There was a lecture at the beginning of the term by American artist, Mark Dion, which was very interesting, but did not influence me greatly at the time. However, in reading Colin Renfrew's book 'Figuring It Out' and learning more about his work from an archaeologist's perspective, I have found a greater appreciation for the poetic concepts behind Dion's work. I remember being most taken by his archaeological work in the lecture, and especially how he displays what has been found - not as a narrative or explanation as Museums usually do, but in a instinctual, childlike way, the ambiguity of which leaves the viewer much room for interpretation. This re-interpretation of the objects is exciting to me - it never occurred to me how museums manipulate our impression of history in the way they display artefacts, in a very subtle way that aids our understanding.
Renfrew's main point about Dion's work was how it questions the definition of archaeology. If archaeology is "understanding the past through the medium of its material remains", then Dion's work is a true example. The objects found during Dion's Tate Thames Digs were processed the same way as found artefacts from an professional archaeological dig - however, the difference, Renfrew says, is that the objects were found at random, washed up from the tide and therefore having little context. It would seem that Dion's work is a misconception - it is presented in a familiar way that we automatically assume to be logical and meaningful, but the history that the objects present has little meaning in a scientific sense. In this way his work questions what archaeologists are looking for.. single objects can tell a story to a certain extent, but it is a 'recovery of context' that is essential to a successful, useful archaeological find.
As I have a fascination for anthropology, I find these things very interesting - archaeology is a man-made science, a doctrine by humans, for humans and about humans... vulnerable to error, emotion and crime (it would seem looting has greatly disadvantaged archaeological accuracy). Dion's work seems so much more important (and of much more interest to me) after learning more about archaeology and museum curating. He questions the process, the meaning and the significance of understanding the past in this material way.
On a side note (because I have re-read it in my lecture notes), another point made by Dion that particularly resonated with me was his analogy of the artist as a film director- when asked what he thought about artists relying on other people to make their work he responded that although on a film set the light, sound, editing technicians are essential, they could be replaced and the film would remain the same - but if you removed the director, the film couldn't happen. This is the same for artists - the idea is the main body of the work. I find this a really useful metaphor for understanding artists such as Damien Hirst and Cornelia Parker.
Thursday, 2 January 2014
Saturday, 28 December 2013
Sculpture Week 2
Retrospectively, I am very pleased the work I made for the second week of 'Poetics of Materials' ...but I had to be convinced by other people before I thought this. I disliked the work up until it was finished and I had an opportunity to live with it and think about it a little more. I was mostly put off by how big and bold the cardboard structure I made was - I prefer things to be more delicate and subtle.
I was very indecisive about what to do with the structure - I had two main ideas about taking it further: continuing to make more and more of it, and introducing a new material. In order to make the decision, I trialled different arrangements, made sketches, made further maquettes and researched other artists. All these methods proved very useful but looking at other artists provided me with the winning idea this time.. I saw a collage/drawing by Rachel Whiteread (from 'Rachel Whiteread Drawings', ), where she had taken points in a found image and extended the lines out to the edge of the page. This led me to involve thread in my sculpture.
I always find am better when responding to a space - it gives me confines to work in. Once I had established the space that I was able to use in the studio, the final piece came quite quickly and intuitively. The architecture of the space gave me all the ideas to position the cardboard, and the thread, and to invisibly suspend the structure with fishing wire. I think the illusion that the thread was the main support was the most successful element to the work - in the crit, people said it looked magical and mystical. I loved witnessing people understanding the work - having to go up close and investigate for themselves - this is the main concept I'd really love to take further, making a physical object that invites curiosity and forces people to think for themselves.
Interestingly, the thread and the expanse of white space of the studio wall brought back the subtlety that I was missing when the structure was by itself.
I was very indecisive about what to do with the structure - I had two main ideas about taking it further: continuing to make more and more of it, and introducing a new material. In order to make the decision, I trialled different arrangements, made sketches, made further maquettes and researched other artists. All these methods proved very useful but looking at other artists provided me with the winning idea this time.. I saw a collage/drawing by Rachel Whiteread (from 'Rachel Whiteread Drawings', ), where she had taken points in a found image and extended the lines out to the edge of the page. This led me to involve thread in my sculpture.
 |
| Rachel Whiteread - 'Stairs', 2003 |
Poetics of Materials
I had a very productive and enjoyable week in the sculpture workshop. I was looking forward to being able to work in 3D again properly and I took to the brief immediately. It was good fortune that one of the materials it was suggested we use was cardboard, which I had been experimenting with and thinking about earlier in the course. I quickly made the decision to use cardboard over wood, having experimented briefly with the wood and deciding I didn't really like its properties - its colour, the inflexibility of it, how it splinters, how it cannot be manipulated easily - there seems more of a permanence and weight to wood, and this is not what I was after. (I think sometimes I am a bit quick to decide on these things, but there qualities to cardboard that interest me far more than wood).
The aspect of this week which I found most enjoyable, and which held my interest the most, was learning more about the material and exploring it quite freely. I really am drawn to learning about different materials, how they move, whether they break or tear, whether they can be stretched or squashed etc. This week has been a confirmation that I enjoy working in 3D not only for the aesthetic, but also for the kinaesthetic - feeling and making. In a similar way to Richard Serra using verbs, recently I have approached materials with a formula in mind: "cut into strips,fold, repeat". I have realised this in retrospect, I seem to do it quite a lot without recognising that I am.
I find repetition fascinating, with the sense of potential and growth that it automatically brings to a work.
I came to a bit of difficulty once I had run out the type of cardboard I was using - I found it hard to decide what to do next, whether to find more or use it as a stopping point and introduce a new material. I was thinking about some sculptures I had seen by American sculptor Justin Matherly in the Saatchi gallery just before I went to Venice. These combine two contrasting elements/materials - glass reinforced concrete and 'ambulatory equipment' - in a manner that was, I thought, effective and strangely beautiful. The concrete relied on the metal in its shape and positioning, and it was hard to decipher whether this was an awkward or a comfortable relationship. I was also drawn to how the structures, although different in many ways (colour, texture) had many similarities - as if somehow in their forced proximity, they have begun to mimic each other, and behave in the same way.
The aspect of this week which I found most enjoyable, and which held my interest the most, was learning more about the material and exploring it quite freely. I really am drawn to learning about different materials, how they move, whether they break or tear, whether they can be stretched or squashed etc. This week has been a confirmation that I enjoy working in 3D not only for the aesthetic, but also for the kinaesthetic - feeling and making. In a similar way to Richard Serra using verbs, recently I have approached materials with a formula in mind: "cut into strips,fold, repeat". I have realised this in retrospect, I seem to do it quite a lot without recognising that I am.
I find repetition fascinating, with the sense of potential and growth that it automatically brings to a work.
I came to a bit of difficulty once I had run out the type of cardboard I was using - I found it hard to decide what to do next, whether to find more or use it as a stopping point and introduce a new material. I was thinking about some sculptures I had seen by American sculptor Justin Matherly in the Saatchi gallery just before I went to Venice. These combine two contrasting elements/materials - glass reinforced concrete and 'ambulatory equipment' - in a manner that was, I thought, effective and strangely beautiful. The concrete relied on the metal in its shape and positioning, and it was hard to decipher whether this was an awkward or a comfortable relationship. I was also drawn to how the structures, although different in many ways (colour, texture) had many similarities - as if somehow in their forced proximity, they have begun to mimic each other, and behave in the same way.
My aim for the next stage of the brief - to dress/paint/expand on the work we made - was to introduce a new material. I was looking forward to working with more than one material, and thinking about the relationship they have to each other.
Friday, 27 December 2013
Venice trip
The trip to the Venice Biennale was a brilliant and also very useful experience, because of the amount of art that was there. There was so much to see it is very hard to describe the full impact that the experience had on me - I have learnt an awful lot from the work I saw, each one vastly different in subject and medium.
The set up of the event I found quite bizarre, as I have never encountered so much contemporary (and genuinely interesting) work in one place. I enjoyed both of the curated shows in the Giardini and the Arsenale, as well as quite a number of the pavilions. I took notes on works that particularly interested me, jotting down its details as well as a few thoughts about it, and I intend to research the artists more at some point. I think I might try to do this more in exhibitions I visit in England, as it was a very useful way of remembering the works, as well as analysing and appreciating them a little more, both at the time and with subsequent research.
I was pleased to note that I am much more able to analyse works - particularly painting and film, which before this term I perhaps wouldn't have given as much attention. Instead, I enjoyed looking at the brush strokes and thinking back to the seminar we had on visual language, deciding what the artist wanted to convey and what the work made me feel, considering the temporal aspects of video. I also saw three performance works, one arranged by (Turner Prize nominee) Tino Sehgal. I have never witnessed first hand a performative piece and they were really quite fascinating - although my main interest came in observing how the public reacted when they saw the performance was going on... some people stepped closer, others stepped back, some did not even realise, school children watched both intrigued and bewildered.
Two of my favourite works, and highlights of the trip, include:
Roberto Cuoghi - 'Belinda', 2013
The size of this sculpture was immediately impressive, and it worked so well in the space - between two big pillars in the first room of The Encyclopaedic Palace. I was immediately attracted to the shapes within the structure, which remind me of rock formations, coral and give the impression of growth, like bones which are still developing. The 'ripples' on the surface also give the work a sense of movement, heightened further by the unbalanced, precarious-looking position of the top-heavy mass. I have read that 'Belinda' is a massively enlarged copy of microscopic proteins, produced by a £D printer and coated in stone dust. I love the work even more for knowing this, because of the dramatic change in scale... I am very interested in enlarging the minute and unseen, especially natural forms. The fact that we see recognisable elements in Cuoghi's sculpture, and are able to draw associations with other natural forms that we encounter, fascinates me - I love this continuity in nature, whether zooming in or zooming out. I also love its pretence, how it is a manmade structure posing almost, as a natural form.
Camille Henrot - 'Grosse Fatigue', 2013
I rarely am captivated (or patient) enough to sit through entire videos, but I experienced the full 13 minutes of "Grosse Fatigue" and would happily watch it again. The video is by a French artist, who set herself the challenge of explaining the creation of the Universe. The video is comprised of many different elements, different shots of different actions and motifs presented as if on the windows of a computer screen. This vast amount of visual information is brought together by the audio, which is a spoken word poem. I found both the visuals and the audio very interesting, the bright coloured backgrounds and everyday materials used were very effective in their simplicity... it gave the sense that all these small, simple elements together made something complicated, just like the universe. The mix of surfaces, textures, movements, patterns was also mesmerising and compelled you to watch on. The voice over had a beat, it was rhythmic, almost like chanting, and the language used was religious, biblical.. as if it were from an Old Testament passage. I wrote in my notes "Science v. Religion v. Belief v. Knowledge' - the poem could have been any of these things and the juxtaposition of the images made it all the more ambiguous.
The set up of the event I found quite bizarre, as I have never encountered so much contemporary (and genuinely interesting) work in one place. I enjoyed both of the curated shows in the Giardini and the Arsenale, as well as quite a number of the pavilions. I took notes on works that particularly interested me, jotting down its details as well as a few thoughts about it, and I intend to research the artists more at some point. I think I might try to do this more in exhibitions I visit in England, as it was a very useful way of remembering the works, as well as analysing and appreciating them a little more, both at the time and with subsequent research.
I was pleased to note that I am much more able to analyse works - particularly painting and film, which before this term I perhaps wouldn't have given as much attention. Instead, I enjoyed looking at the brush strokes and thinking back to the seminar we had on visual language, deciding what the artist wanted to convey and what the work made me feel, considering the temporal aspects of video. I also saw three performance works, one arranged by (Turner Prize nominee) Tino Sehgal. I have never witnessed first hand a performative piece and they were really quite fascinating - although my main interest came in observing how the public reacted when they saw the performance was going on... some people stepped closer, others stepped back, some did not even realise, school children watched both intrigued and bewildered.
Two of my favourite works, and highlights of the trip, include:
Roberto Cuoghi - 'Belinda', 2013
The size of this sculpture was immediately impressive, and it worked so well in the space - between two big pillars in the first room of The Encyclopaedic Palace. I was immediately attracted to the shapes within the structure, which remind me of rock formations, coral and give the impression of growth, like bones which are still developing. The 'ripples' on the surface also give the work a sense of movement, heightened further by the unbalanced, precarious-looking position of the top-heavy mass. I have read that 'Belinda' is a massively enlarged copy of microscopic proteins, produced by a £D printer and coated in stone dust. I love the work even more for knowing this, because of the dramatic change in scale... I am very interested in enlarging the minute and unseen, especially natural forms. The fact that we see recognisable elements in Cuoghi's sculpture, and are able to draw associations with other natural forms that we encounter, fascinates me - I love this continuity in nature, whether zooming in or zooming out. I also love its pretence, how it is a manmade structure posing almost, as a natural form.
Camille Henrot - 'Grosse Fatigue', 2013
I rarely am captivated (or patient) enough to sit through entire videos, but I experienced the full 13 minutes of "Grosse Fatigue" and would happily watch it again. The video is by a French artist, who set herself the challenge of explaining the creation of the Universe. The video is comprised of many different elements, different shots of different actions and motifs presented as if on the windows of a computer screen. This vast amount of visual information is brought together by the audio, which is a spoken word poem. I found both the visuals and the audio very interesting, the bright coloured backgrounds and everyday materials used were very effective in their simplicity... it gave the sense that all these small, simple elements together made something complicated, just like the universe. The mix of surfaces, textures, movements, patterns was also mesmerising and compelled you to watch on. The voice over had a beat, it was rhythmic, almost like chanting, and the language used was religious, biblical.. as if it were from an Old Testament passage. I wrote in my notes "Science v. Religion v. Belief v. Knowledge' - the poem could have been any of these things and the juxtaposition of the images made it all the more ambiguous.
Painting 2D>3D>2D (Written 18-10-13)
Taking my work from 2D to 3D seemed like a very natural step for me, and is something I usually do in my practice (but more with drawings and plans than with painting). Following the crit we had, where it was suggested I think about what 3D materials my painting reminded me of, I experimented with wire, masking tape and different papers making small maquettes. I enjoyed this because it was a very quick, spontaneous process and seemed to develop very naturally.
I feel this way of working would be useful for me, certainly it would provide me with a lot of ideas because the work is constantly eveolving and changes very rapidly. It might however be hard to decide when to stop the process, and focus on one thing to refine it.
I had not anticipated the translucency that was produced by the masking tape, which could certainly be taken forward in painting by using many thin layers of paint. It was suggested that my work has similar sensitivities in this way to that of Ian McKeever, an artist who I have looked at previously and whose work I like very much for its subtlety, exploration of light and transparent qualities. I am also drawn to McKeever's curiosity for an ambiguous solidity of form and space - I am very interested to explore this element further in my own work.
It was very interesting in this week's crit trying to guess the order in which people's work had been made... whether the drawing, or the sculpture, or the photograph came first. I was happy with the response I got to my work, and the feedback was very useful in thinking of ways forward - I am thinking about how to develop the x-ray like quality of the photographs I took of my maquette on the light box.
I feel this way of working would be useful for me, certainly it would provide me with a lot of ideas because the work is constantly eveolving and changes very rapidly. It might however be hard to decide when to stop the process, and focus on one thing to refine it.
I had not anticipated the translucency that was produced by the masking tape, which could certainly be taken forward in painting by using many thin layers of paint. It was suggested that my work has similar sensitivities in this way to that of Ian McKeever, an artist who I have looked at previously and whose work I like very much for its subtlety, exploration of light and transparent qualities. I am also drawn to McKeever's curiosity for an ambiguous solidity of form and space - I am very interested to explore this element further in my own work.
 |
| Ian McKeever - 'Day Painting', 1999 |
It was very interesting in this week's crit trying to guess the order in which people's work had been made... whether the drawing, or the sculpture, or the photograph came first. I was happy with the response I got to my work, and the feedback was very useful in thinking of ways forward - I am thinking about how to develop the x-ray like quality of the photographs I took of my maquette on the light box.
Painting (Written 10-10-13)
Painting has been surprisingly enjoyable this week. I was doubtful at the beginning that I would enjoy it because I haven't done any painting since AS Level, and don't feel particularly comfortable doing it. In fact, it was these things that made it enjoyable because I felt really free to experiment - I had no expectation of myself to live up to as I might in future weeks. I learnt an awful lot from the slideshow about how to look at paintings and understanding the different brush strokes.. this is something that I feel I have missed out on before, and it was really good to have the opportunity to consider painting in this way. From this, I feel myself already better able to look at paintings and understand them, and appreciate the visual language of the artist's work.
I produced a few paintings that (as relatively quick studies) I am happy with and more importantly, interested in. I am mainly interested in the shapes and the structures that they show, especially in the painting made from stencils as it has a certain geometry to it. I was wondering however, how much of the interest I see in my paintings is really about the painting or the subject in the original image. In the crit, it was pointed out that I am perhaps looking at the painting in a 3D way, thinking about what it would be like as a sculpture for instance.
However, I enjoyed it less when I was trying to make a painting using layers - I have never formally been taught how to paint in the past and really, have little knowledge of how to apply the paint (at AS Level I just did it in the manner which felt most natural and was not advised otherwise). I think I have little patience for painting 'properly' - waiting for layers to dry etc. The thing that held me back the most was that I feel I have no ability to judge whether a painting is good or not - I think this is because this medium does not interest me, maybe I have not researched it enough or am familiar enough with paintings, but I found it really off-putting to produce something and have no confidence in my opinion about it.
I produced a few paintings that (as relatively quick studies) I am happy with and more importantly, interested in. I am mainly interested in the shapes and the structures that they show, especially in the painting made from stencils as it has a certain geometry to it. I was wondering however, how much of the interest I see in my paintings is really about the painting or the subject in the original image. In the crit, it was pointed out that I am perhaps looking at the painting in a 3D way, thinking about what it would be like as a sculpture for instance.
However, I enjoyed it less when I was trying to make a painting using layers - I have never formally been taught how to paint in the past and really, have little knowledge of how to apply the paint (at AS Level I just did it in the manner which felt most natural and was not advised otherwise). I think I have little patience for painting 'properly' - waiting for layers to dry etc. The thing that held me back the most was that I feel I have no ability to judge whether a painting is good or not - I think this is because this medium does not interest me, maybe I have not researched it enough or am familiar enough with paintings, but I found it really off-putting to produce something and have no confidence in my opinion about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)