Friday, 23 December 2016
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
Monday, 19 December 2016
Friday, 16 December 2016
study task 2 - vernacular culture
I really wanted to explore the theme of vernacular culture as I think its a very interesting and relevant topic in relation to my quote. I think a good representation of vernacular art and the way its viewed is the snobbish approach people take when talking about 'fine art' as a pose to 'arts and crafts' what makes vernacular art less appealing to high culture? is it the fact that it isn't created or commissioned to brag or show of wealth, is it sometimes sneered at because the bourgeoisie are too scared ti face the fact that in fact art isn't just theirs to keep and control, its accessible to people from every single walk of life. however hard they try they cant stop the masses being creative so instead they must sneer at them and create high art and low art
Vernacular culture is the cultural forms made and organised by ordinary, often indigenous people, as distinct from the high culture of an elite. One feature of vernacular culture is that it is informal
'this isn’t the first time the mainstream art world has performed a celebratory rediscovery dance with vernacular artists, so the current climate of tentative self-congratulation and hopefulness comes with some serious caveats. The interest of the privileged, urban, predominantly European American classes in the expressive cultural production of those who look and live differently, whether earnest and benign or voyeuristic and exploitative, is nothing new. It’s hardwired into Western culture, and the form it takes today can be traced back hundreds of years to the misty beginnings of the condition we call modernity. We have an entire category of dichotomous language for it—high/low, fine/folk, insider/outsider, academic/self-taught—about which skeins of torturous prose have been written, but little untangled.'
http://www.artnews.com/2015/10/07/the-error-of-margins-vernacular-artists-and-the-mainstream-art-world/
upon reading this article I found it hard to gain any relevant information, from my understanding of 'vernacular culture' it felt like the whole article was missing the point especially when it started talking about the kind of money these pieces were making and who was exhibiting them. Isn't this quite the opposite of what vernacular art is? art created not for a group in society, not for money, not for anything other than personal enjoyment and self expression? I actually found more interesting content in the comments from readers and I think this comment summed up what I was thinking quite well
'The whole point of "vernacular art" is that it cannot be "contextualised" and it neither should be. Simply put, it doesn't belong. Self-taught artists need to be appreciated on their own, each as a unique individual. John Ollman lists a group of artists who have been influenced by outsider artists, as if the vernacular needed credence or the approval of a "real" artist. They do not. None knew of the others, and the most important of them never went to a museum or took an art class. None sat around the Cedar bar arguing over each other's work. There is no "school" of vernacular artists, and to lump them among others, be they trained or not, is an insult and a misnomer. They are distinguished and DEFINED by their oneness. Any claim they "belong" next to each other on a wall is not thinking very hard. It is the most perfect art world dichotomy.'
Vernacular culture is the cultural forms made and organised by ordinary, often indigenous people, as distinct from the high culture of an elite. One feature of vernacular culture is that it is informal
'this isn’t the first time the mainstream art world has performed a celebratory rediscovery dance with vernacular artists, so the current climate of tentative self-congratulation and hopefulness comes with some serious caveats. The interest of the privileged, urban, predominantly European American classes in the expressive cultural production of those who look and live differently, whether earnest and benign or voyeuristic and exploitative, is nothing new. It’s hardwired into Western culture, and the form it takes today can be traced back hundreds of years to the misty beginnings of the condition we call modernity. We have an entire category of dichotomous language for it—high/low, fine/folk, insider/outsider, academic/self-taught—about which skeins of torturous prose have been written, but little untangled.'
http://www.artnews.com/2015/10/07/the-error-of-margins-vernacular-artists-and-the-mainstream-art-world/
upon reading this article I found it hard to gain any relevant information, from my understanding of 'vernacular culture' it felt like the whole article was missing the point especially when it started talking about the kind of money these pieces were making and who was exhibiting them. Isn't this quite the opposite of what vernacular art is? art created not for a group in society, not for money, not for anything other than personal enjoyment and self expression? I actually found more interesting content in the comments from readers and I think this comment summed up what I was thinking quite well
'The whole point of "vernacular art" is that it cannot be "contextualised" and it neither should be. Simply put, it doesn't belong. Self-taught artists need to be appreciated on their own, each as a unique individual. John Ollman lists a group of artists who have been influenced by outsider artists, as if the vernacular needed credence or the approval of a "real" artist. They do not. None knew of the others, and the most important of them never went to a museum or took an art class. None sat around the Cedar bar arguing over each other's work. There is no "school" of vernacular artists, and to lump them among others, be they trained or not, is an insult and a misnomer. They are distinguished and DEFINED by their oneness. Any claim they "belong" next to each other on a wall is not thinking very hard. It is the most perfect art world dichotomy.'
study task 2 - a history of art in three colours - white
The focus on white was the real reason I wanted to watch the series, after having read the book 'inside the white cube' and looking into galleries, the way they're set up and why, Pete suggested looking at a history of art in three colours and what they had to say on it. I found the documentary extremely interesting and helpful and its given me lots of new ideas to think about and create work from as well as educating me on the history of the colour white in our society and the influence it has had. Specifically I am most interested in the part whistler has had to play in the creation of the white gallery and want to research this further. I thought the documentary was an informative and reliable source to use for research as it comes from a respected source (the BBC) and was clearly a well researched and presented programme. Below I've summarised what I found to be the most important and interesting points.
'In the Age of Reason, it was the rediscovery of the white columns and marbles of antiquity that made white the most virtuous of colours. For the flamboyant JJ Wickelmann and the British genius Josiah Wedgewood, white embodied all the Enlightenment values of justice, equality and reason.'
'the elgin marbles were widely seen as the bedrock of ancient art, like many ancient sculptures the elgin marbels were once painted in rich colours... which had washed away. at one point we became convinced these sculptures had always been white'
why was Davine so desperate for these sculptures to be white?
Johann Joachim Winckelmann
'the whitewashing of antiquity' Winckelmann planted white at the centre of European culture for centuries to come, he decided to dedicate his life to persuading the world of the beauty of white sculpture and white marble. His writings influenced a new science of archaeology and art history as well as Western painting, sculpture, literature and even philosophy
1859, James Abbott McNeil Whistler
took it upon himself to make white, not the colour of equality but of exclusivism and elitism. from a wealthy Massachusetts family
its a really elitist painting, because what this painting sets out to do is to divide the Victorian public, to divide people who don't understand the painting and those who do, those who did understand the painting were whistler and his tiny intellectual elite.
'the whitewashing of antiquity' Winckelmann planted white at the centre of European culture for centuries to come, he decided to dedicate his life to persuading the world of the beauty of white sculpture and white marble. His writings influenced a new science of archaeology and art history as well as Western painting, sculpture, literature and even philosophy
1859, James Abbott McNeil Whistler
took it upon himself to make white, not the colour of equality but of exclusivism and elitism. from a wealthy Massachusetts family
its a really elitist painting, because what this painting sets out to do is to divide the Victorian public, to divide people who don't understand the painting and those who do, those who did understand the painting were whistler and his tiny intellectual elite.
whistler despised the publics taste, he wanted to banish them from the art world altogether. in 1883 he opened an exhibition of new pictures he made on a trip to Venice, it wasn't the pictures but the way he displayed them - the walls were white, the frames were white even his gallery attendant was in white. he called his exhibition a masterpiece of mischief. completely unwelcoming,
'white had become the cold and exclusive colour of the artistic elite'
'white is the negation of bourgeois decoration, its the negation of the superflous'
Thursday, 15 December 2016
study task 2 - a history of art in three colours - gold
Gold : A History of Art in Three Colours (Ep1)
For the very first civilisations and also our own, the yellow lustre of gold is the most alluring and intoxicating colour of all. From the midst of pre-history to a bunker deep beneath the Bank of England, Dr James Fox reveals how golden treasures made across the ages reflect everything we have held as sacred.
'I think this colour is one of the most alluring and beguiling colours of them all' (gold)
in religious art gold represented not material things but immaterial things, and its perhaps the most immaterial thing of them all.
'the gold is not just representing god looking at us and sitting on a throne, god is mingling with us, transforming us, communicating with us'
no other colour responded to light or reflected light in the way gold did, that's why for Christians it became the colour of the light of god.
its interesting to wonder did the church commission art and use gold as a sign of their power and might, or as a sign of their religious devotion? probably a bit of both
'in the consumer age, gold came to represent little more than wealth itself'
'from the 1500's there was a flowering of wonderful golden jewels, flights of fancy made to satisfy the vanity of kings queens and their courts'
'what its really about is power politics and above all status'
'king Francis the 1st was of of Europe's most flamboyant and art loving monarchs, he wanted to make his kingdom the centre of the renaissance' - a clear example of how power and money control the flow of high culture
'endlessly reproduced, this kiss has just become another golden idol of our consumer century'
personal overview:
its interesting to thing of the importance of gold in art culture and how gold has such strong connotations in our society of wealth and power. the use of it in art therefore is very complex and very interesting. the most relevant parts of this episode to my quote were those focusing on the use of gold from the 1500's onwards, especially the pieces commissioned by kings and royals. the amount of money and power over the creation of art, objects and therefore culture is insane and amazing, some of the things created featured in the episode just the pure amount o work and dedication put into them is stunning let alone the pieces themselves. but it is interesting to realise almost any gold object existing in an art gallery or museum must only ever come from a position of wealth, it was such a valuable material that work created with it is literally only commsiionable by the rich and powerful, they have the full control in this strand of our culture.
some interesting examples I saw of gold used in artwork when in poland, the first as a sign of devotion and worship, the second as a symbol of luxury wealth and power
For the very first civilisations and also our own, the yellow lustre of gold is the most alluring and intoxicating colour of all. From the midst of pre-history to a bunker deep beneath the Bank of England, Dr James Fox reveals how golden treasures made across the ages reflect everything we have held as sacred.
'I think this colour is one of the most alluring and beguiling colours of them all' (gold)
in religious art gold represented not material things but immaterial things, and its perhaps the most immaterial thing of them all.
'the gold is not just representing god looking at us and sitting on a throne, god is mingling with us, transforming us, communicating with us'
no other colour responded to light or reflected light in the way gold did, that's why for Christians it became the colour of the light of god.
its interesting to wonder did the church commission art and use gold as a sign of their power and might, or as a sign of their religious devotion? probably a bit of both
'in the consumer age, gold came to represent little more than wealth itself'
'from the 1500's there was a flowering of wonderful golden jewels, flights of fancy made to satisfy the vanity of kings queens and their courts'
'what its really about is power politics and above all status'
'king Francis the 1st was of of Europe's most flamboyant and art loving monarchs, he wanted to make his kingdom the centre of the renaissance' - a clear example of how power and money control the flow of high culture
'endlessly reproduced, this kiss has just become another golden idol of our consumer century'
personal overview:
its interesting to thing of the importance of gold in art culture and how gold has such strong connotations in our society of wealth and power. the use of it in art therefore is very complex and very interesting. the most relevant parts of this episode to my quote were those focusing on the use of gold from the 1500's onwards, especially the pieces commissioned by kings and royals. the amount of money and power over the creation of art, objects and therefore culture is insane and amazing, some of the things created featured in the episode just the pure amount o work and dedication put into them is stunning let alone the pieces themselves. but it is interesting to realise almost any gold object existing in an art gallery or museum must only ever come from a position of wealth, it was such a valuable material that work created with it is literally only commsiionable by the rich and powerful, they have the full control in this strand of our culture.
some interesting examples I saw of gold used in artwork when in poland, the first as a sign of devotion and worship, the second as a symbol of luxury wealth and power
Thursday, 8 December 2016
study task 2 - Christo and Jeanne Claude
Christo and Jeanne Claude are probably two of the most famous land artists so I decided to a bit more research on them and look into their thought processes and rationale behind their work. I think the fact they create contemporary work which were dismantled and not thrown away but passed on is very representative of the themes I'm trying to express when talking about the land art movement. These ideas of anti establishment, anti capitalist work which is accessible to all people. its important to make art so public that you cant ignore it, art may be hung in a free gallery in a public square but is it really 'public' if your separated by the hierarchy of the gallery? the feeling that because of your class you don't belong or understand?
the artists have repeatedly denied that their projects contain any deeper meaning than their
immediate aesthetic impact. The purpose of their art, they contend, is simply to create works of art for joy and beauty and to create new ways of seeing familiar landscapes
'Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s huge, usually outdoor sculptures are temporary and involve hundreds of assistants in their construction. Seen as they are by all manner of passersby, including those who would not necessarily visit museums, these works force observers to confront questions regarding the nature of art. As the scope of the projects widened, increased time was needed for planning and construction phases, the securing of permits, and environmental-impact research. For each project, they formed a corporation, which secured financing and sold the primary models and sketches. Most installations were documented in print and on film, and the materials that created them were sold or given away after the projects were dismantled.'
interview with Christo and Jeanne Claude:
Christo: Nobody can own this project, nobody can buy the project, nobody can possess the project, or charge tickets. This project is a demonstration of freedom. A demonstration of absolute freedom and total irrationality. The world can live without Umbrellas, without Valley Curtain or Running Fence. They have no other reason to be there except poetical creativity, total creativity. That freedom is the most important part of this project and this is why they cannot stay, because freedom is the enemy of possession and possession is equal to permanence …
Jeanne-Claude: … Possession is equal to permanence, so freedom is the enemy of permanence.
Christo: Of course, to keep that freedom to exist absolute, we pay for our projects. No strings attached, no bowing to anybody, no sponsors, no compromises …
Jeanne-Claude: It is very expensive to be free …
Christo: Yes. No compromises, we decide what to do, how we would like to do it, which way we should do it and when we should do it. Of course, that is an incredible demonstration of that aesthetic creativity, it is poetical creativity. This is very important because that is what these projects are about. When they happen, they translate that freedom. When people come to the Umbrellas they were 2 million, 3 million 250 thousand people. It was not because of Walt Disney or some big museum, or some big corporation, or Coca Cola, or IBM, or General Motors, or the President of France, or the minister of culture, or the NEA, but because some artists would like to live with total irrationality, with no justification, no moralization, there are not any reasons, that is something nobody can invent, nobody can buy.Christo: I should repeat that our projects are not works of painting or sculpture but have elements of urbanism and architecture. Also, the temporal character of the project is an esthetic decision. I and Jeanne-Claude would like our projects to challenge and question the people's notion of art. The temporal character of the project challenges the immortality of art. Is art immortal? Is art forever? Is building things in gold and silver and stones to be remembered forever? It is a kind of naiveté and arrogance to think that this thing stays forever, for eternity. It probably takes greater courage to go away than to stay.
musings on capitalism
If I could do anything I wouldn't be an illustrator, I would create land art, let it be destroyed everyday and create it again, not for any institution or any organisation just for me - selfishly. But we live in a society which requires trade - we are capitalists CONSUMERISTS and we cant escape it. I need a licence to own chickens and live off the land, I need to buy a passport to move from one place to another. We have fit our entire world into systems and boxes and its virtually inescapable. I think in some ways we've trapped ourselves. Can I not just create art for arts sake and NO OTHER REASON? no, because I need money to s u r v i v e. money controls us, constricts us, consumes us.
Thursday, 1 December 2016
Study Task 4: Initial Ideas
exploring formal elements
In today's lesson we had to explore what Line, shape, colour, texture and collage mean as definitions and what they mean in relation to Politics, Society, Culture, History, Technology or Aesthetics. we started off as groups thinking about definitions of formal elements and how certain formal elements can represent concepts, it was interesting to think of how the weight of a line or the force with which you use the pencil can represent a mood or a concept. At the moment the idea of the concertina sketchbook is a bit scary to me, how do I represent culture with line? with collage? or more specifically how do I represent the themes I'm focusing on within culture, such as class divide and the rich and powerful. to give me some starting points I made lists of the different elements and how they might specifically relate to culture
line:
- delicate, detailed, expensive line
- angry fast line
- decorative line vs functional line - industrial rev
collage:
- money controls us - drowning in objects
- jewels, coins, watches, consumerism
- advertisements buy now - consumerism
- big people squashing small people
- capitalism, one person over many, owners over workers
- photography - shift from rich portraits
- corporate monsters made of advertisement
texture:
- shiny smooth textures, connotations of wealth
- woven fabric, coarse - working class
- industrial revolution woven cotton, workers clothes
- denim - proletariat, velvet - bourgeoisie
- silk, cashmere, fur
- leaves, nature - land art
shape:
- diamond, jewels, cut crystal shape
- coins, money money money
- the frame - the gallery space
- architecture, plinths
colour:
- colour connotations - purple = rich, brown = poor
- use of rich colours vs muted or washed out colours
- colour was wealth, pigment was expensive, vivid vibrant rich
- black v white, racial hierarchies
- green/gold = money
mind maps from the lesson:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)