the institutional authority of art and the 'taste makers'
- This leads us to the bigger question, do people actually have a meaningful relationship with visual communication or is it institutionally led?
- 'exit through the gift shop' has this capitalist culture of souvenirs added to the magic and culture of it or does it degrade its authority. Is a masterpiece less important now its on your umbrella or does the reproduction of image make art more accessible and increase its potential?
- Theres a strong relationship between money, authority and culture. The art world decide Banksy is worth attention and people start knocking down buildings to put walls into galleries, they're trying to sell something that was created for free. Once graffiti is in a gallery it's not graffiti anymore your missing the point trying to control culture like that.
- Jackson Pollock, Hans Namuth film - back to this idea of the actual existence of spiritualism and meaning in art, Pollock paints to jazz music, almost in this shamanistic trance like state. It's like an existential record of the self 'the soul just vomited out on the canvas' (a great quote from today's lecturer...) its not just drips on a page.
- OR IS IT
- Roy Lichtenstein Red Paint - we live in a superficial age, made of mass culture, art can't move you in the way your claiming.
- Warhol - Pollock style painting just walking all over a canvas, taking the piss out of abstract impressionism.
- Stalin in Russia actually banned radical modern art in the 50s which I never knew and find extremely interesting. The only style you were aloud to paint in was socialist realism. Vladi Mirshi 'roses for Stalin' They banned avant garde modern art because it was 'elitist' and pretentious, no one understands modern art its an exercise in elitism. If people don't understand it we'll ban it, instead we should all paint in socialist realism, its not an art of oppression its an art of the everyman. however this limits freedom pf expression, you cant dictate whats meaningful to people and what is not. Plus half of these socialist realist pieces at the time were blatant propaganda and most of them pretty creepy..
- What you wont hear in most of the art history books (but on the very good authority of our wonderful lecturer) the CIA were funding Jackson Pollock to oppose the soviets through the means of art. The goverment use abstract impressionism as a 'cultural weapon' and a form of unrecognisable propaganda. Did Pollock represent a new era of freedom of expression and artistic enlightenment or were we sold another goverment lie?
- Alberto Korda Guerrillero Herocia - the image of revolution, its been reapropriated and its meaning changed. the image has almost lost meaning because of its recycled nature, its just become pop culture, posters on bedroom walls it doesn't represent Cuba or socialism anymore. until today I didn't even know that the image was in anyway connected to Cuba.
- Politicians are also always photographed 3/4 to show they're thinking of the future.
- Shepard Fairey - a graffiti artist employed by the Obama campaign, he created the famous hope poster, he was positive about Obama and what he could do as the first black president which in his opinion turned out to be anti climactic as America continued American imperialism, bombing the middle east just more of the same. He recently created this second poster reevaluating his opinions, the Guy Fawkes mask has become an image of revolution.
- digital memes/ the image as a political weapon - a good example of this is Gillrays 'little boney in a strong fit' Napoleon actually said his downfall was because of Gillray. Steve Bell has been hailed as the modern day Gillray
- Disney cartoons were also used as political weapons, the CIA commissioned them to fight the Germans and the Nazis through image during WW2. Society recognises the power of the image, we can see that clearly just by looking at the history of propaganda.
- guerrilla girls - less that 5% of the artists in art galleries are women but 85% of the nudes are female. The guerilla girls actually paid for huge advertising spaces outside galleries to plaster up their work. As artists i have a lot of respect for what they're trying to say and I think there message is still relevant now.
- art as a weapon - in 1968 there was revolutionary unrest in France with the beginnings of a new existential philosophy and the idea of free love. Students were the revolution, a group of art students in France kicked out the professors from their school, took the means of production and turned the print rooms into a production factory to further their revolution. they were young people crying out that another world is possible
- Places can be branded, citys are now trying to sell themselves through image rather than reality.
- Jean Jullience, peace for Paris - this symbol became the unofficial symbol for paris' solidarity after the attacks recently. It was a quick automatic moment of expression which i think is why it meant more, why it was more moving than a planned detailed drawing. Its similar to Enso Kanjuro Shibata, the artist spends their life trying to figure out how to draw the perfect circle in one act.
- Nick Ut 1972 Napalm attack - this photograph shows the power of visual communication, after this the support for the Vietnam war coming from the public dwindled and we had to draw out.
- Gainsborough Mr and Ms Andrews - it isn't a beautiful study of landscape and culture its a painting commissioned by a couple of posh aristocrats to boast and show everyone how much land they have and how rich they are.
- Throughout this lecture we explored both sides of the argument of the power images hold. Is the importance of a masterpiece institutionally manufactured or is image making about creating something primal, eternal and immortal?
side note;
Plutonium is not supposed to be on this planet - we created it. Nuclear power plants are needed to create plutonium for nuclear bombs and the goverment sells the idea of them to us as a 'green' and environmental act. Something our lecturer felt he had to stop and explain to us, not necessarily related but important none the less
No comments:
Post a Comment