Week 10

            Before I heard this week’s guest lecture I had never heard of the term “multiple” before. Brian Gillis showed a lot of interesting work and illustrated exactly what the term multiple meant to him. I really liked how he formatted his presentation. It was like he took us on a journey through his thought process of determining what a multiple is and what a multiple could be. One piece of work that stood out to me was Piero Manzoni’s Merda d’Artista. Manzoni actually canned his feces and sold it at the price of gold. At first I found this odd and didn’t really know what the meaning behind it was. Then I started thinking about it in terms of a multiple and more about the process. Brian said a multiple could be defined as a “repetitive process used to make original pieces”. Maybe in this piece/pieces it is more about the repetitive process that contributes to the idea behind this work. Another work that I liked was the drilled chair by Tom Friedman. I liked this piece because in looking at the actual work you can see every detail of the process that went into making it. You can see every individual hole that when combined make up this shell of a chair. Another thing I liked about this piece was that Freidman pushed it so far that if he had drilled another hole it would have collapsed. It creates a very delicate yet eerie feeling that is quite beautiful at the same time.

            This week’s multimedia was really cool to look through. I found Gabriel Orozco’s work pretty funny and playful. The Supermarket work that he did at first made me laugh and then as I looked at it more I began to understand what he was asking, or at least what I think he is asking. I think he is raising the question of order in our society. By placing cat food on watermelons he is asking “why not?”. Why don’t we sell the cat food on top of the watermelons? From a rational standpoint it doesn’t really make sense but still, why not? The craziest thing to me that I saw was the Ping-pong pond by Gabriel Orozco. I liked it because it was an elegant take on the empty or unusable space of the table that is normally created by the net. To me it is a much more visually appealing solution and is something I would definitely want to use. One work I found unusual of Justin Novak is the sink with the confessional walls attached to it. This is a bizarre concept that combines an everyday task with a religious action. I personally have never visited a confessional but I don’t think I would want to use this sink.

            In making connections this week there is the apparent connection of multiples. All of the work Brian showed us were multiples and the multimedia for this week could definitely be seen as multiples. The ping-pong pond table is made of industrial parts that are manufactured in bulk. The supermarket work is made up of individual pieces that are also produced in bulk. The sink with the confessional is also comprised of a mass made object, the sink. All of these objects also interact with space and the idea of the certainty of one and the possibility of many. The pop art Brian showed us can be compared to the super market work of Orozco. A big picture theme that I think also can apply to all of the work we looked at this week is the idea of interacting with the world. All of these works interact with the world is their own way and ask questions about the world and the way things are.

The image I am including this week is one that mostly sums up the term for me!

            

Week 9

            This week’s guest lecturer was Amanda Wojick and she presented the media of sculpture. The format of her presentation was very interesting and really showed the progression of sculpture in the past century. She presented a woman sculptor who was born in each decade. The majority of the sculptures were very odd and raised a lot of questions. One artist that I found particularly interesting was Yayoi Kasuma. Her fascination of dots and patterns and surreal spaces translated into some very strange but beautiful work. I especially loved the white room that was covered in different sized red dots with large circular objects that were also covered in the dots. It really made me want to go and visit the space because I cannot even imagine what it would feel like to inhabit in and experience it in that powerful of a way. Another artist I was particularly struck by was Ursula Vonrydingsvard. Her work is absolutely beautiful. She makes these amazing wood sculptures that she carves and cuts into beautiful, gigantic, organic shapes that almost represent objects in nature. One thing Professor Wojick talked about with all the artists was the idea of abstraction and it was very interesting to me to compare these nine artists, who are all so different, and how they deal with the idea of abstraction.

            I also found this week’s multimedia to be very interesting. Richard Serra creates these massive sculptures that I can only imagine would feel very overpowering while standing in front of one. I also found it interesting that he started out working in a steel mill when he was a young adult. He turned something that was a way of paying bills into something creative and an exciting career. It must have been very beneficial to him as an artist to have such an extensive knowledge of the material that he uses for his work and it I would imagine that it shapes and pushes his creativity in a very unique way. The reading this week was a little hard for me however as I was trying to understand it a line stood out to me. The line read “But vision, I think, is more like the moments of anxious squinting than the years of effortless seeing.” Here Elkins is contrasting “seeing” with “vision”. He is saying that seeing is something we do everyday without even thinking about it. We look at things that don’t particularly strike our attention or make us think twice. But vision is something much more. Vision is when we look at something and want to look deeper. When we see something that strikes us or intrigues us and I think that art definitely helps us use vision as opposed to sight.

            One overarching theme that I noticed in this weeks media was the idea and sensation of scale. A majority of the work we looked at had a large sense of scale. From the monumental spiders of Louise Bourgeois to the 36 large people that Magdalena Abakanovicz erected in Chigaco to Richard Serras large steel sculptures, there is an overwhelming feeling of scale. These sculptures bring much more to the table than a two-dimensional object ever could because of the way they make you feel as you stand next to or below them. Another idea that extended through all of the media this week was, as I said before, the idea of abstraction vs. realism. In my opinion the work that used more abstract ideas and visuals are the more successful ones because they make you think. They push you to project your ideas onto them rather than handing you the meaning on a platter. In abstraction there is more room for interpretation and thus more room for the viewer to be creative as well as the artist.

            The piece of art I chose to share this week goes along with the theme of large sculptures!

Week 8

            This week’s guest lecturer showed a lot of interesting and unusual work that together make up the media of craft. Anya Kivarkis said that one of the things she was most interested in regarding craft is artist’s different methods of production. She talked about three different forms of production; handmade reproductions, reproductions, and production lines. Of these three I found handmade reproductions to be the most interesting. I especially liked Myra Mimlitsch- Gray and how she transformed a teapot. In this piece she changed the use of an antique teapot from something people would normally put on display and look at to something that people would actually use. She did this by putting the teapot in a box and then cutting out holes for the spout and openings. I found this very interesting because a teapot is something that is normally utilitarian rather than visual but by making the teapot “uglier” in a sense it makes people more inclined to use it for its intended purpose. Another piece that Anya showed us that I found interesting was Rachel Whiteread’s “House”. Whiteread filled an abandoned building with concrete and then when it set she tore down the outside of the house. What was left was a cast of the negative space of the house. The thing I found the most interesting about this piece was the reaction the neighborhood had to it. They thought that the cast had a ghostly and eerie feel to it and were so disturbed by it that they wanted her to take it down. I found it intriguing that such a simple act regarding such an everyday object such as a house could have such a strong impact on the people who viewed it.

            This week’s multimedia looks at John Feodorov. An installation of his that stood out to me when looking at his website was the installation titled “Ambiguity”. In this piece Feodorov created a giant teddy bear purely out of stuffing with no exterior shell. He then placed de-stuffed smaller teddy bears below the giant one with fragments of stuffing scattered around. The first feeling I got when looking at the piece was kind of a morbid sad feeling from all of the deflated teddy bears. Feodorov said in a little excerpt that he thought the large teddy bear was some sort of spirit or god or ruler that was made from the flattened bears. I don’t really know what he is trying to say but maybe that when people believe or invest so much in a higher power or ruler then they can give themselves up for that higher being. Another thing I found interesting when looking through Feodorov’s work was a quote that was in one of his interviews. He says, “… I think people are creative, people need to be creative, whether it’s making art or making babies. There’s that creative impulse and people find creativity in different ways. Some people’s manifestations get called art.” I completely agree with this statement. I think that it is human nature to be creative and that creativity can show itself in many ways.

            One of the things Ty wanted us to think about in our blogs this week was the idea of things being precious. I feel as though both Anya and Feodorov both discuss this idea but in different ways. In the works that Anya showed she talked about how a reproduction of something does not carry the same weight or preciousness that the original does. Making copies almost dilutes the meaning or originality. Feodorov approaches the idea of preciousness differently. I feel that he explores things in society that are so important or precious, such as a teddy bear or the office place, and uses those implications to comment on our culture.

           The artwork I chose to share this week takes something that is already made, a suitcase, and reproduces it in a new way that also changes its use.  I think this went along with the theme this week of craft. 

Week 7

           This week’s guest lecture was one of my favorites so far. It was all about Environmental Art, something I have seen very little of. I am a huge partaker of nature so it was amazing to see some of the pieces of work Carla showed that integrated nature into works of art. I love the idea that she shared with us that “Land is not a setting for the work, but a part of the work itself.” All of the works she showed us I absolutely loved, especially the piece where a man created a circle of good soil in a site of toxic waste and eventually plants and life started to form in an otherwise desolate and sick area. I think that piece did a great job at not only creating something beautiful, but at making a powerful statement as well. Another work that I found very interesting is the “Spiral Jetty” by Robert Smithson. At first I was unsure if I could like something that was pretty obtrusive of nature. I was also unsure if I liked the immense contrast of a lake so natural combined with such a planned and human element like the perfect spiral. The more I looked and thought about it, the more I liked it. The way it has weathered over time and how it has become part of the environment is beautiful. I also would love to go there at some point in my life and walk on it and experience the journey around the spiral. It really is quite an interesting piece of art.  I also really enjoyed Carla’s work that she showed us at the end. The part I loved about her ant paintings the most was when she talked about how she blew them up so that the viewer can understand the perspective of an ant, with the pixilated paper and the large “footprints” of the ants. It was quite fascinating to see.

            This week’s multimedia was challenging for me however, after listening to Ty explain Barthes a little bit I understood it more. The main thing I took away from the reading was the idea that no matter what each viewer will bring their own meaning to what they see and that sometimes anonymity, of the author, allows for more interpretation on the viewers part. This is what “the birth of the reader comes at the expense of the death of the author” means to me. Kiki Smith also had a quote that resonated with me. She said “Art is just a way to think… like standing in the wind and letting it pull you in whatever direction”. I think this is very true. When I read this the analogy of an essay prompt came to mind. Art is kind of like a prompt in a way. It can guide your way of thinking and make you think about things you might not have thought about.

            One connection I found throughout all the media this week was actually the idea that I just stated; that art can guide you. I think the quote by Kiki Smith is definitely applicable to the works of art that Carla showed us this week. Some of these works can actually physically guide you, like the Spiral Jetty or the two lines in the desert that are a mile long. Others can emotionally and mentally guide you and I think that is a very powerful quality. Another connection I made is kind of a general connection, but still a connection. This idea that Barthes has about how regardless of the intent of the author everyone will form his or her own unique interpretation. Just as I formed my own interpretation of the Spiral Jetty, someone else will have a totally different take on it. Any work of art is subjective and no two people will have the exact same view of something.

            A piece of work I chose to share this week is just something I believe illustrates the idea of different interpretations or takes on the same thing. It is more a quote than a piece of art I guess. 

Week 5

            I had been looking forward to the week in this class when we got to hear about Photography and I really really loved Craig Hickman. Although he was a little scattered and all over the place it was very refreshing and it was nice to not take art so seriously for once. He showed the class a wide variety of Photographers and work and a lot of it was really beautiful and amazing. One Photographer he showed that I really loved was Tony Mendoza. What I liked about Mendoza’s work was the emotions he created. He used studio lighting in an outside and natural setting which created kind of an eerie feeling. He did this with flowers, dogs, and cats among other things. The colors that resulted from this were very vibrant and beautiful. Another photographer I really enjoyed was Caleb Charland. He has a much different style than Mendoza but still very interesting. He creates these books of random titles and we looked at one called “Bored Couples”. It was exactly what it sounds like, pictures of couples who are bored. It was actually quite funny when put together in a book all together. That was something that I found very interesting. If there was one picture of a bored couple it would probably be a pretty boring picture, but when looking at a book compiled of numerous bored couples it was really interesting and funny and brought a whole new meaning. I found something that Hickman said about the field of photography to be very interesting and inquisitive. He brought up the “dilemma” of being a photographer in that when you take a picture you are taking a picture of something someone else has done. In my opinion photography is partly about the art of capturing something, whether or not it is someone else’s, in a beautiful and unique way.

             In this week’s multimedia I was really touched by Alfredo Jaar’s works. I think he illustrates just how powerful photography can be. I think that photography is very unique in the art world because it brings the viewer so close and involved with the subject matter in such a way that a painting or drawing cannot. Jaar’s works are very emotional. “The Rwanda Project” was especially moving. Jaar spent six years on this project and after it all he said that all the pieces failed because there is no possible way that the viewer could understand what is happening in Rwanda through a picture. I love how he went about this project though. He says that when you tell someone “a million people died” its tragic, yes, but meaningless. Understanding this he goes on to say that you need to narrow it down to one person, one story that the viewer can become involved with. This idea made complete sense to me. It reminded me of something completely off topic but follows the same idea. I heard that if you are kidnapped you should tell your kidnapper details about your life and who you are so that they become involved in your life and it becomes harder for them to do you harm. By narrowing it down to one person and their life it becomes almost impossible for someone not to relate to them. The article this week I found a little bit boring. I understand that now in this day and age with photoshop and advanced computer rendering programs faking photos is an issue but the article just seemed to go on and on. I think that with everything in the media one must take information with a grain of salt and an inquisitive mind and that extends to photographs too. It is kind of a bizarre concept though because in the past faking a photograph wasn’t really that prevalent and is more of a recent thing. Overall, I found the artist of this week much more fascinating than the reading.

            An overarching theme I found this week was a sense of playfulness, even if the subject matter was serious. Starting from the way Craig presented his lecture materials to the content of what we looked at this week there was a sense of playfulness underneath it all. Craigs work was pretty cool and playful itself. He takes pictures and adds text or visuals that weren’t really in the picture when he took it. His text was satirical and funny at times. In Mendoza’s pictures of his dog there is definitely a sense of playfulness not only in the dogs expressions, but in the color and lighting and closeness of the photographs. Charland’s books have a definite lightheartedness and light tone to them. Another connection I made has to do with the very topic of the article we read about faking photographs. This is exactly what Craig does in his “fictional photographs”. He takes real life pictures then photoshops text in while making them look like the text could actually be there. If one did not know that he added the text himself, they would think it was actually there. Is it a bad think to deceive the viewer? I think in some situations, like the one in the article, yes but in others it can be harmless and playful.

            The piece I chose for this week is a piece that I have always liked and it reminded me of the work Craig showed us by Mendoza. 

(unknown)

Week 4

            I found this week’s topic one of the harder ones for me to engage in. I don’t have much knowledge or experience with Fibers but I did find a lot of the works we looked at very interesting. Sarah showed a wide range of work and some of the pieces I found to be very beautiful. I especially loved the works of Doho Suh in which he constructed rooms and houses out of silk. His work was so elaborate and well crafted. The way the silk looked when it overlapped in some areas was really beautiful. I also loved what Sarah pointed out about the seams and how they almost gave a sense of a line drawing. One of the overarching themes I noticed in a lot of the work Sarah showed was the idea of the exploration of the everyday and everyday things. Suh used silk to make an apartment. Liza Lou took a 100 square foot kitchen and covered the entire thing with beads. In “Knitta, please” random objects around cities all over the world were graffiti-ed in knitting. I found it very interesting that by taking an everyday object and covering it in something else it can make it beautiful and interesting and less mundane. It can call attention to something that would otherwise be overlooked.

            One of the videos I liked the most of this weeks multimedia was the “Myein” installation. I thought that not only was the whole concept and idea extremely powerful but the way that it was constructed was powerful as well. The visuals of the piece were very beautiful and it made me want to go see the piece in person. At first it was hard for me to see this as fibers but when I looked at it more it made more sense to me. The whole installation is very tactile, being written in Braille. The materials as well could also be tactile. Another piece from this weeks multimedia that struck me was Cai Guo-Qiang’s wolf piece. I think visually it is very beautiful and immaculate but as I looked at it more I struggled with the question of “Why? What does this mean?” What could a group of wolves soaring through the air and then landing in a heap on the ground possibly mean? Maybe there is no inherent meaning but then again what would strike Guo-Qiang to create such a piece? Either way I liked the piece because of the fact that it made me think and wonder.

            The strongest connection I can make between this week’s materials is the concept of the exploration of the everyday. From Liza Lou’s kitchen to Doho Suh’s silk rooms to Cai Guo-Quiang’s wolves there is the repetition of the everyday. Ann Hamilton also created a piece in which she has a wooden desk in the center of a silk organza room.  I am not sure why this is such a re-occurring theme in the Fibers pieces I’ve seen so far but it fascinates me. I think it partly has to do with the fact that Fibers is very culturally driven and very rooted in culture. I especially loved the beaded kitchen that Liza Lou created. To take something so mundane and make it so special and beautiful was incredible to me. This week’s materials were really a struggle for me to make connections however something Cai Guo-Qiang said really stuck me. He talks about how with time you get to know the materials you are working with very well and I can really understand how that is a big part of fibers. In fibers it’s all about materiality and how materiality can change in different conditions and over time. It seems like a very important aspect of Fibers and something that is very special to the media.

        The piece of work I chose to share this week goes along with the theme of exploring the everyday. It is a house that a group of artists changed to make like it got sucked into a wormhole. 

Week 3

            I found this week’s guest lecturer to be really interesting. Michael Salter, being a digital artist himself, spoke about the digital arts. Not only did he speak about what is going on in the digital art world today, but Salter also gave us a really great, brief history of what he had experienced in the digital art world himself. He called himself an “obsessive observer” and showed examples of why he felt that way. He showed us ads, signs, posters, logos, ect. and walked us through the dialogue that went on in his head as he observed each one. I found this really interesting, and also hilarious, because after each one I thought to myself “yeah he has a good point” or “he’s right., that picture of two boys sharing an ice cream cone in their underwear is kind of weird”. I really got the sense of his over-analytic mind and that he really did not take anything at face value. Another thing I found interesting was when Salter was showing multiple iterations of the same thing. He showed us Star Wars remakes, Planet of the Apes remakes and a whole breadth of others. The question he raised was “Do multiple iterations of something get more diluted or can they get better?”. I feel that the answer to this is dependent on the specific case but the question that he brought up really struck me.  In terms of his own work, he also said some interesting thoughts. He kept telling us that when creating his pieces he would ask himself “How brief, concise and confusing can I make it? How can I create unclear logic in a fast way?” and that really showed through in the work he showed us.

            I also really enjoyed the reading from this week. It brought up some really great and valid points and also asked some really interesting questions. The overall message of the reading, I thought, was the exploration of the cartoon as something simplified, quick, relatable, and universal. One of the first points brought up that really made me think was when the author said that one of the reasons that cartoons are made simple is so that we can imagine ourselves in the character. It makes us more engaged as readers and makes the story relatable. By creating faces that don’t have very distinct or real characteristics, we then can see ourselves in them whether it be on a conscious level or not. Another point that really struck me and stayed with me throughout the reading was when the narrative cartoon asked halfway through the article “If I looked like this (a realistic, more detailed version of himself) would you still have listened to me?” (pg 36). And I actually thought to myself “No, probably not”. It was such a valid point and yet something that I had never thought about before.  The multi-media for this week was a little hard for me to understand. I am not really sure how to interpret it but I thought the “Points of Volatility” piece looked really cool. The way the lights interacted with the mountains that passed by was visually stimulating and kept my attention for quite a while. It is also pretty cool that they are actually the Colorado Mountains.

            One connection I made between all three of the materials is the idea of taking a complex concept and translating that in a very simple, quick and universal way. Michael Salter explained to us that his works are all about taking some sort of unclear and confusing logic and portraying it in a brief, concise and fast way. Similarly, the idea of the cartoon addresses this as well. A cartoon takes a detailed, realistic and complicated concept or idea and turns it into the most simplified and relatable form of that idea, that in turn is also very brief and concise. In one of Chris Coleman’s works titled “Taking Sides” he has a piece of cloth and on either side of the cloth are fans that change speed depending on the volume and intensity of someone’s voice. These voices are talking about very heavy and loaded political issues. This piece of art is taking complex words and ideas and creating a very simple and understandable output: the flowing of the cloth from fans. Regardless of if you can understand the speaker, you can understand their passion or lack thereof by just watching this cloth move. I think one the overall themes between these materials is the idea of portraying a strong complex idea in a very simple and accessible manner.

            The piece of artwork I chose to include in this weeks blog is something I feel goes along with the idea of communicating an idea in a short, concise and visual way.

(By: Boris, "The Bermuda Triangle of Productivity")

Week 2

This week’s guest presentation was by Laura Vandenburgh who spoke specifically about drawing. She talked about many interesting ideas and one of the first things she said was that there is nothing that quite compares to drawing because of how immediate and direct it is. She showed examples of doodles, maps, diagrams and a range of other quick illustrations that communicate information in a quick and visual way. I found this very interesting because when I think about an artist who uses drawing as a media, images of detailed portraits and dramatically shadowed still life pop into my head. Her comment however, made me realize that drawing is a tool that everyone uses in their everyday lives and that it is a very effective way of showing others things that cannot always be described in words. She went on further to say that in drawing, things can be visually worked out at the speed of thinking, which cannot be said for all forms of media. Just the other day I was videochatting with my brother and in trying to describe to him my apartment in relation to the UO campus, I took out a pencil and a piece of paper and drew a quick little map. This example illustrates part of what Laura was talking about in her idea of drawing being quick and direct. Another thing Laura said that I found to be very interesting was when she talked about the artist’s “mark”. In my opinion drawing is the form of media that has the most opportunity for/easiest to see the artist’s mark because the final product is a direct outcome of what the hand is doing and how it is moving.

            The reading had a lot of content and jumped around a lot without getting that in depth with any one topic so I found it a little hard to get into. I did however really like the small portion on Duchamp’s “readymade” art. I thought the point he was making was very interesting. To Duchamp choosing and presenting rather than making is the prime act of the artist (pg 109). I found the way he went about making this statement was very interesting. By taking objects that are already made and mass produced and composing them in his own was is fascinating to me. Later on in the reading when it got into the Pop Art section there is a part about a man named Danto who thought that pop art was the end of art because Warhol was taking images that already existed and having assistants make them and then calling it art. This to me, relates back to what Duchamp’s point was, that the artist should compose, not necessarily make. Warhol was not responsible for the hand labor but he was for the composition and ideas. Margaret Kilgallen’s work has a very distinct style to it. Her people are very flat and 2 dimensional and yet in my opinion they have distinct emotions. I found her interviews to actually be more interesting than the images of her art. I especially like when she talks about graffiti. She says, “I compared it to the barrage of images we see every day, especially advertising, and how on billboards or corner stores or anywhere—it's absolutely everywhere—and yet it doesn't bother anybody” (Margaret Kilgallen). It reminds me of a Banksy quote in which he talks about how people consider graffiti as trespassing but that advertisements trespass our brains everyday and in worse ways than graffiti. I completely agree with these ideas because personally I would rather be bombarded by interesting, diverse, original, accessible art than by bland, distasteful, commercial advertisements.

            One major connection I made from these different sources was the idea of the artist’s mark. Both Laura Vandenburgh talked about it, as I mentioned above, as well as Margaret Kilgallen. Kilgallen said in one of her interviews, “I like things that are handmade and I like to see people's hand in the world, anywhere in the world; it doesn't matter to me where it is. And in my own work, I do everything by hand…. From a distance it might look straight, but when you get close up, you can always see the line waver. And I think that's where the beauty is” (Margaret Kilgallen). I think that this is a very beautiful sentiment. In the reading there was a random quote that talked about how the artist sees what he paints, not paints what he sees. I can relate to this because in one of my art classes we were told to paint a still life. There was a set up in the front of the class and everyone was to draw that exact still life. After the project was due we took a look at the finished products and everyone’s were completely different. As humans we each have our own perception and therefore our own style or “mark” and that is what makes art beautiful. Another connection I made is that people interpret art differently. A lot of the work Laura presented as drawings, I considered sculptures. In the reading they talked about a lot of different movements some of which seemed like they overlapped or blurred together without any concrete distinction. That is part of why I love art. It is almost purely subjective and there is no right or wrong.

            The image I chose to include is an image I feel has a very strong “mark” to it. You can really see the strokes of the hand and how the artist moved across the canvas. 

(By: JBSC, "The Most Precious Gift of All")