Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Amed Alsoudani: Visiting artist talk at the University of Southern Maine, Gorham.
Amed attended the Maine College of Art at the same time as myself. It was amazing to see that his success has not seemed to change his humble and genuine personality. He lead a lighthearted discussion into his work and what it means to be a painter today. I am interested in a comment he made about his use of black and white, specifically charcoal, and how that material can invoke a sense of memory or dream scape. Also i found his reasoning for not titling his work to be surprisingly profound. He described it as a way of keeping the viewer engaged in the painting. Rather than giving them everything they need the viewer is forced to create their own narratives about the work.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Paper #2:
The current definition of an artist, according to Dictionary.Com is, a person who works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria. Aesthetics as pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. Whether or not we accept this as accurate or not we are subject to this definition. As artists in culture we are subject to our ever evolving definition. Where, when, and how we make art is dictated by or in response to the confines of our historical context.
In “Believing is Seeing”, Author Mary Anne Staniszewski illustrates the concept of historical context with a discussion about Michelangelo’s, “ The Creation of Adam”. This fresco is recognizable to most as a master work of art. Staniszewski argues, “However magnificent and beautiful the Sistine Chapel frescoes may be, they are not art as we know it. They were instruments of religious and political Authority.” She makes this claim because Michelangelo did not choose to paint the Sistine ceiling, he was ordered to do so by his patron. The concept of choice and autonomy is ingrained in how we define the artist in modernity. The artist as genius. “In Modernity , Art has traditionally understood as something not learned but created, and created by someone gifted with genius. One does not decide to become an artist and then learn how to do so. Artists in modernity are born.” (Staniszewski, 112.) Staniszewskis draws attention to an interesting aspect of how we should view and engage art. No matter where an artist or artwork falls on the art historical timeline, it is important to understand the intention of the work in relationship to the social perception of art at the time. To go as far to say that Michelangelo was not an artist because he didn’t posses the luxury of artistic license, is a stretch. He may have been commissioned by the Catholic church, but that doesn’t mean he lacked the same magical gift that we currently attribute to artists. I don’t believe this is the argument the author is trying to make. Rather, she is shedding light on the simple fact that, “All forms of representation, whether they be pictures or words or gestures, are dependent upon cultural languages.” These cultural languages play a very significant role in how we see art in general. For example, Islamic geometric art has significant differences to the art of the Roman Catholic church. However, in the cultural spaces in which they exist, they are considered standard. There is a generational hierarchy of images in every culture that dictates the norm. Each and every artist needs to be aware of that legacy and be mindful of the ways it filters into there own work.
It is important, not only to understand that this exists but be aware of who gets to say what images are important. In Linda Nochlins, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artist?” we are made aware of the overwhelming odds that were stacked against women born with the same talents as their male counterparts. The cross cultural subjugation of women made luxurious pursuits, like art , to be near impossible until very recent history. Nochlin draws attention to one key limitation placed on women, that may have stricken them from art history. One of the most fundamental skills to becoming a great artist, whether in the days of the academy or in contemporary art institutions, is being able to draw, paint or sculpt, from a nude model. Unfortunately throughout most of history, because of their social status, women were unable to work from a live model, limiting there ability to compete on the same level as male artists. “Always a model but never an artist”. With the examination of social changes in modernity one can further understand the dynamics of the masculine and the feminine. Art at this point was made primarily by men for an audience comprised mostly of rich white men. In Grieselda Pollock’s, “Modernity and the space of femininity”, we are introduced to the Flaneur and the male gaze. “ The flaneur symbolizes the privilege or freedom to move about the public arenas of the city observing but never interacting, consuming the sights through a controlling but rarely acknowledged gaze, directed as much at other people as at the goods for sale. The flaneur embodies the gaze of modernity which is both covetous and erotic” This visual and physical consumption of the feminine that Pollock describes still reverberates in contemporary gender dynamics.
There is an interesting shift historically that becomes apparent in the readings from, “Artist, Critics, Context” by Paul F. Fabozzi. Durring the late fifties and early sixties a group of artist emerges called the “New Artists”. These artist are responsible from some forms of art that we now think of as just another word in our artistic Language. For example, Allen Ginsbergs beat poetry, Allan Kaprow’s Happenings and Claes Oldenburgs Store. This is where art history leaps off the canvas, out of the gallery and into the mind. The role of the viewer changes dramatically in the way they interact and view art, sometimes become part of the artwork itself. These new artists, “Want us to share with them their pleasure and excitement at feeling and being, in an unquestioning and optimistic way.”
So what is happening now? What is the contemporary artists context? What does this mean for me, a white middle class male artist in 2012. It means that everything is up for grabs. As long as we are educated about the way that art has evolved, we will be able to place ourselves within its evolution. The readings from critical theory one have outlined the enduring importance of the way that art responds and contributes to cultural languages. Also, that historical context is necessary to understand these languages and their exchange with specific moments in art. Many would say that art is dead, that nothing is shocking anymore and everything has already been said. I would argue however that because our artistic language is so large, we are in a place historically where anything goes. In reading these text we become aware of the importance of the political and social climate of curtain periods in art. The birth of the modern city, the voice of feminism and the emergence of the “new artist” were all in one way or another a product of their socio-political climate. Presently, the weather is looking pretty turbulent. As a society we are fascinated with calamity. Biblically, our generation is supposed to be responsible for the war that will end all wars, the end of civilization as we know it. What if it becomes something else that is beyond our current comprehension? To me it means that in no way is art dead, that the potentially a new avant guard is only beginning to be realized. A perfect example is the Youtube video that has sparked chaos on the streets in the middle east. To me it means that contemporary art not only has the potential of changing the artist community but the social and political fabric of the world in general. So for me, “The adventure is everything; the tangible goal is not important. The Pacific coast is farther away than we thought, Ponce De Leon’s Fountain of Youth lies beyond the next everglade, and the next, and the next…meanwhile let’s battle the alligators.” (Kaprow)
Works Cited
1.) Fabozzi, Paul. Artist, Critics, Context: Readings in an Around American Art Since 1945 (Prentice-Hall, 2002)
2.) Griselda Pollock, “Modernity and the Space of Femininity” (online)
3.) Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? (online)
4.) Staniszewski, Marry Anne. Beliving is seeing: Creating the Culture of Art (Penguin Books:1995).
The Artist in Context
The current definition of an artist, according to Dictionary.Com is, a person who works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria. Aesthetics as pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. Whether or not we accept this as accurate or not we are subject to this definition. As artists in culture we are subject to our ever evolving definition. Where, when, and how we make art is dictated by or in response to the confines of our historical context.
In “Believing is Seeing”, Author Mary Anne Staniszewski illustrates the concept of historical context with a discussion about Michelangelo’s, “ The Creation of Adam”. This fresco is recognizable to most as a master work of art. Staniszewski argues, “However magnificent and beautiful the Sistine Chapel frescoes may be, they are not art as we know it. They were instruments of religious and political Authority.” She makes this claim because Michelangelo did not choose to paint the Sistine ceiling, he was ordered to do so by his patron. The concept of choice and autonomy is ingrained in how we define the artist in modernity. The artist as genius. “In Modernity , Art has traditionally understood as something not learned but created, and created by someone gifted with genius. One does not decide to become an artist and then learn how to do so. Artists in modernity are born.” (Staniszewski, 112.) Staniszewskis draws attention to an interesting aspect of how we should view and engage art. No matter where an artist or artwork falls on the art historical timeline, it is important to understand the intention of the work in relationship to the social perception of art at the time. To go as far to say that Michelangelo was not an artist because he didn’t posses the luxury of artistic license, is a stretch. He may have been commissioned by the Catholic church, but that doesn’t mean he lacked the same magical gift that we currently attribute to artists. I don’t believe this is the argument the author is trying to make. Rather, she is shedding light on the simple fact that, “All forms of representation, whether they be pictures or words or gestures, are dependent upon cultural languages.” These cultural languages play a very significant role in how we see art in general. For example, Islamic geometric art has significant differences to the art of the Roman Catholic church. However, in the cultural spaces in which they exist, they are considered standard. There is a generational hierarchy of images in every culture that dictates the norm. Each and every artist needs to be aware of that legacy and be mindful of the ways it filters into there own work.
It is important, not only to understand that this exists but be aware of who gets to say what images are important. In Linda Nochlins, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artist?” we are made aware of the overwhelming odds that were stacked against women born with the same talents as their male counterparts. The cross cultural subjugation of women made luxurious pursuits, like art , to be near impossible until very recent history. Nochlin draws attention to one key limitation placed on women, that may have stricken them from art history. One of the most fundamental skills to becoming a great artist, whether in the days of the academy or in contemporary art institutions, is being able to draw, paint or sculpt, from a nude model. Unfortunately throughout most of history, because of their social status, women were unable to work from a live model, limiting there ability to compete on the same level as male artists. “Always a model but never an artist”. With the examination of social changes in modernity one can further understand the dynamics of the masculine and the feminine. Art at this point was made primarily by men for an audience comprised mostly of rich white men. In Grieselda Pollock’s, “Modernity and the space of femininity”, we are introduced to the Flaneur and the male gaze. “ The flaneur symbolizes the privilege or freedom to move about the public arenas of the city observing but never interacting, consuming the sights through a controlling but rarely acknowledged gaze, directed as much at other people as at the goods for sale. The flaneur embodies the gaze of modernity which is both covetous and erotic” This visual and physical consumption of the feminine that Pollock describes still reverberates in contemporary gender dynamics.
There is an interesting shift historically that becomes apparent in the readings from, “Artist, Critics, Context” by Paul F. Fabozzi. Durring the late fifties and early sixties a group of artist emerges called the “New Artists”. These artist are responsible from some forms of art that we now think of as just another word in our artistic Language. For example, Allen Ginsbergs beat poetry, Allan Kaprow’s Happenings and Claes Oldenburgs Store. This is where art history leaps off the canvas, out of the gallery and into the mind. The role of the viewer changes dramatically in the way they interact and view art, sometimes become part of the artwork itself. These new artists, “Want us to share with them their pleasure and excitement at feeling and being, in an unquestioning and optimistic way.”
So what is happening now? What is the contemporary artists context? What does this mean for me, a white middle class male artist in 2012. It means that everything is up for grabs. As long as we are educated about the way that art has evolved, we will be able to place ourselves within its evolution. The readings from critical theory one have outlined the enduring importance of the way that art responds and contributes to cultural languages. Also, that historical context is necessary to understand these languages and their exchange with specific moments in art. Many would say that art is dead, that nothing is shocking anymore and everything has already been said. I would argue however that because our artistic language is so large, we are in a place historically where anything goes. In reading these text we become aware of the importance of the political and social climate of curtain periods in art. The birth of the modern city, the voice of feminism and the emergence of the “new artist” were all in one way or another a product of their socio-political climate. Presently, the weather is looking pretty turbulent. As a society we are fascinated with calamity. Biblically, our generation is supposed to be responsible for the war that will end all wars, the end of civilization as we know it. What if it becomes something else that is beyond our current comprehension? To me it means that in no way is art dead, that the potentially a new avant guard is only beginning to be realized. A perfect example is the Youtube video that has sparked chaos on the streets in the middle east. To me it means that contemporary art not only has the potential of changing the artist community but the social and political fabric of the world in general. So for me, “The adventure is everything; the tangible goal is not important. The Pacific coast is farther away than we thought, Ponce De Leon’s Fountain of Youth lies beyond the next everglade, and the next, and the next…meanwhile let’s battle the alligators.” (Kaprow)
Works Cited
1.) Fabozzi, Paul. Artist, Critics, Context: Readings in an Around American Art Since 1945 (Prentice-Hall, 2002)
2.) Griselda Pollock, “Modernity and the Space of Femininity” (online)
3.) Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? (online)
4.) Staniszewski, Marry Anne. Beliving is seeing: Creating the Culture of Art (Penguin Books:1995).
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Jaime Gili is a Venezuelan artists that lives in London. He was the artist chosen by the Maine Center of Creativity to transform the Sprauge oil tanks in South Portland into one of the largest pubic art paintings in the world. He spoke last night at the Maine College of Art, giving some insight into the origins of the piece. I find that it is always important to gain some depth of perspective in relation to a public artwork before i pass judgment on it. Hearing Gili speak about his aesthetic gave me a better understanding of the work and therefore appreciate it more. I was interested in the way that art was integrated into the architecture of his home city Caracas. Many of the examples of public art that Gili showed us, shared a similar modernist abstract sensibility. Because of the amount of this kind of work in Venezuela you can see it trickle down into popular culture in the form of graffiti.The most powerful part of the talk for me was during question and answers, a person asked, "are you present through the entire process?" The artist of course said no but an audience member, covered in paint interjected with "I am." Every head in the auditorium turned to see one of the men responsible for the actual painting of the tanks. it created an interesting tension between the artist, the audience, and the craftsman. In my mind, it raised questions about ownership when the artist in only present in the idea rather than the actual execution of the work.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Essay #1:
Arman and Allan McCollum: Repetition and The Objectification of Identity
The Reputation of objects in any situation provokes a conversation about reproduction. How the object is made directly influences how we place value upon it. The handmade, the mass produced, or the personally nostalgic object, all hold value to us as individuals. This value is upheld by societal reinforcement, a universal perception of there worth. Throughout history that value system has changed drastically due to advances in technology. The Sheer number of things that are produced around the world, in a given day, is astronomical. As these “things” accumulate around us, they begin to create a larger picture. Everything from the car we drive to the clothes we wear have become a physical representation of the person we believe ourselves to be. Everyone’s ultimate goal in life is to define themselves as an individual to the people they love and the community in which they live. Both Arman and Alan McCollum wrestle with the role of the physical object and the people who produce them, in the objectification of our identity.
Arman was a French born American artist who is known most notably for his “Accumulations”. These were a collection of similar objects, usually mass produced and distressed, that were positioned in relationship to each other . Many of them were cast in polyester, placed in boxes or fixed together in an aesthetically pleasing way. Historically, Arman is associated with Neo Realism, a movement in French contemporary art, that happened in conjunction with the emergence of Pop Art in America. Arman dealt with the idea of humans possessing a species specific trait of accumulating objects. Essentially, we define ourselves as individuals by the objects that we collect. These objects that accumulate in our lives more often than not have no meaning or value to anyone but ourselves. American psychoanalyst Werener Muensterberger attributes the action of collecting to a child using a secondary object for relief of separation anxiety from their mother. With the use of the found and discarded, he addresses issues of mass production and the literal accumulation of waste. As a child Arman bore witness to the biggest technological boom in the history of our species. The Industrial Revolution gave birth to factories and machines that created an endless stream of products. He said, “ As a historical statement you are the fruit of your environment, but as an artist I am a witness of my time. Before it became an explosion, I sensed the invasion of objects.” Paralleling his Accumulations was a series of work called “Tantrums” or “Slices”. In These works he explored the deconstruction and fragmentation of objects. For example, in Chopins Waterloo (1962), he destroyed a piano in front of violinist Yehudi Menuhin then fastened its fragmented pieces to a large panel of painted wood for presentation in the gallery. In these “Tantrums” he dealt with the idea of creating precious objects by destroying them.
Allan McCollum is a contemporary American artist that focuses on how objects and communities accumulate value. McCollum’s investigation of how communities create identities through objects, symbols and geography, is evident in his piece “Shapes from Maine”(2009). This show was part of an ongoing series of work that focuses on specific regions of the world and how their communities can be defined by the objects they produce or place value on. In this particular piece he collaborated with 4 companies who offer custom home craft goods to illustrate his fascination with Maine’s connections to craft. Each of these companies were commissioned to create shapes designed by McCollum in materials specific to craft, such as cookie cutters and rubber stamps. All four companies created 2200 individual objects that were then installed in the Friedrich Gallery in New York. He also explores objects that occur naturally in contrast to the hand made. These were specific to geographical regions, like the sand spikes of Mount Signal California or the petrified lightning of central Florida. In his work “Plaster Surrogates” (1983), He used repetition to illustrate the serial production of objects and its effect on human or communal individuality. he created 551 cast surrogate paintings that consisted of a matte, a frame, and a void. The objects were virtually identical except for variations in scale and the frame. This piece spoke to the production of consumer products that can be accessorized to create the illusion of individuality, even though they are technically the same object. This raises the question, can we ever truly be unique? What happens when the people who pull the strings of our market economy control the production of objects that we use to define ourselves as individuals?
Arman and McCollum use repetition in their work as a vehicle for content. In the reproduction of a singular object, they draw attention to the way that material things are manipulated and how they manipulate us. I am particularly interested in Armans association with the human psychological need to collect. McCollums piece “Surrogate Paintings”, is a subtly powerful representation of the objectification of our identity. In Richard Sennetts book ,“The Craftsman”, he uses the Greek myth of Pandora’s casket to illustrate the danger of culture founded on man made things. Pandoras casket contained gifts from all the gods but when it is opened, the wondrous gifts would spill forth scattering, “pains and evils among men“. In McCollums, “Surrogate Paintings” and a large portion of Armans work, grapple with the darker side of our material culture and the dichotomy created between advancement and destruction. I find it interesting that we are all culturally influenced into manifesting our psychological selves by consuming and therefore feeding the machine that could potentially cause our demise.
Arman and Allan McCollum: Repetition and The Objectification of Identity
The Reputation of objects in any situation provokes a conversation about reproduction. How the object is made directly influences how we place value upon it. The handmade, the mass produced, or the personally nostalgic object, all hold value to us as individuals. This value is upheld by societal reinforcement, a universal perception of there worth. Throughout history that value system has changed drastically due to advances in technology. The Sheer number of things that are produced around the world, in a given day, is astronomical. As these “things” accumulate around us, they begin to create a larger picture. Everything from the car we drive to the clothes we wear have become a physical representation of the person we believe ourselves to be. Everyone’s ultimate goal in life is to define themselves as an individual to the people they love and the community in which they live. Both Arman and Alan McCollum wrestle with the role of the physical object and the people who produce them, in the objectification of our identity.
Arman was a French born American artist who is known most notably for his “Accumulations”. These were a collection of similar objects, usually mass produced and distressed, that were positioned in relationship to each other . Many of them were cast in polyester, placed in boxes or fixed together in an aesthetically pleasing way. Historically, Arman is associated with Neo Realism, a movement in French contemporary art, that happened in conjunction with the emergence of Pop Art in America. Arman dealt with the idea of humans possessing a species specific trait of accumulating objects. Essentially, we define ourselves as individuals by the objects that we collect. These objects that accumulate in our lives more often than not have no meaning or value to anyone but ourselves. American psychoanalyst Werener Muensterberger attributes the action of collecting to a child using a secondary object for relief of separation anxiety from their mother. With the use of the found and discarded, he addresses issues of mass production and the literal accumulation of waste. As a child Arman bore witness to the biggest technological boom in the history of our species. The Industrial Revolution gave birth to factories and machines that created an endless stream of products. He said, “ As a historical statement you are the fruit of your environment, but as an artist I am a witness of my time. Before it became an explosion, I sensed the invasion of objects.” Paralleling his Accumulations was a series of work called “Tantrums” or “Slices”. In These works he explored the deconstruction and fragmentation of objects. For example, in Chopins Waterloo (1962), he destroyed a piano in front of violinist Yehudi Menuhin then fastened its fragmented pieces to a large panel of painted wood for presentation in the gallery. In these “Tantrums” he dealt with the idea of creating precious objects by destroying them.
Allan McCollum is a contemporary American artist that focuses on how objects and communities accumulate value. McCollum’s investigation of how communities create identities through objects, symbols and geography, is evident in his piece “Shapes from Maine”(2009). This show was part of an ongoing series of work that focuses on specific regions of the world and how their communities can be defined by the objects they produce or place value on. In this particular piece he collaborated with 4 companies who offer custom home craft goods to illustrate his fascination with Maine’s connections to craft. Each of these companies were commissioned to create shapes designed by McCollum in materials specific to craft, such as cookie cutters and rubber stamps. All four companies created 2200 individual objects that were then installed in the Friedrich Gallery in New York. He also explores objects that occur naturally in contrast to the hand made. These were specific to geographical regions, like the sand spikes of Mount Signal California or the petrified lightning of central Florida. In his work “Plaster Surrogates” (1983), He used repetition to illustrate the serial production of objects and its effect on human or communal individuality. he created 551 cast surrogate paintings that consisted of a matte, a frame, and a void. The objects were virtually identical except for variations in scale and the frame. This piece spoke to the production of consumer products that can be accessorized to create the illusion of individuality, even though they are technically the same object. This raises the question, can we ever truly be unique? What happens when the people who pull the strings of our market economy control the production of objects that we use to define ourselves as individuals?
Arman and McCollum use repetition in their work as a vehicle for content. In the reproduction of a singular object, they draw attention to the way that material things are manipulated and how they manipulate us. I am particularly interested in Armans association with the human psychological need to collect. McCollums piece “Surrogate Paintings”, is a subtly powerful representation of the objectification of our identity. In Richard Sennetts book ,“The Craftsman”, he uses the Greek myth of Pandora’s casket to illustrate the danger of culture founded on man made things. Pandoras casket contained gifts from all the gods but when it is opened, the wondrous gifts would spill forth scattering, “pains and evils among men“. In McCollums, “Surrogate Paintings” and a large portion of Armans work, grapple with the darker side of our material culture and the dichotomy created between advancement and destruction. I find it interesting that we are all culturally influenced into manifesting our psychological selves by consuming and therefore feeding the machine that could potentially cause our demise.
I would like to mention the new book that i am reading. Richard Sennett,"The Craftsman". I think that it would be an interesting read for any artist. Robert B. Reich , professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley says, "As Richard Sennett makes clear in this lucid and compelling book, craftsmanship once connected people to their work by conferring pride and meaning. The loss of craftsmanship has impovershed us in ways we have long forgotten."
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Last night i went to the Center for Maine Contemporary Art in Rockport to watch the art critic Jerry Saltz give a talk called "Art and the Art World Today: How They Got That Way an What We Do About It. An Art Critic Unloads." I was excited to get some insight on things that are happening in galleries but instead I was made to feel crazy for attempting to be an artist. He called artist big babies and said the reason he writes so many bad reviews is because 85% of the work he See's sucks. The one tid-bit of the talk that resonated with me was when he compared artists behavior to that of a cat. Saying that unlike dogs cats usually put a third object in play to show their affection. Oh, and his final nugget of advice was to "work, work, work." Thanks for the insight Jerry, maybe you should just go back to driving truck.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The reason for this project comes from my childhood, that is clear to
me. I did not have any toys. So, I played in the bricks of ruined
buildings around me and with which I built houses.
Anselm Kiefer
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
I met with my mentor Aaron Stephan on sunday afternoon and i think it went well. He was saying
things very similar to Things that were said in critiques during the residency.
I think the conversation also revolved around my space and how may not be
ideal for what im doing. He gave me
ten artists names, some i have been looking at already and some i need
to research. This exercise is intended to force me to make a position
for myself in relationship to practicing artists. Our next visit we are
going to look at each artist together and talk about my relationship to
them and the direction i want to go. Also i Attended a visiting artist
lecture at MECA last night given by Anne Wilson that was very
interesting. I purchased a book she mentioned called "The Craftsman" by
Richard Sennett that speaks to the reemergence of the craftsman. She also spoke about the digital age demanding it opposite. She talked about the troves of artist starting art school now that are returning to the material as a way of rebelling from the glowing screen of technology.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Here are some examples of body castings that I'm working on. They are the beginning of an accumulation of castings that i intend to cull from, manipulate, and reproduce. The portion of the torso and hand impression are examples of castings without the support of a mother mold. A process that allows me to manipulate the form before casting.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)