http://www.hawaiipictures.com/pictures/wallpapers/rainbows1-1.jpg
Or, because that doesn't work:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hawaiipictures.com/pictures/kauai/rainbows1-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thebarefootlibrarian.blogspot.com/2008/03/many-colors-of-greater-phx-digital.html&usg=__1IzlYGalLtMNJKG-J0VsM3z9ihM=&h=1149&w=1600&sz=335&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=Of9XJbB7NV3q_M:&tbnh=108&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drainbows%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
Back when I used to actually draw things (around the age of 5), my favorite subject was rainbows. I was weird and critical about them having the colors be in the right order (my kindergarten buddies got an earful if they ever drew purple next to yellow). I was thrilled when I found out that there was actually a scientific explanation for why rainbow colors were always in the same order. They’re spread out according to the lengths of the wavelengths. Red has the longest wavelength, purple has the shortest (The five-year-old in my is saying “I told you so”). Also, I mean, come on, that order is totally the prettiest.
Anyways, I’ve always had a weakness for rainbow pictures, and this one is particularly awesome. That’s definitely a double rainbow in the top left of the picture. (I know, right? Rare!) The picture even depicts the conditions that make rainbows possible. You can see the receding rainclouds, and almost feel the sun finally beginning to come out. Yes, there’s got to be tons of tiny little water drops refracting the white light and splitting it up into a beautiful depiction of its constituent parts.
Also, the mountains and beach have this perfect mix of calming beauty and hinted adventure. (Anyone want to try to scale those steep cliffs? Let’s go! If we fall, whatever, they look velvety soft. It’s cool, nobody dies in rainbow beach land). There are even footprints in the sand that give this feeling of impending journey that might lead beneath the rainbow, or into the mountains, or just down the beach forever. Despite the hint that we might actually walk under the rainbow, in real life the rainbow would just keep receding into the distance, or maybe disappear. Rainbows in general are this fleeting beauty that we can only ever view from a distance. The photographs make the rainbow more tangible, and the footprints add this hope of attaining the unattainable
I couldn’t find the name of the photographer, but this is actually a wall paper for your computer (Yea, I downloaded it). It’s probably supposed to promote tourism to Hawaii. Which is working. I’d be down for visiting that landscape. So, to summarize, this picture called to me in particular because it’s got this exotic draw, and it features a particularly good image of rainbow. And the little girl in my is kind of jumping up and down right now for a vacation to Hawaii and singing to theme song to “Rainbow Bright.”
Thursday, December 4, 2008
ok, i dont know why, maybe because i am in anatomy class and we're touching cadavers...or maybe its because im doing my paper on art in anatomy, either way, its safe to say that dead bodies have been a part of my life recently and ive developed a little bit of an interest in them.the photos of this guy, joel peter witkin are not for the faint of heart, the squeemish. that part of me was totally killed off a few months ago. the photos, for me, touch on a part of childhood actually -those boyhood fantasies, conjuring up the most greusome or gory image i could think of. did anyone else go through that period...around 3 or 4th grade?
well anyways, thats what i see come to life, so to speak, with these photos. i want to include a link of them on youtube, but im worried some people might freak out (like some of the asian girls in the computer room at ihouse did when they saw what i was looking at) if it pops up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA9b1Uuohl0&feature=PlayList&p=2806D065D860BF8C&index=0
So back to the childhood thing...yea. I read a little about him, and i found one quote which was nice, something about being able to find beauty in everything. I would extend that further, by implication, by wondering if beauty necessarily has elements of pleasure in it - meaning if it pleases us, then its beautiful. Can something be beautiful without being pleasing. Even further, can something be beautiful and repulsive at the same time? I dont mean that it is repulsively beautiful, but can we accept that it is repulsive, and then forget it in place of accepting it as purely beautiful.
The Future Hotel Room by LAVA is a research collaboration that explores the future of relationships between humans and space. Integration of emergent technologies include specific user control of lights and climate.
I found this project interesting because it is one of the more successful attempts at creating a new formal environment through digital design mediums that is able to serve the function of bedroom. While it may be still at the level of a schematic proposal, spaces like these are being increasingly developed and realized. The implications of spaces with continuous surfaces offers both advantages and disadvantages, but gives a glimpse into how we might inhabit space several years from now.
Doll Face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6hNj1uOkY
This short animated clip is "Doll Face", where a robot with a doll's face is shown a series of idealized human faces on a television, which the robot tries to imitate. I have the impression this is a rather well-known clip, so it's likely lots of the class already knows about it. It is a statement about the unrealistic ideals society instills upon people, especially those of the images of women, who are often unrealistically beautiful.
As an possible example of art, there is aesthetic value in the high-quality animation that can be seen in the clip. However, I would classify it as more of a Duchamp-type work, in that the meaning of it is more important than what it actually appears as.
This short animated clip is "Doll Face", where a robot with a doll's face is shown a series of idealized human faces on a television, which the robot tries to imitate. I have the impression this is a rather well-known clip, so it's likely lots of the class already knows about it. It is a statement about the unrealistic ideals society instills upon people, especially those of the images of women, who are often unrealistically beautiful.
As an possible example of art, there is aesthetic value in the high-quality animation that can be seen in the clip. However, I would classify it as more of a Duchamp-type work, in that the meaning of it is more important than what it actually appears as.
Mitch Clem is my favorite webcomic artist/writer. I don't know if webcomics are typically considered Art, but most webcomic artists generally experiment with other art forms, digital and traditional. A webcomic almost documents the entire development of an artist's style, sometimes for over 10 years of drawing comics. I love Mitch Clem's style, the thick black outlines, the character's expressions, etc, but it's also his writing that makes his comics great, with his character development and sense of humor.
The Afghan Girl
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/storyA_story.html
I searched National Geographic website for this picture because I saw this picture in a magazine a while ago and I was really drawn to it. Something about the girl's piercing green eyes really seemed to illustrate the common saying that eyes are the windows to a person's soul. Her eyes, which are bright, almost unnaturally green, are not only beautiful, but seem to tell some sort of a story. Along with the pair of emerald eyes, her facial expression, grimy face and vividly colored yet tattered rust-orange garment suggest some sort of a struggle. Although she is clearly a young girl, she looks too tired and aged because this photograph tells us that she has suffered through so much already in her life. It turns out that she is an Afghan refugee. There is no caption needed; the picture alone is more than enough to tell us her story. There is nothing fancy or extraordinary about the picture (after all, it's just a shot of a young girl's face), but there is something so beautiful and haunting about her that it makes me feel drawn in.
I searched National Geographic website for this picture because I saw this picture in a magazine a while ago and I was really drawn to it. Something about the girl's piercing green eyes really seemed to illustrate the common saying that eyes are the windows to a person's soul. Her eyes, which are bright, almost unnaturally green, are not only beautiful, but seem to tell some sort of a story. Along with the pair of emerald eyes, her facial expression, grimy face and vividly colored yet tattered rust-orange garment suggest some sort of a struggle. Although she is clearly a young girl, she looks too tired and aged because this photograph tells us that she has suffered through so much already in her life. It turns out that she is an Afghan refugee. There is no caption needed; the picture alone is more than enough to tell us her story. There is nothing fancy or extraordinary about the picture (after all, it's just a shot of a young girl's face), but there is something so beautiful and haunting about her that it makes me feel drawn in.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Theo Jansen's "Beach Beasts"
This picture is of one of Theo Jansen's "Beach Beasts", but this sculpture not only looks really interesting with its jungle of connecting tubes, it actually walks on its own, using only the wind. Watching these creatures slowly walk along the beach is like watching a skeleton of some never before seen creature come to life again. This is exactly what Theo Jansen is going for. Through his kinetic sculptures, he is seeking to create a new kind of nature. He uses ideas based on evolution to improve his creatures and eventually wants to put herds of them onto the beach to let them live their own lives. But when asked whether what he is doing is art or science he replies that they are all the same, he sees no difference (Jansen studied physics at school, but also became a painter).What I find most interesting about Jansen's art is the way it seems to create life, in a sense. Many artworks can be thought of as "creating life" in a sense because they might create new worlds and emotions on a canvas that don't exist in the real world, or at least not at the moment. But I think Jansen takes this concept even further, his creatures not only move but are self-propelled using only energy from nature, just like real lifeforms do. Jansen's art not only makes us question the line between art and science, but also between art and nature.
Morris Louis
http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#3|search|1|morris20louis20saf20gimel|Multiple20Collection20Search|||type3D3126kw3Dmorris20louis20saf20gimel26id3Dall26name3D
I chose Morris Louis' "Saf Gimmel", I really like this painting mostly because it reminds me of the Northern Lights. I love the color and the atmospheric quality. The way the colors blend and merge make the image appear to morph, as if the entire painting is slipping down the canvas. I found this browsing through the Guggenheim collection, and it just caught my eye, not because of any conceptual or deep intellectual interest, but purely because it was purely fun to look at. Sometimes I really like looking at art I know nothing about because you get to form your own narrative, or even no narrative at all, other than your immediate reaction to its the visual quality. It does not spark any particular emotion or revelation about the world, but captures my attention for a purely visual, aesthetic reason.
I chose Morris Louis' "Saf Gimmel", I really like this painting mostly because it reminds me of the Northern Lights. I love the color and the atmospheric quality. The way the colors blend and merge make the image appear to morph, as if the entire painting is slipping down the canvas. I found this browsing through the Guggenheim collection, and it just caught my eye, not because of any conceptual or deep intellectual interest, but purely because it was purely fun to look at. Sometimes I really like looking at art I know nothing about because you get to form your own narrative, or even no narrative at all, other than your immediate reaction to its the visual quality. It does not spark any particular emotion or revelation about the world, but captures my attention for a purely visual, aesthetic reason.
Who owns what on television?
Link to blog and rest of images:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/
What comes to mind when you read the text? What comes to mind when you view these images? What are the implications of having two different sources of information?
It's interesting that one can essentially glean the same information in the images as in the text. The colorful collage of small logos are situated next to the a similarly-sized logo of the company that owns them. The composite of artistic choices made in these images make us question what we would not question if we only read the text. Does this mean images have the power to elicit more than just 2-dimensional thinking?
We can use the images as metaphors for U.S. society. The 6 large companies represent the dominant and governing institutions (government, business, media, corporation, education, etc) and the channels represent the diverse inhabitants (diversity in this case includes identities relating to race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, and sexuality among others) Oftentimes the common narrative of diversity in this country, that of multiculturalism, serves to tokenize the diverse elements without meaningfully respecting difference in favor of assimilation. By evading the dimension of difference, this discourse also evades the core issues ailing society.
In the images we see that there are a variety of channels that cater to many interests. However what are the implications for the channels' autonomy and creativity having only 6 large channels? Or am I overthinking this?
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/
What comes to mind when you read the text? What comes to mind when you view these images? What are the implications of having two different sources of information?
It's interesting that one can essentially glean the same information in the images as in the text. The colorful collage of small logos are situated next to the a similarly-sized logo of the company that owns them. The composite of artistic choices made in these images make us question what we would not question if we only read the text. Does this mean images have the power to elicit more than just 2-dimensional thinking?
We can use the images as metaphors for U.S. society. The 6 large companies represent the dominant and governing institutions (government, business, media, corporation, education, etc) and the channels represent the diverse inhabitants (diversity in this case includes identities relating to race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, and sexuality among others) Oftentimes the common narrative of diversity in this country, that of multiculturalism, serves to tokenize the diverse elements without meaningfully respecting difference in favor of assimilation. By evading the dimension of difference, this discourse also evades the core issues ailing society.
In the images we see that there are a variety of channels that cater to many interests. However what are the implications for the channels' autonomy and creativity having only 6 large channels? Or am I overthinking this?
Woman
While I was skimming through the pictures that are on the SFMOMA website, this one stood out to me. Although I am not clear about the “right” meaning of this picture, it appealed to me because of the way it has represented woman and desire in such a raw manner. This representation of woman deviates from the ones that are more known, in which the breast of the women are exaggerated and they are being depicted as demons with huge eyes and teeth. The aggression that is characteristic of De Kooning’s pictures of women is absent in this picture. Although this is still a distorted representation of woman, the woman in this picture seems tormented, with her arms around her knees, hiding away from the world. Yet, at the same time, she stares out at us with a look on her face that suggests that she knows something we do not. It is smug and coy at the same time. I think this epitomizes the perception of woman as desired by man. To me, the development of the representation of woman shows how De Kooning grows to understand this better. It shows how the conflicting images of helplessness and aggression create a desirable image of a woman. Being enigmatic makes it desirable. At the same time, the strokes in this painting reinforce that. This image does not have a defined structure, making it seem unclear. It is almost as if it is “coming through in waves”. We are almost able to grasp it, but it eludes us with its unclear structure. I like how this image makes viewer feel like it is almost understandable but it is not. The shape seems to be almost defined but it is not. This relationship that the viewer establishes with the images parallels the sexual desire that men have for women that I believe De Kooning was trying to represent.
Banksy
"La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans" ("Little Dancer of Fourteen Years")
I chose an artwork that I have always liked: Edgar Degas’s sculpture "La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans" ("Little Dancer of Fourteen Years"), c. 1881 because I think that it is beautiful work. I saw a photo of this artwork when I was young and I have remembered it since. I had never thought about why I like Degas’s sculpture but having taken this course I tried to look at why I like this work.
I personally like sculptures because the show the mark of the artist, you can imagine that this artist actually put their hands on this piece years ago. This of course reflects that artists and artistic talent are still very valued and admired. Degas sculpture of the dancer is also very unique in that it is a bronze sculpture but also has a cotton skirt and a hair ribbon. This seems like an old combination since bronze this thought to be very strong and unbreakable, but the use of the fabric softens the sculpture. This combination brings the strength and elegance that a dancer must contain when they perform. I also like that the pose of the dancer incorporates the strength and posture that a dancer holds, yet doesn’t show any movement that we are used to seeing in a dancer on stage. The dancer does not have the most beautiful face, according to some critics. But by not having the ideal face, I like it more since Degas was an impressionist painter he painted what he saw. It makes the art much more realistic, this of course touches on the subject that we are searching for the eternal truth and honesty in art.
Melanie Delon
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img11.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/6/e/5/6/f/6e56fe7f8990394c550d6ca308aa03c9_full.jpg&imgrefurl=http://int.nnm.ru/hudozhnica_melanie_delon_1&h=900&w=561&sz=149&tbnid=_jYdOWXPnNwJ::&tbnh=146&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3DM%25C3%25A9lanie%2BDelon&usg=__z1vUaZaSiNXv_smqa5xaIM5ZeXw=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image&cd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwcO2Ez0exo - Melanie Delon speed painting.
I really liked a lot of the works created by Melanie Delon. She's actually a digital painter, meaning that she creates her images through the use of computer programs. However, just because she uses technology, doesn't mean that her works don't show any skill or talent--its actually quite the contrary. Her paintings caught my eye because the look so realistic even though many of the subject matter derives from a fantasy world. That link to the video of her painting gives us an insight on the process it takes to create such an image--I thought it was really fascinating! It seems like she favors drawing females, one in particular (maybe herself?) in a somewhat eerie light; there seems to be a weird glow to each one of her paintings. All in all, Delon has an awesome imagination and great use of technique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwcO2Ez0exo - Melanie Delon speed painting.
I really liked a lot of the works created by Melanie Delon. She's actually a digital painter, meaning that she creates her images through the use of computer programs. However, just because she uses technology, doesn't mean that her works don't show any skill or talent--its actually quite the contrary. Her paintings caught my eye because the look so realistic even though many of the subject matter derives from a fantasy world. That link to the video of her painting gives us an insight on the process it takes to create such an image--I thought it was really fascinating! It seems like she favors drawing females, one in particular (maybe herself?) in a somewhat eerie light; there seems to be a weird glow to each one of her paintings. All in all, Delon has an awesome imagination and great use of technique.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
rotating building in dubai is "awaiting approval"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKN2435465820080624
watch the little video, its cool
watch the little video, its cool
Starry-Eyed
What is the significance of being able to translate an image into a collection of data? With the advent of digital photography, photographs can be turned into digital files. This can either be seen as a suggestion to rethink our view of the photographed world, or to point out the limitations of digital photography as compared to analog photography. Perhaps digital is inherently unreal, and does not correspond to actuality.
As digital photography is more and more replacing normal means of photography, what are the effects upon the integrity of photographs as evidence of reality? If reality can be represented as a series of pixels, then reality can feasibly be manipulated by hand. Photography becomes no more representative of reality than more traditional forms of art.
As digital photography is more and more replacing normal means of photography, what are the effects upon the integrity of photographs as evidence of reality? If reality can be represented as a series of pixels, then reality can feasibly be manipulated by hand. Photography becomes no more representative of reality than more traditional forms of art.
1. Mitchell mentions how visual processing helps doctors to “see” things like different layers of muscle, or different parts of the brain. In some cases, these pictures stand in for something the doctor might actually see. For instance, some pictures in books depict muscles on the human body. Perhaps if the doctor were able to cut into a cadaver, he could actually look at the muscles in an arm. The picture just lets the doctor see these muscles without having to harm his patient. In other cases, the pictures do not correspond to anything the naked eye can sense. For instance, in colored representation of brain synapses firing. If the doctor were to actually cut into his patient’s brain and look at it, he would not see areas with lots of brain activity glowing red or orange. This orange or red coloring represents data that has nothing to do with what the naked eye can see. In this way, digital imaging can radically depart from photography’s limitations of image creation. Does this make digital imaging a more complete representation of reality? Or instead is digital imaging fundamentally a product of fabrication?
Digital imaging is definitely more flexible in the kind of data it can represent. This could lead one to conclude that digital imaging is a more complete representation of reality or truth. Digital imaging can represent all kinds of data that corresponds directly with reality, whereas photography can only represent the effect of visible light. Digital images aren’t forced to correspond to images produced from the effects of visible light. In fact, digital images aren’t forced to correspond to any kind of image that actually exists and can be seen by the eye. This doesn’t, however, rule out the possibility that digital images correspond to data that is securely grounded in fact. Maybe a digital image represents the probability density of an electron orbital in some molecule. This probability density can’t be “seen,” but it does exist, and the data can be represented in a visual image. This image still very closely corresponds to reality, and thus shows the potential for digital imaging to be complete representation of reality.
On the other hand, digital imaging is a manipulation of data to serve some purpose. Even if the data is real, we alter it so that it can be represented in a visual form that is easy to understand and interpret. This could arguably indicate the fabrication that must occur for a digital image to be useful. Even if a digital representation in some cases has to do with data that is grounded in “Truth,” in other cases digital imaging can depict an entirely imagined (or fabricated) picture. Digital imaging can be used, or manipulated, to represent reality, and can also be manipulated to fabricate pictures. Photography doesn’t have this freedom. The process is consistent, and always represents the effects of light in a way that is grounded in reality. In this sense, digital imaging is more grounded in fabrication and artistic invention than photography.
2. Mitchell states that, “the photograph demonstrated that for many artists truth had really been another word for convention.” It is easy to see how painting could have led artists to mix these two things up (such as conventional two-dimensional depictions of the cube). How has photography led artists to a more clear distinction between truth and convention? Or, is photography just as susceptible to confusing convention with truth?
Digital imaging is definitely more flexible in the kind of data it can represent. This could lead one to conclude that digital imaging is a more complete representation of reality or truth. Digital imaging can represent all kinds of data that corresponds directly with reality, whereas photography can only represent the effect of visible light. Digital images aren’t forced to correspond to images produced from the effects of visible light. In fact, digital images aren’t forced to correspond to any kind of image that actually exists and can be seen by the eye. This doesn’t, however, rule out the possibility that digital images correspond to data that is securely grounded in fact. Maybe a digital image represents the probability density of an electron orbital in some molecule. This probability density can’t be “seen,” but it does exist, and the data can be represented in a visual image. This image still very closely corresponds to reality, and thus shows the potential for digital imaging to be complete representation of reality.
On the other hand, digital imaging is a manipulation of data to serve some purpose. Even if the data is real, we alter it so that it can be represented in a visual form that is easy to understand and interpret. This could arguably indicate the fabrication that must occur for a digital image to be useful. Even if a digital representation in some cases has to do with data that is grounded in “Truth,” in other cases digital imaging can depict an entirely imagined (or fabricated) picture. Digital imaging can be used, or manipulated, to represent reality, and can also be manipulated to fabricate pictures. Photography doesn’t have this freedom. The process is consistent, and always represents the effects of light in a way that is grounded in reality. In this sense, digital imaging is more grounded in fabrication and artistic invention than photography.
2. Mitchell states that, “the photograph demonstrated that for many artists truth had really been another word for convention.” It is easy to see how painting could have led artists to mix these two things up (such as conventional two-dimensional depictions of the cube). How has photography led artists to a more clear distinction between truth and convention? Or, is photography just as susceptible to confusing convention with truth?
The Reconfigured Eye
With the emergence of the digital image, many issues including moral and legal ones arose. In analyzing this phenomenon, it is imperative to first analyze the difference between photography and the digital image. While photography has prided itself on immediacy between the physical and the image captured, the digital image reverses this by enabling blatant manipulation of the image. With the lack of an artist’s hand in photography, it has been acknowledged as the most objective evidence of a physical reality. The creator of a digital image exploits this very quality of photography, and insidiously creates images to suit his own motives. One very interesting point that is being brought up is the power that these artists now possess. Digital images no longer require physical objects; digital objects can interact with each other to create new digital images. Thus, a whole new digital world can be created independent of a physical reality. Therefore, artists can now create a world based solely on their intentions and influence public opinion through the introduction of these images. These images will be perceived as legitimate, and this reveals how the emergence of such technology can be detrimental to the political climate of our society. While photography is been viewed as the most objective form of evidence, techniques such as framing and exposure has already enabled photographers to add a rhetorical element to their images. Works such as that of Jacob Riis prove that photography has the power to persuade. As such, the danger of the emergence of the digital image is undeniable. Seemingly innocuous, this innovation could have had serious political consequences if not monitored closely.
The Discrete Image
As there are only 3 pages of this article in my reader, I am unable to give a good analysis of this reading. However, upon reading the first 3 pages, one statement that caught my attention was “the mental image is always the return of some image-object, its remanence”. This gives the image a ghostly quality, and brings to our attention the relationship between the metaphysical and the conceptual. What strikes me most about this is that it reveals the interdependence between the two. The existence of a reality outside our imagination has often been denied; some believe that perceptions are the only thing we can be certain of. Yet, this statement questions the birth of a mental image. Where does the mental image originate from, if not from the visual experience of a physical object. This paradox reveals that we are perhaps too concerned with the separation of the material from the immaterial. They are intertwined, and are evidently building upon each other as seen from the statement above.
With the emergence of the digital image, many issues including moral and legal ones arose. In analyzing this phenomenon, it is imperative to first analyze the difference between photography and the digital image. While photography has prided itself on immediacy between the physical and the image captured, the digital image reverses this by enabling blatant manipulation of the image. With the lack of an artist’s hand in photography, it has been acknowledged as the most objective evidence of a physical reality. The creator of a digital image exploits this very quality of photography, and insidiously creates images to suit his own motives. One very interesting point that is being brought up is the power that these artists now possess. Digital images no longer require physical objects; digital objects can interact with each other to create new digital images. Thus, a whole new digital world can be created independent of a physical reality. Therefore, artists can now create a world based solely on their intentions and influence public opinion through the introduction of these images. These images will be perceived as legitimate, and this reveals how the emergence of such technology can be detrimental to the political climate of our society. While photography is been viewed as the most objective form of evidence, techniques such as framing and exposure has already enabled photographers to add a rhetorical element to their images. Works such as that of Jacob Riis prove that photography has the power to persuade. As such, the danger of the emergence of the digital image is undeniable. Seemingly innocuous, this innovation could have had serious political consequences if not monitored closely.
The Discrete Image
As there are only 3 pages of this article in my reader, I am unable to give a good analysis of this reading. However, upon reading the first 3 pages, one statement that caught my attention was “the mental image is always the return of some image-object, its remanence”. This gives the image a ghostly quality, and brings to our attention the relationship between the metaphysical and the conceptual. What strikes me most about this is that it reveals the interdependence between the two. The existence of a reality outside our imagination has often been denied; some believe that perceptions are the only thing we can be certain of. Yet, this statement questions the birth of a mental image. Where does the mental image originate from, if not from the visual experience of a physical object. This paradox reveals that we are perhaps too concerned with the separation of the material from the immaterial. They are intertwined, and are evidently building upon each other as seen from the statement above.
Digital Images
1. In Mitchell’s The Reconfigured Eye, he includes a quote by Aaron Scharf, “The meaning of the term ‘truth to nature’ lost its force: what was true could not always be seen, and what was see was not always true,” and comments, “Once again the photograph demonstrated that for many artists truth had really been another word for convention.” What is one example of an alternative “truth” that could be portrayed in digital photography, but does not fit with convention?
Recently, a photo released by the US Army of the highest-ranking female military officer (who was recently promoted to four-star general) sparked a dispute between the Associated Press and the Pentagon. The problem was that the picture released showed the general in front of an American flag, though in reality the original background was a bland bookcase. Adding and subtracting content from images is strictly against AP policy, and after unknowingly printing a doctored photo, the AP issued a “Photo Elimination” notice that contained the image with a huge “No” symbol over it. This example brings up numerous problems mentioned in the quotes above. When defining “truth to nature,” the convention is to define it in terms of physical and temporal reality, and the AP clearly abides by this convention. Since the general was not physically present in front of the flag, the image is therefore a lie. However, what if “truth to nature” was instead defined in a more metaphorical way to describe possibly, the “nature” of the situation, or her “personal nature.” With this definition the new photo with the American flag would be considered more truthful because it more accurately describes the situation’s significance to our country and shows her patriotism. The notion of “truth” has been contested throughout human history, and though it is unlikely to ever be resolved, digital images at least challenge the conventional ideas of truth and nature that our society has grown accustomed to.
2. Mitchell argues, “We might best regard digital images… as fragments of information that circulate in the high-speed networks now ringing the globe that can be received.” In what ways does using the term “information” accurately reflect the nature of these images and in what ways does this term seem to limit the meaning potential of digital images?
Recently, a photo released by the US Army of the highest-ranking female military officer (who was recently promoted to four-star general) sparked a dispute between the Associated Press and the Pentagon. The problem was that the picture released showed the general in front of an American flag, though in reality the original background was a bland bookcase. Adding and subtracting content from images is strictly against AP policy, and after unknowingly printing a doctored photo, the AP issued a “Photo Elimination” notice that contained the image with a huge “No” symbol over it. This example brings up numerous problems mentioned in the quotes above. When defining “truth to nature,” the convention is to define it in terms of physical and temporal reality, and the AP clearly abides by this convention. Since the general was not physically present in front of the flag, the image is therefore a lie. However, what if “truth to nature” was instead defined in a more metaphorical way to describe possibly, the “nature” of the situation, or her “personal nature.” With this definition the new photo with the American flag would be considered more truthful because it more accurately describes the situation’s significance to our country and shows her patriotism. The notion of “truth” has been contested throughout human history, and though it is unlikely to ever be resolved, digital images at least challenge the conventional ideas of truth and nature that our society has grown accustomed to.
2. Mitchell argues, “We might best regard digital images… as fragments of information that circulate in the high-speed networks now ringing the globe that can be received.” In what ways does using the term “information” accurately reflect the nature of these images and in what ways does this term seem to limit the meaning potential of digital images?
How significant is the difference between analog and digital images? I can't even tell the difference in playback from a record and an mp3, and though the mechanism is completely different, an analog clock and a digital clock both just tell the time. The infinite range of values for the second hand doesn't make a difference when you need to know if you're late. Digital watches with milliseconds provide far more detail about the time than is generally useful. Similarly, in a digital image, if the resolution is high enough, our eyes will just interpret the square points as smooth curves.
Is the problem of falsifying evidence unique to digital images? It seems like the real problem is people telling lies, and people believing lies, which are not new phenomena, and can be facilitated by any medium if the liar is creative enough (or the people are gullible enough.) Sasquatch footage doesn't need to be digitally altered if you've got a big enough guy and a gorilla suit. If people were at all familiar with photoshop it should be obvious that digital photographs can easily be altered and distorted. It seems to go without saying that nearly every photograph that we see in everyday media is altered in someway, when an unaltered magazine cover stirs "controversy". You could choose to believe NASA photographs represent reality because you trust NASA as a scientific authority, which would be different than believing photos just because they are photos.
Is the problem of falsifying evidence unique to digital images? It seems like the real problem is people telling lies, and people believing lies, which are not new phenomena, and can be facilitated by any medium if the liar is creative enough (or the people are gullible enough.) Sasquatch footage doesn't need to be digitally altered if you've got a big enough guy and a gorilla suit. If people were at all familiar with photoshop it should be obvious that digital photographs can easily be altered and distorted. It seems to go without saying that nearly every photograph that we see in everyday media is altered in someway, when an unaltered magazine cover stirs "controversy". You could choose to believe NASA photographs represent reality because you trust NASA as a scientific authority, which would be different than believing photos just because they are photos.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Digital Art
1. Does digital photography encourage hyperreality? Where is the fine line between "enhanced" and "fake?"
2. Mitchell states that "...since captured, 'painted' and synthesized pixel value can be combined seamlessly, the digital image blurs the customary distinctions between painting and photography and between mechanical and handmade pictures." (470) So does this make digital art more "artistic" by pulling it away from the objectivity and the dryness of photography? Is digital art a bridge between the old and the new (painting and photography) or is this a completely new development in visual art?
I think that digital art both adds and diminishes artistic qualities . It adds artistic qualities for the same reason that Mitchell states; people can alter and reproduce it to display their personality, a touch of human-ness. It diminishes artistic qualities in that it may take things too far and make it completely unreal and almost fake, taking it away from the "human-ness." Thus depending on the view, we can see it as a bridge or a completely new development. If seen as "artistic," it can be seen as the bridge between the completely humanly "painting" and the mechanical and objective "photography." If seen as "un-artistic," however, it can be seen as the outcome of advanced technological era of today, which makes it a completely new development in visual art.
2. Mitchell states that "...since captured, 'painted' and synthesized pixel value can be combined seamlessly, the digital image blurs the customary distinctions between painting and photography and between mechanical and handmade pictures." (470) So does this make digital art more "artistic" by pulling it away from the objectivity and the dryness of photography? Is digital art a bridge between the old and the new (painting and photography) or is this a completely new development in visual art?
I think that digital art both adds and diminishes artistic qualities . It adds artistic qualities for the same reason that Mitchell states; people can alter and reproduce it to display their personality, a touch of human-ness. It diminishes artistic qualities in that it may take things too far and make it completely unreal and almost fake, taking it away from the "human-ness." Thus depending on the view, we can see it as a bridge or a completely new development. If seen as "artistic," it can be seen as the bridge between the completely humanly "painting" and the mechanical and objective "photography." If seen as "un-artistic," however, it can be seen as the outcome of advanced technological era of today, which makes it a completely new development in visual art.
Reconfigured Eye
Does digital photography hold any artistic appeal since it can be manipulated and altered beyond recognition from the initial image or reality? How has the advent of digital photography reinvented the definition and perception of photography?
While digital photography has erased the realistic aspect of photography with its manipulative characteristics, it still retains some artistic appeal. There has to be some level of artistic ability going into the alteration of the image. Digital photography is discrete compared to the analog quality of traditional photography. This characteristic results in an infinite replicability, unlike painting and its photographic counterparts. An interesting sidenote revolves around how paintings are transformed into digital images. Do these digital images retain the same artistic value and appeal as the original or is something lost in the translation?
In what other areas (besides art) did digital photography have an impact? Was this impact as revolutionary as that on the artistic world?
Questions
Does it make sense to state that a simple photograph represents reality while a painting represents the ideal in art? Or is it that in both techniques, the image is a embodiment of the ideals of the artist/photographer as well as the viewer?
Is seeing enough to believe when it comes to digital photography?
Before reading this text, I really knew nothing about photography and digital imaging. It was surprising to find out that a good percentage of the pictures published in our society are digitally altered with little trouble at all. With access to a camera and a computer, one can easily modify a photograph and use it for evidence in places like the court room. Like many, if I were chosen to sit as a juror of that case and was presented a picture of the accused doing exactly what he is being tried for, I would have without a doubt assumed he was guilty just by the photo or video alone. However, according to this reading, I would have been the victim to the deception of digital imaging. Therefore, seeing something (especially in a photograph) does not automatically give it truth and credibility. Sometimes, photography is just as true as the image created by paint on a canvas.
The Reconfigured Eye
When digital images are enhanced, like in the case of NASA scientists using “image-processing techniques to remove imperfections from images of the lunar surface” (Mitchell 11)do the changes in the imperfections out way the possible negative outcomes? Of course there are negative social consequences, such as the public losing faith and reliability in NASA, but do the changes of the image make it more or less meaningful? Do changes in images create a new perception of the subject or does it speak more about the photographer?
The New York Times stated that photographers, editors and publishers would have to stay away from creating false images to make a story because of the loss of creditability. Which I believe is at stake when images are digitally altered. Digital images have created two sides: one is the artistic and the other is journalistic. Images that are used for artistic purposes seem okay to be altered in order for the artist to express themselves, but when images are used in the media there is backlash to when images are changed. People state that they want the truth, yet often images that are altered can create a larger buzz and reaction. Altered images can be much more interesting than the truth, but I do not know if it makes it more or less meaningful. By talking about certain images make them more important? The photographer has a large role in the choices in an image, but photographers are creating an image that the public wants to see or will want to see. I think that when we focus on certain images that it does tell more about the public and its fascination.
Digital photography is not always a form of producing art, but can be used to inform. Images can have a powerful effect on the public; the photographer is now questioned. Is it reasonable to question the ethics of photographers? Does the photographer carry some sort of ethical obligation? Or is it the photographer’s right to just make an image and call it art?
The Reconfigured Eye
One thing I found to be very interesting in William Mitchell's discussion of digital photography, is this concept of "computational ready-mades". One key difference between digital photography and photography is digital version's ability to be seamlessly manipulated. Digital photography leaves no distinct marker of being "part scanned photograph, part computer synthesized", and hence has a certain ambiguity of originality. It has the ability to be completely ready-made and yet reconfigured such that it is completely original at the same time. Is this "ready-made" ambiguity a telling feature of modern art? Duchamp's art was also both ready made and original, in that they were already constructed objects that were appropriated a new meaning. Andy Warhol and many other modern artists created collages and used ready-made items to create new, original works. If ready-made art, such as conceptual art and digital photography, is the art of the modern age then does that make analog photography, like painting, dead. Is its inability to be reconfigured a trait of the past?
Also in Mitchell’s discussion, the author describes digital photography’s ability to be constantly fixed, retouched, and enhanced. Does this create a representation of the world that will always be more perfect than it actually is? Does this create a polarized understanding of reality, divided between a world that we see in visual representations such as magazines and newspapers, and a world that we experience in our day-to-day lives?
Also in Mitchell’s discussion, the author describes digital photography’s ability to be constantly fixed, retouched, and enhanced. Does this create a representation of the world that will always be more perfect than it actually is? Does this create a polarized understanding of reality, divided between a world that we see in visual representations such as magazines and newspapers, and a world that we experience in our day-to-day lives?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Limits
The concept of both the infinite and the finite is present within Martin's works. While the grid is a representation of infinity, the grid itself is encased in a finite border. In terms of her art, is the aspect of infinity or finity more important?
In the text is the statement "Her drawing would not be concerned with the fragment but with completeness, a sense of completeleness she suggested by surrounding her grids with a border that [...] stopped them being seen as part of an extended continuum" (51). The purpose of the border seems to just be to make the drawing "complete", since simply depicting a grid might suggest that the part of the grid drawn is only a small section of the whole grid. Martin seems to be attempting to confine infinity. However, her goal is still the idea of infinity, the finite border is only used as a supplement to "complete" her works, although the purpose of this isn't as clear.
Martin's work, consisting mainly of grids, is highly repetitive, yet there are also a seemingly infinite number of discrepancies in the grid. What exactly was Martin trying to accomplish by drawing like this?
In the text is the statement "Her drawing would not be concerned with the fragment but with completeness, a sense of completeleness she suggested by surrounding her grids with a border that [...] stopped them being seen as part of an extended continuum" (51). The purpose of the border seems to just be to make the drawing "complete", since simply depicting a grid might suggest that the part of the grid drawn is only a small section of the whole grid. Martin seems to be attempting to confine infinity. However, her goal is still the idea of infinity, the finite border is only used as a supplement to "complete" her works, although the purpose of this isn't as clear.
Martin's work, consisting mainly of grids, is highly repetitive, yet there are also a seemingly infinite number of discrepancies in the grid. What exactly was Martin trying to accomplish by drawing like this?
Gautama Buddha
Talismans - in "The Infinite Line" the use of the talisman is mentioned as a part of Agnes Martin's work. I can see that in her work and wonder how of much of that is attributed to being a symbol representing the spiritual - similar to a grid, the intersecting point of the natural and supernatural - or that the object itself is the spiritual.
Agnes describes her work using "infinite", "joy", "bliss" and "sublime". These words, in my experience are relegated to discussions of intense spirituality and described almost a final state of spiritual achievement, exemplified by the Siddhartha or the Dalai Llama. And that this state can be achieved by anyone. How does art provide that for us? Can this art provide universal "bliss" to its audience similar to how meditation claims to? A relationship can be that in observing these Untitled works, the viewer does get drawn in to the patches of infinitude that are shown. The perpendicular and parallel lines do in some fashion grip and take hold of the viewer, in a sense almost incarcerating rather than liberating.
In one piece, Martin placed a boundary around her grid to enable it "stopping from being an extended continuum". Is there such a thing as an "extended" continuum? Are not all continuum's extended. How can something that has boundaries be any kind of continuum? Further, what spirituality may we reach if there is a beginning and an end?
lastly, i had a question one what this meant: "as self contained things, the drawings embrace the infinite but resist becoming totalities"
Agnes describes her work using "infinite", "joy", "bliss" and "sublime". These words, in my experience are relegated to discussions of intense spirituality and described almost a final state of spiritual achievement, exemplified by the Siddhartha or the Dalai Llama. And that this state can be achieved by anyone. How does art provide that for us? Can this art provide universal "bliss" to its audience similar to how meditation claims to? A relationship can be that in observing these Untitled works, the viewer does get drawn in to the patches of infinitude that are shown. The perpendicular and parallel lines do in some fashion grip and take hold of the viewer, in a sense almost incarcerating rather than liberating.
In one piece, Martin placed a boundary around her grid to enable it "stopping from being an extended continuum". Is there such a thing as an "extended" continuum? Are not all continuum's extended. How can something that has boundaries be any kind of continuum? Further, what spirituality may we reach if there is a beginning and an end?
lastly, i had a question one what this meant: "as self contained things, the drawings embrace the infinite but resist becoming totalities"
The 'Margin of Freedom' within Repetition in Art
Fer states that "This trope of renunciation, of a retreat inward to spiritual essence [. . .] has come to dominate the way Martin is thought about as an artist." Applied to her art, such an inward retreat creates a series of internal frames of "meaning." Within these frames-- which further connects the concept to the art - we see that the literary device of interior monologue can be employed within the retreat. But is infinity and repetition used internally or externally? Or both? Or neither? What can be perceived by the observer and what can be perceived by the artist? Martin's art appears to challenge rigidity in conceptual and physical terms by pushing for hybridity and infinity within itself.
variety (difference) vs variation (self-similarity)
While reading Fer's article, I was reminded of something I was shown in one of my studios.
"Quantity is a precondition of fineness.
Repetition in multiple models is necessary to make selections.
Repetition within a single model is necessary to register differentiation.
Difference, or the possibility of difference, is produced as an answer to program."
- Atlas of Novel Tectonics, Reiser and Umemoto
In studio, we are almost always encouraged to produce reiterations of our ideas in order to refine and further progress our ideas. In light of Funes' story, if we lived in a world where we could not recognize recurrence because we recalled everything perfectly, architecture students would be very miserable. Fer claims that repetition is necessary to Martin's work, "to create maximum difference, but also to demonstrate the interminable work of the work" (456) and that "repetition ensures some regulating pattern of recognition." Was the purpose of repetition solely to conceptualize infinity? How exactly do you manage to put together abstraction and conceptualization? It's seems like the resulting word would be an oxy-moron.
Martin began with found objects and gradually entered the realm of drawing & painting, but retained the "ready-made" quality of her work (i.e., the grid). Could it be said that Martin's work is a reiteration of the work that Duchamp started in the sense that he exposed the ready-made quality of art? If we were to smash Duchamp and Martin into one person, would her work resemble anything that Duchamp would have made if he continued with his ready-mades?
"Quantity is a precondition of fineness.
Repetition in multiple models is necessary to make selections.
Repetition within a single model is necessary to register differentiation.
Difference, or the possibility of difference, is produced as an answer to program."
- Atlas of Novel Tectonics, Reiser and Umemoto
In studio, we are almost always encouraged to produce reiterations of our ideas in order to refine and further progress our ideas. In light of Funes' story, if we lived in a world where we could not recognize recurrence because we recalled everything perfectly, architecture students would be very miserable. Fer claims that repetition is necessary to Martin's work, "to create maximum difference, but also to demonstrate the interminable work of the work" (456) and that "repetition ensures some regulating pattern of recognition." Was the purpose of repetition solely to conceptualize infinity? How exactly do you manage to put together abstraction and conceptualization? It's seems like the resulting word would be an oxy-moron.
Martin began with found objects and gradually entered the realm of drawing & painting, but retained the "ready-made" quality of her work (i.e., the grid). Could it be said that Martin's work is a reiteration of the work that Duchamp started in the sense that he exposed the ready-made quality of art? If we were to smash Duchamp and Martin into one person, would her work resemble anything that Duchamp would have made if he continued with his ready-mades?
Monday, November 17, 2008
repetition questions
Fer states, “Repetition ensures some regulating patter of recognition.” In saying this, along with mentioning the story of Funes, Fer makes the point that repetition is essential to understanding and conceptualizing information. This suggests that one reason Martin uses repetition is so that her subject matter has the possibility of being conceptualized and understood. Why is Martin trying to conceptualize her abstract and meditative subject matter? Is it for her own (isolated) gain, or is she attempting to reach out and connect with the audience?
Fer also says that to Martin, “Repetition is understood as a means not of deadening but heightening experience.” We’re used to the idea that repetition and copies cheapen or deaden an original thought or idea. How is it that repetition can be used to enhance? What about a memory could make it more important than the original experience?
This part of the reading was definitely confusing for me. I guess a memory can become more meaningful when a person has had time to reflect and interpret the original experience. Also, after time has passed, the original experience can be placed in some sort of context with later events. The memory can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted with more information or a different point of view. For instance, someone could look back on their first meeting of a friend and say, “We have so much in common, no wonder we made such easy conversation when we were virtually strangers.” At the time, that easy conversation might have seemed like a coincidence. Only later developments of friendship and the discovery of common ground gave the original experience a more sophisticated interpretation. But in this instant, it is the extra information that adds importance to the memory, not the simple fact that the memory is a repetition. Is there something essential to the repetition itself that gives importance? Is it a number thing? For instance, if I think about X a hundred times, I’ve made X more important than if I’d only thought about X once. If that’s the case, is memory any different than anticipation? If we anticipate something over and over, the same way, and then it happens, does the event become very important because the event is a repetition of our anticipations? Or does the fact that memory occurs later in time have some special importance?
Fer also says that to Martin, “Repetition is understood as a means not of deadening but heightening experience.” We’re used to the idea that repetition and copies cheapen or deaden an original thought or idea. How is it that repetition can be used to enhance? What about a memory could make it more important than the original experience?
This part of the reading was definitely confusing for me. I guess a memory can become more meaningful when a person has had time to reflect and interpret the original experience. Also, after time has passed, the original experience can be placed in some sort of context with later events. The memory can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted with more information or a different point of view. For instance, someone could look back on their first meeting of a friend and say, “We have so much in common, no wonder we made such easy conversation when we were virtually strangers.” At the time, that easy conversation might have seemed like a coincidence. Only later developments of friendship and the discovery of common ground gave the original experience a more sophisticated interpretation. But in this instant, it is the extra information that adds importance to the memory, not the simple fact that the memory is a repetition. Is there something essential to the repetition itself that gives importance? Is it a number thing? For instance, if I think about X a hundred times, I’ve made X more important than if I’d only thought about X once. If that’s the case, is memory any different than anticipation? If we anticipate something over and over, the same way, and then it happens, does the event become very important because the event is a repetition of our anticipations? Or does the fact that memory occurs later in time have some special importance?
Agnes Martin and Her Grids
While describing Martin’s transition from material ready-made objects to the grid, Briony Fer conjectures, “maybe the template of the grid, once she found it, was ready-made enough.” How can something that is no more material than a drawing be considered a ready-made object?
One of the connections between traditional material ready-mades and the gird is the notion of utility. When artists integrate ready-made objects into their work they are essentially taking an object made for some purpose, placing it into the context of art and are thereby stripping it of its original utility. Grids are definitely utilitarian in that they were invented as tools to help organize, plan, draw, etc. Grids are used to make sure that all of the small details fit into an organized whole, such as houses into a gridded neighborhood, or points on a graph. So what does it mean to put a grid with nothing in it onto a canvas and call it art? Is its utility transformed to fit into the context of art, or it is just lost altogether? I would say that it still has utility in that it can be used for purposes such as juxtaposing infinity with the infinitesimal, or highlighting difference through repetition.
Throughout the article, Fer references Martin’s own writings about her work and makes comparisons between her writing and her work. Does writing about ones art detract from its ability to stand alone as a work of art, or does it enhance its meaning since the concept behind the work is what makes conceptual art?
One of the connections between traditional material ready-mades and the gird is the notion of utility. When artists integrate ready-made objects into their work they are essentially taking an object made for some purpose, placing it into the context of art and are thereby stripping it of its original utility. Grids are definitely utilitarian in that they were invented as tools to help organize, plan, draw, etc. Grids are used to make sure that all of the small details fit into an organized whole, such as houses into a gridded neighborhood, or points on a graph. So what does it mean to put a grid with nothing in it onto a canvas and call it art? Is its utility transformed to fit into the context of art, or it is just lost altogether? I would say that it still has utility in that it can be used for purposes such as juxtaposing infinity with the infinitesimal, or highlighting difference through repetition.
Throughout the article, Fer references Martin’s own writings about her work and makes comparisons between her writing and her work. Does writing about ones art detract from its ability to stand alone as a work of art, or does it enhance its meaning since the concept behind the work is what makes conceptual art?
There were a few questions about how a grid of lines could be considered art, because Martin's work seems more mathematical than artistic. But couldn't any painting be broken down into lines and shapes? Some Cubist and Futurist paintings are blatantly composed of geometric shapes, but any painting is on some level nothing more than a collection of shapes of color. Being visually simple shouldn't disqualify Martin's work as art. Could her work even be considered "representational" in some ways, where she is representing the imaginary concept of infinity?
Something that surprised me in the reading was Fer's mentioning of gender: "To Martin, there was nothing particularly feminine about her metaphysics [...] On the contrary, she identified with that most serious masculine tradition of metaphysics"(456). It seemed out of place, in writing about infinity, to even mention femininity, and especially pointless to say that her metaphysics isn't feminine. This statement raises all kinds of questions about the difference between feminine and masculine metaphysics, and what that has to do with anything. Fey doesn't explain that statement, but brings gender up again in the conclusion: "I am not suggesting [...] that we should establish an exclusive lineage of women artists"(462). Why bother to make that statement? If she had written about men artists influencing each other, would she have made a disclaimer about establishing an exclusive lineage of men artists?
Something that surprised me in the reading was Fer's mentioning of gender: "To Martin, there was nothing particularly feminine about her metaphysics [...] On the contrary, she identified with that most serious masculine tradition of metaphysics"(456). It seemed out of place, in writing about infinity, to even mention femininity, and especially pointless to say that her metaphysics isn't feminine. This statement raises all kinds of questions about the difference between feminine and masculine metaphysics, and what that has to do with anything. Fey doesn't explain that statement, but brings gender up again in the conclusion: "I am not suggesting [...] that we should establish an exclusive lineage of women artists"(462). Why bother to make that statement? If she had written about men artists influencing each other, would she have made a disclaimer about establishing an exclusive lineage of men artists?
To Infinity... and Beyond!
1. What is the point of mentioning femininity of Agnes Martin's metaphysics, or her identifying with the "masculine tradition of metaphysics in Rothko and Newman?" How does this relate to the idea of infinity? What WERE Agnes Martin's metaphysics?
2. How is repetition exactly related to infinity, as demonstrated by Martin's grids? How does this pertain to art and what was so appealing about it? As a math/science person, it's difficult to think of "infinity" as something other than a numerically mind-boggling concept.
Briony Fer says that repetition in Martin's artworks, such as that on page 451 in CR, give a sense of continuum. And maybe that sense of continuum is what the concept of "infinity" is in art. The regularity of her rectangular grids stretching across seems to imply that the pattern just goes on forever even past the boundaries of the paper. This idea of regularity and repetition seems to be a big change from the gesture paintings that Pollock, and other abstract expressionism ideas which valued randomness and experimentation etc. I don't really know what about Martin's work makes it aesthetic, though, and I don't understand Fer's claim that "the grids are repetitive but never mechanical" (450). What about it makes it NOT mechanical?
2. How is repetition exactly related to infinity, as demonstrated by Martin's grids? How does this pertain to art and what was so appealing about it? As a math/science person, it's difficult to think of "infinity" as something other than a numerically mind-boggling concept.
Briony Fer says that repetition in Martin's artworks, such as that on page 451 in CR, give a sense of continuum. And maybe that sense of continuum is what the concept of "infinity" is in art. The regularity of her rectangular grids stretching across seems to imply that the pattern just goes on forever even past the boundaries of the paper. This idea of regularity and repetition seems to be a big change from the gesture paintings that Pollock, and other abstract expressionism ideas which valued randomness and experimentation etc. I don't really know what about Martin's work makes it aesthetic, though, and I don't understand Fer's claim that "the grids are repetitive but never mechanical" (450). What about it makes it NOT mechanical?
Where does it all end?
1. Why did Martin choose grids as an aesthetic representation of the infinite when grids have holes between them? Yes, mathematically grids go on “forever,” but in art, a grid is just lines with even space between them.
2. While I do appreciate Agnes Martin’s quest to express infinity art, I have no idea why the grids are considered art. Aren’t grids just math? I realize that it is the ideology behind the artwork that makes it art, but shouldn’t the finished product be taken into consideration?
2. While I do appreciate Agnes Martin’s quest to express infinity art, I have no idea why the grids are considered art. Aren’t grids just math? I realize that it is the ideology behind the artwork that makes it art, but shouldn’t the finished product be taken into consideration?
Lines
Agnes Martin said “‘I don’t like circles—too expanding?’ This is not the kind of expansion she wanted.” (Fer 61). What is the difference between circles expanding and the grid creating an infinite plane? What is the technical difference in terms of expanding and infinite?
While expanding circles create an endless continuous cycle, the grids create an ever extending field. Circles form a sense of repetition, but everyone knows where the circle is heading. Martin does not want theses constraints on her work, the grids show the possibility that the lines can go on into infinity but the course is not necessarily pre-determined. Circles have meaning behind them to people, suggesting ‘life and eternity’ but Martin did not want this message associated with her work. Her work was something new and unique, that she wanted to stand alone.
Martin created grids with wire and later abandoned it, creating a sort of ready-made. These ready-mades can be seen in connection to Duchamp’s ready-mades. Besides the obvious use of everyday things in artwork, how do Duchamp and Martin try to create a similar message? How is Martin’s artwork different from Duchamp’s artwork?
the infinite line
What about the concept of "infinity" was appealing to post-modern artists and how was this concept depicted through various artworks?
How can "artworks" by Agnes Martin be considered to be art when they are simply lines of grids on a paper, with various alterations?
While I understand that there is some underlying significance on Martin's work, I fail to see the connection to art. How can a page of lines be compared to some of the great artworks on the Renaissance? Obviously the times have changed and the notion of art has evolved, but to equate grids to something like the Mona Lisa, or other renowned pieces, seems to slight the very definition of art
The Infinite Line
1) Briony Fer's "The Infinite Line" often discussed the function of repetition and described Agnes Martin's grids as "repetitive but never mechanical." (450) However, where do you draw the line between the mechanical and the repetitive? Machines can also create "endless differences"; mass produced Levi jeans have differences in the stitching, or factory made electronics will always have minute differences, but they are things that we would consider mechanical reproductions. When I first saw Martin's work, it reminded me of a large sheet of wallpaper, or something created in a mechanical fashion. So what makes her work a repetitive work of art and not a mechanical one?
2) Continuing on the notion of the function of repetition, Fer also talked about repetition's ability to maximize difference. By limiting herself to the constraining grid technique, Agnes Martin was more able to explore the difference within the uniformity. This concept is also prevalent in other forms of art. For example in classical ballet, the rigid technique and repetitive nature of the form is used to enable creativity, to force the dancers to find difference within the strict constraints of the technique. The same movements may be performed thousands of times in a dancer's career, however the beauty of those movements is not in the dancer's ability to perform them accurately, but in the dancer's ability to manipulate the movements within the given technique. Similarly Fer discusses the constant presence of the artist's hand within the geometric, confines of the grid. The artistic touch is magnified through repetition. Is the sole function of repetition to find difference? And was Agnes Martin too limiting in the use of her grid technique?
2) Continuing on the notion of the function of repetition, Fer also talked about repetition's ability to maximize difference. By limiting herself to the constraining grid technique, Agnes Martin was more able to explore the difference within the uniformity. This concept is also prevalent in other forms of art. For example in classical ballet, the rigid technique and repetitive nature of the form is used to enable creativity, to force the dancers to find difference within the strict constraints of the technique. The same movements may be performed thousands of times in a dancer's career, however the beauty of those movements is not in the dancer's ability to perform them accurately, but in the dancer's ability to manipulate the movements within the given technique. Similarly Fer discusses the constant presence of the artist's hand within the geometric, confines of the grid. The artistic touch is magnified through repetition. Is the sole function of repetition to find difference? And was Agnes Martin too limiting in the use of her grid technique?
1. Agnes Martin once said, "It is not the role of the artist to worry about life--to feel responsible for creating a better world." How are Martin’s works different from those of her contemporaries, i.e. Do they convey any hidden statements about society or the lifestyles of the modern world?
The 1960s in
2.In Hanne Darboven’s Untitled, 1976. Ink, paper and envelope, the 27 lines consisting of short, handwritten statements is considered art because of the fact that, “Writing in this labour of love, becomes a form of drawing.” Can this letter really be labeled as art or does it fall more into the category of poetry and writing?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Updated Research Paper Draft Assignment
The draft of your research paper is still due on the 20th, as per the syllabus. However, I have shortened the assignment to 4-5 pages. Here are the guidelines for what I want you to include in the draft (not necessarily in this order). I am now treating the draft as an extended proposal which includes evidence of collection and examination of research materials.
Research Paper Draft—5 pages due Thurs, Nov 20th
1. Proposal of your topic:
a. What is the subject of your paper?
b. In your thinking about this subject you realized that it raises a interesting problem, question, or network of relations between one or more other subjects.
c. So, what is the problem and how are you are addressing it?
2. What are the specific objects are that you will be using? Briefly review them and explain how they relate to your topic
a. Literary texts (written sources)
b. Artworks
3. What is the conclusion you think you might arrive at? What is your working hypothesis about what you will discover in your research? What are some potential challenges to this hypothesis? How do you think your hypothesis might change? What are some of the most difficult/sticky areas of your hypothesis, or the likeliest weak link? How do you propose to find more information that will help you think through these points of instability in your hypothesis?
For more pointers I suggest you browse Unit 3 of Writing Analytically. In particular, there are 9 brief guidelines listed on p 238 that are very general but good reminders to follow as you review and integrate sources into your writing.
Research Paper Draft—5 pages due Thurs, Nov 20th
1. Proposal of your topic:
a. What is the subject of your paper?
b. In your thinking about this subject you realized that it raises a interesting problem, question, or network of relations between one or more other subjects.
c. So, what is the problem and how are you are addressing it?
2. What are the specific objects are that you will be using? Briefly review them and explain how they relate to your topic
a. Literary texts (written sources)
b. Artworks
3. What is the conclusion you think you might arrive at? What is your working hypothesis about what you will discover in your research? What are some potential challenges to this hypothesis? How do you think your hypothesis might change? What are some of the most difficult/sticky areas of your hypothesis, or the likeliest weak link? How do you propose to find more information that will help you think through these points of instability in your hypothesis?
For more pointers I suggest you browse Unit 3 of Writing Analytically. In particular, there are 9 brief guidelines listed on p 238 that are very general but good reminders to follow as you review and integrate sources into your writing.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
When Broodthaers and Haake criticzed museums, were they only trying to be “professional noncomformists,” or did they have something valuable to say about the interaction of museum and art? Were their goals the same as Duchamp’s, or were they saying something new?
- I think this was already done by Duchamp, only through different methods.
- Also, this “confrontation” the artists had with the museum is similar to Duchamp in that it seems to be more probing for a reaction than saying something specific. Maybe, then, Broodthaers and Haake were creating something new in that they were continuing to question and probe, thus learning and redefining the relationship between museum and artist and artwork.
In Smithson’s “non-sites,” Smithson makes his work “at a midway point between ‘presence’ and ‘absence’. As information was given, so it was drained away.” This is because he brought a sample from some landscape into the museum for the audience to see, and then notice that they are missing the whole of the landscape. Does this characteristic of information being given while being drained away apply to other art we’ve seen? Isn’t all art incomplete in its representation of reality, so that we’re always being reminded of something that’s not totally there in the museum with us?
- I think this was already done by Duchamp, only through different methods.
- Also, this “confrontation” the artists had with the museum is similar to Duchamp in that it seems to be more probing for a reaction than saying something specific. Maybe, then, Broodthaers and Haake were creating something new in that they were continuing to question and probe, thus learning and redefining the relationship between museum and artist and artwork.
In Smithson’s “non-sites,” Smithson makes his work “at a midway point between ‘presence’ and ‘absence’. As information was given, so it was drained away.” This is because he brought a sample from some landscape into the museum for the audience to see, and then notice that they are missing the whole of the landscape. Does this characteristic of information being given while being drained away apply to other art we’ve seen? Isn’t all art incomplete in its representation of reality, so that we’re always being reminded of something that’s not totally there in the museum with us?
Conceptualism
1. What qualities validate conceptualism as art, more so than as ideology or philosophy? Is it the visual element (photography, for example) that makes it art? If the whole idea is to focus on the idea and the concept, why does it need its label as "art"?
2. What are some of the consequences of art's new intimate relationship with politics and social issues such as feminism? For the society? For art itself?
- Because of the rapidly changing world, with its technological advances, art's role in our society evolved. Not only was it a vehicle for purely artistic practice, but it was also melding into everything else in the society. It did somewhat "taint" art as a purely creative domain, but I don't think this is necessarily a negative consequence because it has adapted to serve other functions. Art is constantly undergoing change and I think it's old-fashioned and stubborn to hold onto a narrow idea of what art is.
2. What are some of the consequences of art's new intimate relationship with politics and social issues such as feminism? For the society? For art itself?
- Because of the rapidly changing world, with its technological advances, art's role in our society evolved. Not only was it a vehicle for purely artistic practice, but it was also melding into everything else in the society. It did somewhat "taint" art as a purely creative domain, but I don't think this is necessarily a negative consequence because it has adapted to serve other functions. Art is constantly undergoing change and I think it's old-fashioned and stubborn to hold onto a narrow idea of what art is.
Conceptual Art and Theories
1. On page 169, Hopkins writes, “In line with the thought of French post-Marxist thinkers such as Louis Althusser and Michael Foucault, ideology increasingly came to be seen as all-pervasive, at work in the very institutions in which humans beings are socialized.” In what ways did these new theories about ideology shape the thinking of conceptual artists and thus their work?
First, a quick definition of ideology is “a system of ideas, beliefs, or concepts that organize and structure reality.” In other words, we have systems of beliefs, etc. that cause us to see the world in a certain ways, and since we can’t perceive and represent reality without preconceived ideas, we can’t experience reality outside of ideologies. For example, a common ideology in the U.S. is a two-party system ideology that assumes that two political parties represent all positions, and thus by talking to someone on the “left” and someone on the “right” you will have covered all views. The implication of this theory that resonated with artists is that their own assumptions about areas such as gender, politics, race, and ecology come from ideological apparatuses such as the government or the media (Althusser) rather than themselves. This led many artists to directly question not only mainstream societies ideologies about gender, race, and the environment, but also to question their own assumptions For example, Burgin “explored his own gender position in works which double back on their dominant ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint.” Feminist artists, meanwhile, focused more on society’s gender ideologies as a whole.
2. The British Art & Language group argued, “theory about art could in itself be considered art.” Is this position on art a total departure from traditional art, or is it actually a continuation of a fundamental idea that has existed for much of art history since often artworks are judged by their dialogue with previous works and their embedded “theories” about art?
First, a quick definition of ideology is “a system of ideas, beliefs, or concepts that organize and structure reality.” In other words, we have systems of beliefs, etc. that cause us to see the world in a certain ways, and since we can’t perceive and represent reality without preconceived ideas, we can’t experience reality outside of ideologies. For example, a common ideology in the U.S. is a two-party system ideology that assumes that two political parties represent all positions, and thus by talking to someone on the “left” and someone on the “right” you will have covered all views. The implication of this theory that resonated with artists is that their own assumptions about areas such as gender, politics, race, and ecology come from ideological apparatuses such as the government or the media (Althusser) rather than themselves. This led many artists to directly question not only mainstream societies ideologies about gender, race, and the environment, but also to question their own assumptions For example, Burgin “explored his own gender position in works which double back on their dominant ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint.” Feminist artists, meanwhile, focused more on society’s gender ideologies as a whole.
2. The British Art & Language group argued, “theory about art could in itself be considered art.” Is this position on art a total departure from traditional art, or is it actually a continuation of a fundamental idea that has existed for much of art history since often artworks are judged by their dialogue with previous works and their embedded “theories” about art?
questions on The Death of the Object
How was avant-garde a useful vehicle for the radicalism of the late 60's art?
The newly emerged ideas of society and radicalism could utilize the avant-gard as a medium to express sentiments freely, without contrains of tradition or the past. But Futurism and Cubism, looking at one object or idea at many angles and instances, could also have been useful in expressing activism towards the establishment. So I wonder if it was just a product of the times.
How did patriotism and radicalism come together in Magrittes depiction of two femur bones painted with the Belgian Flag? And why was there such a move to depict radical juxtapositions of objects or ideas in single pieces of art?
I think to place things in their social context, artists such as Magrittes, violence and pessimism of WWII influenced painters, as well as the minimalist pop and conceptual artists. This could be seen to have led to simple representations of unrelated and disjointed objects. This may not have been simply for shock value, but to exemplify that radical change could seem eerily normal.
The newly emerged ideas of society and radicalism could utilize the avant-gard as a medium to express sentiments freely, without contrains of tradition or the past. But Futurism and Cubism, looking at one object or idea at many angles and instances, could also have been useful in expressing activism towards the establishment. So I wonder if it was just a product of the times.
How did patriotism and radicalism come together in Magrittes depiction of two femur bones painted with the Belgian Flag? And why was there such a move to depict radical juxtapositions of objects or ideas in single pieces of art?
I think to place things in their social context, artists such as Magrittes, violence and pessimism of WWII influenced painters, as well as the minimalist pop and conceptual artists. This could be seen to have led to simple representations of unrelated and disjointed objects. This may not have been simply for shock value, but to exemplify that radical change could seem eerily normal.
Questions
What was the appeal of "conceptual art" that connected the "verbal concept and artistic form"?
The reading states that modern art is defined by context. Without the safehaven of a museum to harbor these art objects, they become "vulnerable, invisible even". Can we appreciate modern art out of context or do we need to be able to first see an object as art for it to hold artistic value?
I feel that a decent amount of modern art cannot be understand with the context of a museum, notably Duchamp's readymades. Outside of a museum, I would not see the value of a signed toilet or a snowshovel. However, the artistic value of these objects doesn't lie in the physical appearance but the intellectual process behind it. The placement in a museum is the catalyst that provides the initial thinking about the object at a higher level, in terms of its intellectual merit and significance.
The Death of the Object
How do the art pieces of Pop art compare to the modern art that came out during the 1970’s? How are the portrayals of women similar or different within both these times? Is this mostly a product of the time and the world around?
In the topic of Pop art the subject was women was mostly through a male perspective. The female body was objectified and made very important to the collages. In the 1970’s because of the times and the women’s movement, there was a platform to portray women in a different light with The Dinner Party, “consisted of a triangular table with places set with ceramic vulvas and embroidered ‘runners’ for 39 imaginary female guest” (Hopkins 183). The female perspective was a challenge to the domineering ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint of the time.
David Hopkins “After Modern Art 1945-2000” beings discussing minimalism on page 169. So for clarification, what is Minimalism? Where did it branch out of? Was it a reaction to something?
The Move to Conceptualism
1. The philosophy of Conceptual art was to remove it from the confines of canvases and sculptures and free art by only defining it by the idea of its design. As a result, art no longer relies on viewer interpretation, but on the knowledge of the idea responsible for its creation. Isn’t this paradoxical considering the viewer is once again confined to their interpretation by what the artist tells them their artwork means?
2. Why do Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” represent the beginning of Conceptual art?
Duchamp’s “readymades” redefined the medium used to portray art. Duchamp’s art was a rebellion against the confines of traditional art and consumerism.
2. Why do Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” represent the beginning of Conceptual art?
Duchamp’s “readymades” redefined the medium used to portray art. Duchamp’s art was a rebellion against the confines of traditional art and consumerism.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What role do museums and the context of artwork play in determining what is considered art?
Is there artwork that would still be considered art when taken out of context? Where is the line drawn between art and not art, when taken out of context?
Can art be created by a non-artist? can it be created accidentally? by non-humans, or by some natural process? I imagine a painting could be found, the artist unknown, and considered artwork. But what if the painting resembled an abstract impressionist's work, conveying the depths of the artist's emotions, and it had only been the result of a paint can spilling or exploding spontaneously? What about paintings created by babies, or created by elephants? Is the elephant the artist in this case? or is the elephant the medium used by the trainer to create the art? What's the point in even trying to define art? I'm just feeling more and more unsure that there's even the start of an answer.
At what point did artistic revolution become so... dramatic? Maybe I am just underestimating the reaction of artists around the time perspective was invented but I mean... Some guys paint some lines, and I guess that's it. I hope you enjoyed painting while it lasted because now it is DEAD.
Is there artwork that would still be considered art when taken out of context? Where is the line drawn between art and not art, when taken out of context?
Can art be created by a non-artist? can it be created accidentally? by non-humans, or by some natural process? I imagine a painting could be found, the artist unknown, and considered artwork. But what if the painting resembled an abstract impressionist's work, conveying the depths of the artist's emotions, and it had only been the result of a paint can spilling or exploding spontaneously? What about paintings created by babies, or created by elephants? Is the elephant the artist in this case? or is the elephant the medium used by the trainer to create the art? What's the point in even trying to define art? I'm just feeling more and more unsure that there's even the start of an answer.
At what point did artistic revolution become so... dramatic? Maybe I am just underestimating the reaction of artists around the time perspective was invented but I mean... Some guys paint some lines, and I guess that's it. I hope you enjoyed painting while it lasted because now it is DEAD.
Questions
1. Ever since the beginnings of art, males were depicted as the more dominant gender. However, the 1970s gave rise to a new way of thinking; females had found the courage to make their voices heard. In what ways was Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party a bold statement as to where women stood in the modern era?
The table installation meant for 39 imaginary female guests (along with 999 invitees) known as The Dinner Party serves as a tribute to the many women who played a significant role in the world's history. Back then, it was common to just brush aside the accomplishments of females and highlight anything achieved by a male, simply because men were considered the superior gender. By acting as a sort of reminder of the works of these female writers and artists, Judy Chicago sort of presents an "in your face" work of art to society.
2. Chris Burden's Shoot was an example of Body Art and Performance where he basically asked one of this friends to literally shoot him in the arm , causing a deep wound to his body. As shocking and revolutionary as it seems, when is enough, enough in terms of art?
The table installation meant for 39 imaginary female guests (along with 999 invitees) known as The Dinner Party serves as a tribute to the many women who played a significant role in the world's history. Back then, it was common to just brush aside the accomplishments of females and highlight anything achieved by a male, simply because men were considered the superior gender. By acting as a sort of reminder of the works of these female writers and artists, Judy Chicago sort of presents an "in your face" work of art to society.
2. Chris Burden's Shoot was an example of Body Art and Performance where he basically asked one of this friends to literally shoot him in the arm , causing a deep wound to his body. As shocking and revolutionary as it seems, when is enough, enough in terms of art?
Questions
The article mentions declarations placed in museums that “implied that museums obscure the ideological functioning of images via the imposition of spurious value judgments or taxonomies” (165).
While this dematerialization as a resistance to galleries, museums, and the market was an attempt to reject capitalist notions within the art realm, it became a part of the market itself. As Hopkins states, the work actually underwent a “rematerialization”, which through its efforts was not truly effective in its goals. Perhaps this points to the way that the market is an armature of art, and even though it may be novel to point out the reliance on commercialism, it is nearly impossible to escape it.
In body art or performance art, how is it possible to express an idea about femininity without eh female becoming an object or a symbol of oppressive use as Kelly noted? Is a strategy to avoid objectification at all costs beneficial, or is a direct representation of gender inequalities effective in itself by exposing the condition?
While this dematerialization as a resistance to galleries, museums, and the market was an attempt to reject capitalist notions within the art realm, it became a part of the market itself. As Hopkins states, the work actually underwent a “rematerialization”, which through its efforts was not truly effective in its goals. Perhaps this points to the way that the market is an armature of art, and even though it may be novel to point out the reliance on commercialism, it is nearly impossible to escape it.
In body art or performance art, how is it possible to express an idea about femininity without eh female becoming an object or a symbol of oppressive use as Kelly noted? Is a strategy to avoid objectification at all costs beneficial, or is a direct representation of gender inequalities effective in itself by exposing the condition?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Questions
1. In what ways has our conception of painting been changed and what has shaped such changes?
2. Is there a subconscious desire to continue traditional and/or new forms of painting despite intentions to subvert or claims it is no longer relevant?
Richter claims that "In this history, the age of painting is definitely over. The new image is a digital one that has transformed photography, film, television and video into a single liquid substance [...] In this history, painting is no longer relevant." Richter also goes on to argue that Duchamp did not "stop painting," but that in fact, his many of his works did include painting despite his intention to subvert it. He further asserts that Duchamp is an heir to Leonardo Da Vinci, a revered artist in the Western world. From Duchamp's case, we can make two possible conclusions surrounding the "impossibility" of subverting painting. On the one hand , we can infer that because traditional and even looser ideas of painting are deeply embedded in Western society it is much more difficult for an artist to completely break such a chain. Because of this, there is perhaps a subconscious desire on the part of art critics, the common person as well as the artist to continue old ideas of painting to appeal to society's unrelentingly conservative sensibilities of what art is or should be.
2. Is there a subconscious desire to continue traditional and/or new forms of painting despite intentions to subvert or claims it is no longer relevant?
Richter claims that "In this history, the age of painting is definitely over. The new image is a digital one that has transformed photography, film, television and video into a single liquid substance [...] In this history, painting is no longer relevant." Richter also goes on to argue that Duchamp did not "stop painting," but that in fact, his many of his works did include painting despite his intention to subvert it. He further asserts that Duchamp is an heir to Leonardo Da Vinci, a revered artist in the Western world. From Duchamp's case, we can make two possible conclusions surrounding the "impossibility" of subverting painting. On the one hand , we can infer that because traditional and even looser ideas of painting are deeply embedded in Western society it is much more difficult for an artist to completely break such a chain. Because of this, there is perhaps a subconscious desire on the part of art critics, the common person as well as the artist to continue old ideas of painting to appeal to society's unrelentingly conservative sensibilities of what art is or should be.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Schedule Updates, Reminders, etc.
1. For future blog posts, continue to write 2 questions, and supply a few provisional suggestions for how to answer ONE of them.
2. Remember to meet in 350C Moffitt for our "Research Session" with Kathryn Wayne. If you have any initial ideas about what your research topic might be, and you have questions about how you would start to pursue research on that topic, you may bring your questions to Kathryn. She's extremely knowledgeable, and will know how to direct you to image searches, articles, books, and so forth.
3. Paper due dates:
Paper 2 final is due Thursday, November 6th. This mean that you will need to start thinking about your research topic BEFORE the final draft of paper 2 is due. The first draft of your research paper will still be due on Thursday, November 20th, so I can hand them back to you before the break.
4. Writing Analytically days: If you want to bring in samples of your work to discuss with the rest of the class, this would be a good idea. Also, if you have more general problems you're wrestling with in writing these papers, you may bring them in for discussion as well. This is not a formal assignment, but I encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity...
5. Finally, remember that there is no class Nov 4th--go vote, if you didn't do it early!!
2. Remember to meet in 350C Moffitt for our "Research Session" with Kathryn Wayne. If you have any initial ideas about what your research topic might be, and you have questions about how you would start to pursue research on that topic, you may bring your questions to Kathryn. She's extremely knowledgeable, and will know how to direct you to image searches, articles, books, and so forth.
3. Paper due dates:
Paper 2 final is due Thursday, November 6th. This mean that you will need to start thinking about your research topic BEFORE the final draft of paper 2 is due. The first draft of your research paper will still be due on Thursday, November 20th, so I can hand them back to you before the break.
4. Writing Analytically days: If you want to bring in samples of your work to discuss with the rest of the class, this would be a good idea. Also, if you have more general problems you're wrestling with in writing these papers, you may bring them in for discussion as well. This is not a formal assignment, but I encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity...
5. Finally, remember that there is no class Nov 4th--go vote, if you didn't do it early!!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Question
The author states that "painting is able, like no other medium, to ask other media the provocative question as to whether they mean something, whether they have something to comunicate or inform."
To what extent does this hold true, and as technology continues to advance, will painting be further capable of playing the role of arbiter in the art realm or will it begin to fade into antiquity?
Painting has seen its share of appreciation and a theoretical depreciation, yet it still remains today a respected medium to which there is certainly still a market for. Whether or not it is the standard by which other mediums even new ones can be judged against
is still true where the further we delve into the future, it seems as though the more we still yearn to hold on to the past as if in a rebellion to what is current and common. Painting certainly stands alone, yet
it is not necessarily just a comparitive tool. It may be possible to create provocative art that stands on its own and does not have to be compared to painting. However, it is in our nature to compare and to contrast,
and if it is unavoidable to look at relatinoships between art across time and mediums, painting is an accepted standrard to which other art can be put up against.
Is it possible that the avant garde or what is considered avant garde is apparently no longer available in that the advancement of technology controls the methods and techniques used by artists and thus negates the idea
of invention through art itself?
While technology rapidly advances and artists are somewhat attached to the trajectory of emergent digital mediums, I think the avant garde exists in the way that technology in itself is a tool while not the same as a paintbrush,
the newly formed mediums challenge present artists to use them in a creative provocative way. The idea of being avant garde is to interpret existing mediums or even new mediums in an artistic way, and while the qucik turnover of
different techniques and methods may suggest that the avant garde doesn't stay avant garde for long, it does offer the opportunity to create and invent at a perhaps more rapid pace than before. The avant garde certainly still exists
and is attainable, but the permenance may not be as our culture itself has shifted to a hyperactive pace.
To what extent does this hold true, and as technology continues to advance, will painting be further capable of playing the role of arbiter in the art realm or will it begin to fade into antiquity?
Painting has seen its share of appreciation and a theoretical depreciation, yet it still remains today a respected medium to which there is certainly still a market for. Whether or not it is the standard by which other mediums even new ones can be judged against
is still true where the further we delve into the future, it seems as though the more we still yearn to hold on to the past as if in a rebellion to what is current and common. Painting certainly stands alone, yet
it is not necessarily just a comparitive tool. It may be possible to create provocative art that stands on its own and does not have to be compared to painting. However, it is in our nature to compare and to contrast,
and if it is unavoidable to look at relatinoships between art across time and mediums, painting is an accepted standrard to which other art can be put up against.
Is it possible that the avant garde or what is considered avant garde is apparently no longer available in that the advancement of technology controls the methods and techniques used by artists and thus negates the idea
of invention through art itself?
While technology rapidly advances and artists are somewhat attached to the trajectory of emergent digital mediums, I think the avant garde exists in the way that technology in itself is a tool while not the same as a paintbrush,
the newly formed mediums challenge present artists to use them in a creative provocative way. The idea of being avant garde is to interpret existing mediums or even new mediums in an artistic way, and while the qucik turnover of
different techniques and methods may suggest that the avant garde doesn't stay avant garde for long, it does offer the opportunity to create and invent at a perhaps more rapid pace than before. The avant garde certainly still exists
and is attainable, but the permenance may not be as our culture itself has shifted to a hyperactive pace.
Why has painting not become obsolete?
The comment that stated that material, image and reality exist independently from each other and cannot be reduced to each other is an interesting point to note. As painting transcends the trivialities that avant garde is trying to pursue, it will never become obsolete. It deconstructs the very thing that tries to remove it.
Is painting superior as a form of knowledge?
I personally think that all other sorts of arts originated from painting and it should be considered superior for it transcends all the other more "original" forms of art. Painting is our only thread to the past and it is only thtough paintings that we can begin to understand the other genres that agreed with or resisted it. That is, although there were forces that tries to deny it, it still remains the center from which revolution begins.
The comment that stated that material, image and reality exist independently from each other and cannot be reduced to each other is an interesting point to note. As painting transcends the trivialities that avant garde is trying to pursue, it will never become obsolete. It deconstructs the very thing that tries to remove it.
Is painting superior as a form of knowledge?
I personally think that all other sorts of arts originated from painting and it should be considered superior for it transcends all the other more "original" forms of art. Painting is our only thread to the past and it is only thtough paintings that we can begin to understand the other genres that agreed with or resisted it. That is, although there were forces that tries to deny it, it still remains the center from which revolution begins.
Painting in a World of New Media
In combining photography and painting, what could the artist Gerhard Richter be saying about photography and how does this relate to Reijnders’ argument?
Richter’s overpainted photographs combine large-scale abstract painting with snapshot photography, with different ratios of paint to photo. When viewing his work there is a tendency to look past the paint to try to figure out what the world behind it is and yet the view is obstructed and the viewer must look at the paint. The paint confronts you. Whenever we open our eyes we basically see what could easily be turned into a photograph, and thus just viewing a photograph is not confrontational in itself. The content and messages expressed in the photo could be confrontational, the actual medium of photography is not. However, viewing paint is not a natural experience and thus the painted surface is automatically challenging. Richter’s art also draws attention to our tendency to try to see the “real” through paint. Whenever we view a painting we try to see the “real world” or the real feelings behind it, but as Reijnders argues painting has no essence, it has nothing to communicate.
What did Reijnders mean by the “omnipresence of topicality”? Reijnders brings up the term topicality in the quote, “The acceleration of the contemporary media means that we are now confronted with something quite different: the omnipresence of topicality. A topicality that does not allow history to progress but absorbs it…. Technically speaking, painting has disappeared entirely from sight, but conversely, this allows it to observe what is topical from its ambush and to suddenly leap out in quite an unexpected guise.”
The dictionary defines topicality as “of or belonging to a particular location or place, local; or currently of interest; contemporary.” I can’t be sure what Reijnders means by topicality exactly, but I will do my best to interpret this quote. It seems like he uses topicality in regards to media to say that technological media has created an environment where we are surrounded by media that is rooted in the current time, so instead of looking forwards and backwards, we are looking at now. The avant-garde doesn’t fit in because it is based on the idea of forward progress, meanwhile painting itself isn’t really based on anything so can come back to comment on what is topical, or current.
Richter’s overpainted photographs combine large-scale abstract painting with snapshot photography, with different ratios of paint to photo. When viewing his work there is a tendency to look past the paint to try to figure out what the world behind it is and yet the view is obstructed and the viewer must look at the paint. The paint confronts you. Whenever we open our eyes we basically see what could easily be turned into a photograph, and thus just viewing a photograph is not confrontational in itself. The content and messages expressed in the photo could be confrontational, the actual medium of photography is not. However, viewing paint is not a natural experience and thus the painted surface is automatically challenging. Richter’s art also draws attention to our tendency to try to see the “real” through paint. Whenever we view a painting we try to see the “real world” or the real feelings behind it, but as Reijnders argues painting has no essence, it has nothing to communicate.
What did Reijnders mean by the “omnipresence of topicality”? Reijnders brings up the term topicality in the quote, “The acceleration of the contemporary media means that we are now confronted with something quite different: the omnipresence of topicality. A topicality that does not allow history to progress but absorbs it…. Technically speaking, painting has disappeared entirely from sight, but conversely, this allows it to observe what is topical from its ambush and to suddenly leap out in quite an unexpected guise.”
The dictionary defines topicality as “of or belonging to a particular location or place, local; or currently of interest; contemporary.” I can’t be sure what Reijnders means by topicality exactly, but I will do my best to interpret this quote. It seems like he uses topicality in regards to media to say that technological media has created an environment where we are surrounded by media that is rooted in the current time, so instead of looking forwards and backwards, we are looking at now. The avant-garde doesn’t fit in because it is based on the idea of forward progress, meanwhile painting itself isn’t really based on anything so can come back to comment on what is topical, or current.
questions
In Empire, Warhol creates a film that has many similar characteristics to painting. He lowers the frame frequency so that everything happens slowly. Also, he gives only one point of view to the camera. The audience doesn’t have the benefit of seeing the camera move in time, just as they don’t have the benefit of seeing a painter’s point of view move when viewing a single painting. In making this film similar, but not exactly like a painting, is Warhol trying to show how similar painting is to film? Or is he trying to accentuate the differences between the two?
Ultimately, painting cannot show the passage of time. Warhol accentuates that film can show the passage of time by adding a level of strangeness to the way time passes in Empire. Warhol slows down his film, but the film still shows the passage of time. In slowing down the film, Warhol causes the passage of time in the film to be alien to what the audience is used to. The audience notices the film is too slow, and thus their attention is drawn to the passage of time. Because the film is so long and stagnant, the audience might view it as a painting. A member of the audience could walk up to the picture, look at it for a time, see the same point of view, and then walk away. That person could even return later without there being a huge change in the image on screen. This person, however, would be able to see tiny movements indicating the passage of time, and be reminded that the film isn’t really a painting. All of this accentuates painting’s inability to portray the passage of time, and thus a fundamental difference between painting and film.
Reijnders states, “since we see the light through machines, it seems beyond the human, even immortal.” Machines are a man-made creation portraying light, just as a painting is a man-made creation portraying light. What is it specifically that digital lighting gives to art that makes the art seem more immortal?
The main difference is in the process of the light portrayal. In painting, the picture is man-made. In the image, however, the light that falls on the figures created usually comes from a natural source. The process of the creation of light is not examined by the painter, instead the painter manipulates preexisting light to fit his ends. The light in TV screens is, in a sense, man-made. A human being created the instrument that would generate the light for the artist. The artist then works with this light to serve his artistic purpose. The actual light, however, is created in a man-made process.
Ironically, this makes the technologically produced light more human, or at least more intimate to human creativity. Not only is a creative person molding light to fit his artistic purposes, but another creative person invented a machine that could produce this light. In painting, the light is more inhuman. The light’s creation is entirely remote from humanity. I’m not sure which is more immortal. If immortality is tied to non-humanness, it seems like painting is more immortal in its dealings with light. Then again, painting is an image of light, whereas digital media creates its own light. Maybe the act of creating is what makes people feel this immortality to movies and TV. It’s a funny contradiction, how people feel that machines are so inhuman compared to nature. Machines are a direct product of humanity, while nature is a preexisting entity independent of human creativity. You’d think we’d see the humanity, although indirect, that is behind the idea of the machine. Almost everyone, however, feels a strong lack of humanity in machines and mechanical technology.
Ultimately, painting cannot show the passage of time. Warhol accentuates that film can show the passage of time by adding a level of strangeness to the way time passes in Empire. Warhol slows down his film, but the film still shows the passage of time. In slowing down the film, Warhol causes the passage of time in the film to be alien to what the audience is used to. The audience notices the film is too slow, and thus their attention is drawn to the passage of time. Because the film is so long and stagnant, the audience might view it as a painting. A member of the audience could walk up to the picture, look at it for a time, see the same point of view, and then walk away. That person could even return later without there being a huge change in the image on screen. This person, however, would be able to see tiny movements indicating the passage of time, and be reminded that the film isn’t really a painting. All of this accentuates painting’s inability to portray the passage of time, and thus a fundamental difference between painting and film.
Reijnders states, “since we see the light through machines, it seems beyond the human, even immortal.” Machines are a man-made creation portraying light, just as a painting is a man-made creation portraying light. What is it specifically that digital lighting gives to art that makes the art seem more immortal?
The main difference is in the process of the light portrayal. In painting, the picture is man-made. In the image, however, the light that falls on the figures created usually comes from a natural source. The process of the creation of light is not examined by the painter, instead the painter manipulates preexisting light to fit his ends. The light in TV screens is, in a sense, man-made. A human being created the instrument that would generate the light for the artist. The artist then works with this light to serve his artistic purpose. The actual light, however, is created in a man-made process.
Ironically, this makes the technologically produced light more human, or at least more intimate to human creativity. Not only is a creative person molding light to fit his artistic purposes, but another creative person invented a machine that could produce this light. In painting, the light is more inhuman. The light’s creation is entirely remote from humanity. I’m not sure which is more immortal. If immortality is tied to non-humanness, it seems like painting is more immortal in its dealings with light. Then again, painting is an image of light, whereas digital media creates its own light. Maybe the act of creating is what makes people feel this immortality to movies and TV. It’s a funny contradiction, how people feel that machines are so inhuman compared to nature. Machines are a direct product of humanity, while nature is a preexisting entity independent of human creativity. You’d think we’d see the humanity, although indirect, that is behind the idea of the machine. Almost everyone, however, feels a strong lack of humanity in machines and mechanical technology.
Painting
Why does the advent of photography signify the demise of painting, as so many have claimed?
I feel that while photography enabled society to better document reality and achieve what painting has always been reaching for, this is not paintings only purpose. A certain appeal of painting lies in its ability to question reality and what we percieve and to continually question our surroundings
What does the author mean when he states that "painting could perhaps lie outside time"?
possibly displaced by technological advances
Painting?
Will painting ever be rendered "obsolete?" Or is the staying power of painting secured precisely because it distanced itself from "its supposed tradition?" A couple of readings back, a question was posted about whether Duchamp was trying to rescue or destroy art. As more information becomes available to us about Duchamp's work, is it safer to say that maybe he was trying to do both?
In Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy, Reijnders suggests the idea that Duchamp (and Warhol and the others) simply destroyed painting in order to rescue it. He claims that "the renunciation of painting has, however paradoxical this may seem, merely increased its freedom of movement." From the Photography reading, we learned that because photographs were so realistic, it freed painting from our desires to depict something realistically.
In Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy, Reijnders suggests the idea that Duchamp (and Warhol and the others) simply destroyed painting in order to rescue it. He claims that "the renunciation of painting has, however paradoxical this may seem, merely increased its freedom of movement." From the Photography reading, we learned that because photographs were so realistic, it freed painting from our desires to depict something realistically.
Can we find an act of rebellion in Andy Warhol's art?
We can find rebellion in Warhol's art beginning with his renderings of common supermarket items, Coca-Cola and Campbells Soup. Similar to Duchamps readymades, taking commonplace items and interpreting them as objects of art, Warhol takes items a general audience is familiar with and makes them art. But how is this a rebellion? It can be viewed as social commentary on the nature of consumerism. While Duchamps readymades were domestic objects of function, Warhol chose items with a trademark value, rebelling against the consumer obsession with name brand items by throwing it in their faces in repitition.
Are pieces like Empire, or I, a Man challenge the viewer, rebelling against how people perceive art in its environment?
I think that they do. The former is a n 8 hour piece that in ways simulates a single angle lens view of something, in this case the Empire State Building, but because there is a dimensional time scale assocaited with it, one has to watch it for the full 8 hours to take in the work in its entirity, defeating those viewers who spend far less time on an art piece. Perhaps it is a statement that no amount of time can be enough to fathom art, or that any mundane image in art has the power to hypnotize and entrance the viewer.
We can find rebellion in Warhol's art beginning with his renderings of common supermarket items, Coca-Cola and Campbells Soup. Similar to Duchamps readymades, taking commonplace items and interpreting them as objects of art, Warhol takes items a general audience is familiar with and makes them art. But how is this a rebellion? It can be viewed as social commentary on the nature of consumerism. While Duchamps readymades were domestic objects of function, Warhol chose items with a trademark value, rebelling against the consumer obsession with name brand items by throwing it in their faces in repitition.
Are pieces like Empire, or I, a Man challenge the viewer, rebelling against how people perceive art in its environment?
I think that they do. The former is a n 8 hour piece that in ways simulates a single angle lens view of something, in this case the Empire State Building, but because there is a dimensional time scale assocaited with it, one has to watch it for the full 8 hours to take in the work in its entirity, defeating those viewers who spend far less time on an art piece. Perhaps it is a statement that no amount of time can be enough to fathom art, or that any mundane image in art has the power to hypnotize and entrance the viewer.
Paint and Paint
As stated in the article, the painter Gerhard Richter stated that "Many amateur photographs are more beautiful than a Cezanne" (4). Is this true, or is there some other basis on which art should be judged?
This is in some ways a valid statement, as the capability for mass production of photographs gives it the advantage of both availability and the accuracy a photograph can bring. However, painting has methods of expression that are not present in photography. Like stated in the paper, painting has an illusory ability.
What role does painting play now that technology has overtaken most of painting's roles? Is it completely obsolete, or has it simply found new reasons to exist?
In terms of practical uses, art does not have a place, and I am not sure if it ever has. Painting has always been something to contemplate, and not to be understood fully even after much observation. In this sense, painting will retain a certain function, although other forms of media will dominate pop culture.
This is in some ways a valid statement, as the capability for mass production of photographs gives it the advantage of both availability and the accuracy a photograph can bring. However, painting has methods of expression that are not present in photography. Like stated in the paper, painting has an illusory ability.
What role does painting play now that technology has overtaken most of painting's roles? Is it completely obsolete, or has it simply found new reasons to exist?
In terms of practical uses, art does not have a place, and I am not sure if it ever has. Painting has always been something to contemplate, and not to be understood fully even after much observation. In this sense, painting will retain a certain function, although other forms of media will dominate pop culture.
1. Has photography killed painting, as Paul Delaroche suggested? Or did photography free painting from the need for realism?
-If photography is seen as a standard for representation, then any stylistic deviations from photorealism in a painting are even more important.
-Photo realistic painting is still valuable as a skill. Photography is limited by what exists in reality, but painters can still create the illusion of photography with subjects that exist only in the artist's mind.
2. Where is the line drawn between ready-mades and assisted ready-mades? Is it possible to create art that is not in some way a ready-made?
-Painting generally involves the use of technology, the paints, the brushes, the canvas are all created by people not credited in the final work of art. What about artists like Andy Goldsworthy who only use "found" tools? His work is entirely created with natural tools, but is it still a form of the ready-made, made by natural processes rather than technological ones? If no artist can escape the ready-made, why is Duchamp's work so offensive?
-If photography is seen as a standard for representation, then any stylistic deviations from photorealism in a painting are even more important.
-Photo realistic painting is still valuable as a skill. Photography is limited by what exists in reality, but painters can still create the illusion of photography with subjects that exist only in the artist's mind.
2. Where is the line drawn between ready-mades and assisted ready-mades? Is it possible to create art that is not in some way a ready-made?
-Painting generally involves the use of technology, the paints, the brushes, the canvas are all created by people not credited in the final work of art. What about artists like Andy Goldsworthy who only use "found" tools? His work is entirely created with natural tools, but is it still a form of the ready-made, made by natural processes rather than technological ones? If no artist can escape the ready-made, why is Duchamp's work so offensive?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A State of Utter Idiocy?
1. Has art really become obsolete and "too sluggish and too opaque to be able to keep in touch with the world us?" (334) If has indeed become obsolete, is there a real need to "make a clean break" with it? Does that make modern art a fruitless pursuit? Can't we still appreciate it even though it is supposedly outdated?
I don't see why people have such negative opinions about art. So what if it's archaic? Just because we now live in the world where technological media is accessible everywhere, that doesn't mean we need to abandon the traditional idea of art. Kids still doodle without anybody telling them to. What does that mean? We practice art naturally. School teacher still do art projects in classes, because it is fun and it encourages creativity, which we value highly in our society. Surely these are of no comparison to high-level art, but shouldn't art be something that we can all enjoy? It is one of the last connection to the world before all these technological advances dominated the world. Why purposefully seek to destroy that?
2. Reijnders says "Most painters and their supporters regard [Duchamp] accordingly as their sworn enemy" (395) and "...Andy Warhol is another figure who is regualrly associated with the end of painting" (336). Are they really the reason for the end of painting, or is it the society as a whole (introduction of photography, gradually digital images etc)? What about Duchamp's claim that "all modern paintings in the world are basically assisted ready-mades" (395) since the artists used paint tubes?
I had actually never thought of modern paintings as "assisted ready-mades," but I think Duchamp had brought up a good point. We never defined how much of producing and creating must an artist participate it in order to call the artwork a "painting" or a "ready-made." Because technically, if I buy the paint, the canvas, and the brush and paint, doesn't that make my artwork a semi-ready made? If so, then the era of modern painting already brought upon "the end of painting" even before Duchamp and Warhol came around. Also, I don't think they really initiate the end of painting, because a large part of it was the society's technological advances and the introduction of digital media etc. Did we actually even come to the end of painting?
I don't see why people have such negative opinions about art. So what if it's archaic? Just because we now live in the world where technological media is accessible everywhere, that doesn't mean we need to abandon the traditional idea of art. Kids still doodle without anybody telling them to. What does that mean? We practice art naturally. School teacher still do art projects in classes, because it is fun and it encourages creativity, which we value highly in our society. Surely these are of no comparison to high-level art, but shouldn't art be something that we can all enjoy? It is one of the last connection to the world before all these technological advances dominated the world. Why purposefully seek to destroy that?
2. Reijnders says "Most painters and their supporters regard [Duchamp] accordingly as their sworn enemy" (395) and "...Andy Warhol is another figure who is regualrly associated with the end of painting" (336). Are they really the reason for the end of painting, or is it the society as a whole (introduction of photography, gradually digital images etc)? What about Duchamp's claim that "all modern paintings in the world are basically assisted ready-mades" (395) since the artists used paint tubes?
I had actually never thought of modern paintings as "assisted ready-mades," but I think Duchamp had brought up a good point. We never defined how much of producing and creating must an artist participate it in order to call the artwork a "painting" or a "ready-made." Because technically, if I buy the paint, the canvas, and the brush and paint, doesn't that make my artwork a semi-ready made? If so, then the era of modern painting already brought upon "the end of painting" even before Duchamp and Warhol came around. Also, I don't think they really initiate the end of painting, because a large part of it was the society's technological advances and the introduction of digital media etc. Did we actually even come to the end of painting?
Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy
After studying a few of the movements in modern art, it seem that although they are very different in certain respects, they all seem to be trying to accomplish one main goal: to deconstruct the institution of art and painting and to challenge the principles that it upholds. Cezanne and his destruction of line and form, Picasso and the Cubist's attempt to radically change representation and dimension, Duchamp (enough said), and now the attack on elitism in painting with the Pop art. When are we going to stop deconstructing and attacking painting, or are we? Reijdner's comments "The battle against painting was fought by all the artistic movements that thrust themselves forward as an avant-garde at the beginning of the twentieth century" (334) With the emergence of technology and mass media, does "painting have to be destroyed" has painting become "impossible"? Have the modern movements all been in the direction away from painting? It has always seemed to me that the technique of painting has been an integral part of art; the first thing you learn in an art class is painting. So why are we trying so hard to destroy it?
Questions
1. In the text, Frank Reijnders states that Duchamp was one of the few for realizing that "he had to separate science from science and, similarly, painting from painting, in order to bring both back into play." What did he mean by this? What are some of the difficulties presented when mixing art with science?
Science and art are seemingly two very different disciplines that, if not prompted to do so, would never intersect. Most people think of science as something concrete; consisting of fundamental facts, set definitions, basic logic, and it tends to be governed by an orderly method comprised of established rules of how one must doing things. Art, on the other hand, poses a reputation that seems almost the complete opposite--art has no rules (or so they say). Many believe art is full of freedom, creativity and innovation. That being so about the both of them, it is obvious that the two mixed together would be like oil and water. Critics would state their complaints against artists who have used perspective techniques in the past stating that the pieces were too scientific and lacked creativity because all they did was follow formulas. When artists attempted to incorporate scientific methods into their art, most of them failed because they got too caught up with the colors, brush strokes, and so forth. However, artists like Duchamp figured out ways to accomplish the impossible. With his Large Glass, Duchamp successfully uses the science of optics to create a wonderful work of art.
2. Is the final product after painting a photograph still considered a photograph or a painting?
Gerhard Richter was famous for this photo-paintings in which he would project a photograph onto a canvas, trace the picture then paint a replica of the original copy. In a way, this duplicate of his sits on the fence of being a photograph or a picture. Yes, the artist uses a canvas, paints and a paintbrush to create the entire product--items fundamentally understood to be the makings of a painting--however, the image he creates is quite real, literally a snapshot of the real world. This is very difficult for me to classify the work being that it is so much like a painting as well as a photograph.
Science and art are seemingly two very different disciplines that, if not prompted to do so, would never intersect. Most people think of science as something concrete; consisting of fundamental facts, set definitions, basic logic, and it tends to be governed by an orderly method comprised of established rules of how one must doing things. Art, on the other hand, poses a reputation that seems almost the complete opposite--art has no rules (or so they say). Many believe art is full of freedom, creativity and innovation. That being so about the both of them, it is obvious that the two mixed together would be like oil and water. Critics would state their complaints against artists who have used perspective techniques in the past stating that the pieces were too scientific and lacked creativity because all they did was follow formulas. When artists attempted to incorporate scientific methods into their art, most of them failed because they got too caught up with the colors, brush strokes, and so forth. However, artists like Duchamp figured out ways to accomplish the impossible. With his Large Glass, Duchamp successfully uses the science of optics to create a wonderful work of art.
2. Is the final product after painting a photograph still considered a photograph or a painting?
Gerhard Richter was famous for this photo-paintings in which he would project a photograph onto a canvas, trace the picture then paint a replica of the original copy. In a way, this duplicate of his sits on the fence of being a photograph or a picture. Yes, the artist uses a canvas, paints and a paintbrush to create the entire product--items fundamentally understood to be the makings of a painting--however, the image he creates is quite real, literally a snapshot of the real world. This is very difficult for me to classify the work being that it is so much like a painting as well as a photograph.
Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy
In Frank Reijnders, “Painting: A State of Utter Idiocy?” he quotes David Reed as stating “We see painting in a different way now because of film and video”( Reijnders 22). Is this statement true? Have we lost the ability to see the revolutionary aspects of painting due to our constant bombardment of “faster, more perfect, more direct [images]” (Reijnders 20)? Why? Do we lose the powerful effects that paintings had created in their time because we have so many newer images to reference? Also because of our references to new images are we that much more critical of paintings for not being “perfect”?
I believe that since we have been born into a world where art has been around for hundreds of years we are going to recognize certain images. These images are then used for comparison, so although we may not want to judge past painting or art, we do. We are biased and want to see perfection. As a society we are obsessed with perfection and painting is no different, we hold standards today that we not held before. Artists of the past could not have dreamed about the abilities we have today and so there works do not always measure up to the standards we carry. It is unfortunate that we cannot always look past this but often it is done subconsciously. By using our standards, we do lose the effect that these works once held; it is only through recognizing our bias that we can move forward and truly look at works and understand them. We have to not only look at the painting but also understand the history in which it was created.
Reed also states that “Since we see the light on or through machines, it seems beyond the human, even immortal” (Reijnders 23). This made me think of how the artist was once seen as the immortal in creating paints. Now with this new technology aiding the creation of art, it brings up the question of who is immortal. Is it still the artist (person) or the technology?
Since artists today use this technology, it makes it much more difficult to come up with a concrete answer. Although it takes the mind of the artist to start creating, the technology is actually producing what they hope to create and accomplish. I think it is very difficult to state anything is immortal, like Reed states, I would not call past artist or present technology immortal. If anything it brings up the question as to why we think and name artists and now technology as immortal.
I believe that since we have been born into a world where art has been around for hundreds of years we are going to recognize certain images. These images are then used for comparison, so although we may not want to judge past painting or art, we do. We are biased and want to see perfection. As a society we are obsessed with perfection and painting is no different, we hold standards today that we not held before. Artists of the past could not have dreamed about the abilities we have today and so there works do not always measure up to the standards we carry. It is unfortunate that we cannot always look past this but often it is done subconsciously. By using our standards, we do lose the effect that these works once held; it is only through recognizing our bias that we can move forward and truly look at works and understand them. We have to not only look at the painting but also understand the history in which it was created.
Reed also states that “Since we see the light on or through machines, it seems beyond the human, even immortal” (Reijnders 23). This made me think of how the artist was once seen as the immortal in creating paints. Now with this new technology aiding the creation of art, it brings up the question of who is immortal. Is it still the artist (person) or the technology?
Since artists today use this technology, it makes it much more difficult to come up with a concrete answer. Although it takes the mind of the artist to start creating, the technology is actually producing what they hope to create and accomplish. I think it is very difficult to state anything is immortal, like Reed states, I would not call past artist or present technology immortal. If anything it brings up the question as to why we think and name artists and now technology as immortal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)