fibers?

Once again another presentation has opened up my perception of what “art” is. Fibers is a very interesting medium but seems very challenging. The intricacy of various weaving techniques to create such different products is pretty cool. Sarah focused on the prominence of fibers through the 60s and 80s and explained how it wasn’t necessarily considered “art” by many institutions. One artist of the day whose work she highlighted was Claire Zeisler. I really like her spiral installation because of the freeness and independence of the spirals yet they were bound in unity because they were a group. The other installation of Zeisler’s Sarah showed was something I also thought was unique. At first it looked like a grand throne for a queen to adorn but then after the class discussion I realized the meaning totally went over my head. However, after hearing the opinions and interpretations of other classmates I have to say it’s a pretty brilliant installation. When you factor in the context of the time period, her gender and the attitude of the art community toward fibers her freestanding fiber structure representing a vagina is pretty remarkable. It’s very powerful and witty.

Ann Hamilton is one of those WTF artists for me. I know she’s trying to convey and depict some pretty important concepts but I just don’t know what they are and how to analyze her work. For example her installation titled, “Bearings,” features two large circular black silk curtains. First I tried to analyze the title. I think in this context, “bearings,” means placement, location or place of residence, not as in an address but rather a permanent habitat. The physical presence of the curtains is very ominous which could also be overbearing, something else that relates to the title. I know her work is very meaningful and I’m not quite sure what that meaning is but hopefully my interpretation skills will improve over the course of this term. On the other hand, Cai Guo-Qaing’s style is very in your face and intense. I thought his gunpowder pieces were very original because he could never produce the same thing. His massive car installation was beautiful. Although this installation is based off of the relevance and fear of car bombings, the illustration of an explosion in such an eloquent way gave it a quality of attractiveness.

I think an obvious and pretty basic connection between the presentation and the two featured artists is that they all have something powerful to say and they can say it through different ways in the same medium but different variations. For example, Ann Hamilton can work with crimson powder to create message while Cai Gou-Qaing can use lifelike representations to make a statement and Cat Mazza’s huge Nike quilt made from fabric to raise awareness about their poor labor laws. Maybe it’s a rudimentary connection or maybe it’s not even a connection at all. I was going for a, “they’re connected through their differences,” type of link but I think fibers is such a vast medium that I’m going to have to stretch for a connection. Not all of this work is abstract but not all of it is literal. The topic was fibers so the commonality between all of them can’t be the medium so I think they can be connected through the differences between them. Furthermore, because fibers is a relatively new medium all of these artists are doing some pretty revolutionary things not seen in the art world before. Whether it is conceptual, visual or physical the presentation and the artists showcased contemporary and relevant ideas.  

 Needle work

http://harlemworldblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/harlem-needle-arts-events/ 

icon.

As soon as Michael said he was interested in branding as a kid, I knew was going to like his presentation. In fact the first two slides with the bright colors and oversized but simple text got my heart-race pumping. I love typography and using text to be visually appealing. The first half of his presentation was really inspiring and specifically resonated with me because I’m at the prime age to indulge in my superficiality and pop-culture/commercial art fascination. I love the icon but to be honest I had no idea what type of art that was called. I admire the simplicity so the fact that Michael put a name on this art form that I like was exciting. He talked about how the aesthetic oh his iconography was simple, direct and brief. I really liked seeing the definition of iconography and how it’s used. I thought it was funny how he pointed out that 15 minutes on a computer can make anyone a “graphic designer.” Because everything is now digital or usually ends up in a digital form, some computer savvy people can spend a little time with some software and make something without going through training, let alone the entire creative process. While this is a valid point, it makes me feel shut out from the art world. I spent three years working on my high school yearbook. Two of those three I was Editor-in-Chief and was responsible for creating, developing and executing theme, design and layout of the book. Obviously I’m not expert but I’d have to say even though it wasn’t conventional art, I got a little experience in an art-related field. That said, I have zero drawing skills which means I end up in the 15-minuter category even though I have some insight. I know there was no condescension intended and he was actually just comparing what icon artists used to be revered as to what has become of the art form but sometimes these attitudes stop me from being passionate about art because I’m not “trained.” My overreaction aside, I thoroughly enjoyed most of Michael’s presentation.

The reading material was titled “The Vocabulary of Comics,” and did a good job of distinguishing different comic styles and what exactly makes a comic a comic. The narrator, who had no eyes, also introduced one of my favorite things—the icon! The reading featured icons among the practical realm, traditional symbols like yin and yang and pictorial representations like people. The idea of the icon in this context is used to create the comic and depending on the complexity of the illustration, determines the complexity of the comic. One point I thought was interesting was human perception of comics and icons, particularly inanimate objects and their juxtaposition of reality. The reading says “our ability to extend our identities into inanimate objects can cause pieces of wood [crutches] to become legs, pieces metal [utensils] to become hands,” and so on (39). I liked this realization because it is something people are not aware of often but accept that these objects serve as human functions anyway. The multimedia exhibit of Chris Coleman’s work was not my cup of tea. Unfortunately I’m drawn to primarily stationary art because I can take it all in at once. I noticed his collaboration with Michael and saw that it was similar to the animations he showed in class. However, I did like the imagery of Magnitude of the Continental Divides about 1:15 in.

The obvious connection between the reading and Michael’s presentation is of course the icon. More specifically, both talk about how simplistic the icon is supposed to be. In the reading, the author shows the progression of an illustration from a realistic depiction of complexity, objectivity and specificity to a simplistic, iconic and universal illustration. The traits that describe the iconic approach, reiterate Michael’s point to be as concise as possible. Contrastingly, even though icons are simple in design, they can often be ambiguous and puzzling in meaning. Michael said he aimed for confusion in his pieces and the article states “simple elements can combine in complex ways” (45). Chris Coleman’s multimedia showcase with Michael about the animation series is a perfect example of something very simple being complicated and meaningful. In addition to relating to the iconic theory, the title of this work, “My House is not my House,” relates to page 26 of the reading that shows an assortment of icons and captions that read “this is not a _____,” (what it appears to be) but rather an idea.

http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2007/11/ 

the second one

1)      Laura’s presentation on drawing was enlightening and helped me see how important drawing is to the concept of art. I’ve considered doodles as art before but the images of hand drawn maps and symbols on a car window were something I’d never thought of as inside the scope of art. Now that I’ve been exposed to these basic art forms, I’m sure I’ll notice them everywhere. This idea that drawing is so basic and ordinary makes it seem humble but it can of course be very intricate and complex. An ironic point Laura brought up is that drawing is fundamental part of many artistic processes and absolutely necessary because it provides a rough draft but in many cases it is discarded, thrown away because it is unpolished. I thought this was sad. She went on to say that drawings show evidence of the process and progress of the artist. When juxtaposed with the final product, many sketches look unkempt, with figures haphazardly placed about and a general vibe of busyness. Even though rough drafts are not what go up in galleries they give useful insight to the mind of the creator and can help convey what the piece means. Overall this presentation made me want to draw something!

2)      

      For the reading, “Queer Theory” on page 90 really caught my eye—and not only because it was the first page. This is the third time I’ve seen this concept of gender vs. sex come up in my classes in the past two weeks. Considering those classes were Spanish and History I’d say this is a pretty important idea. Judith Butler explores the notion that gender and sex are two separate entities which affects how they are represented in art. I thought it was cosmic that I just recently came across this concept from several different outlets. I also feel a little ignorant I wasn’t aware about the differences between gender and sex and how important it is to art at large. While reading about “pop art,” at first I got the feeling that it wasn’t really well-respected. For example, Richard Hamilton describes pop art as: “popular, transient, expendable, low-cost, mass-produced, young, witty, sexy, gimmicky, glamorous and last but not least big business.” Many of those words are not what traditional art would be described as but then the reading features Andy Warhol, who is iconic and it just goes back to the idea that art is truly subjective. Personally, I love pop art. It is even something I want to incorporate into my career. I love the quirkiness and innovation of pop art.

3)       

     The section called “Deconstruction,” talks about how Jacques Derrida sought to understand how pieces came to be by analyzing them from their roots. This process can be likened to drawing because in many drawing pieces you can already see how something was constructed. A person who is interested in deconstruction can go back to the rough draft and get perfect idea of the artist’s thought process and the evolution of the work. The article also features a section about how to recognize “significant form” in “good art” and talks about how Clive Bell thought significant form was a “’combination of lines and colors’ that appeal to the viewer’s emotions and sensitivities.” This reinforces the fact of subjectivity and is similar to the idea that even an image depicted on a foggy window is art according to someone. However, Bell thought that you must be educated in order to make the distinction between good and bad art. In Laura’s presentation she didn’t define which images were “good” or “bad,” but rather just acknowledged that many different things can be art. 

"Kiddie School-Doodle" submitted by Rock on Doodlerblog.com

Number One

Hello world!