friday february 25.

Anya’s presentation was yet another interesting perspective into the world of art. There were rings and brooches, jeweled shoes and meat floors and teapots in boxes. Aside from the variety of actual art pieces and installations, Anya categorized these very different types of works into more manageable sections that helped me better understand the purpose and dynamic of each work. One category consisted of handmade reproductions of original copies. I thought the sink by Robert Gober was very realistic and Anya further explained because of the way it was produced it really shapes how you view or interpret the object. Without careful scrutiny I would have believed this to be just a manufactured object which would have rendered it basically meaningless. On the other because it was made as an art form and lacks the utilitarian parts of a real sink it becomes basically useless for a strict physical purpose. So you’ve got this juxtaposition of a manufactured object for consumer use but doesn’t really have much artistic value or meaning and then there’s the same type of object but one-of-a-kind and it doesn’t allow you to wash your hands or clean dishes but what it does let you do is be analytical, artistic and creative to try and decipher what it represents. I thought Wim Delvoye’s marble floor meat installations were bizarre but remarkable. The intricacy and detail was magnificent. Although, the meat inevitably rots, decomposes and reeks. The meat was trying to imitate a material that is very enduring and even though it has the same beautiful patterns it eventually is destroyed. The second category of production Anya introduced to us was re-production. Gijs Bakker’s historical revision of a very ornate, period necklace was one such re-production. I saw the re-production first and it was very stiff, two-dimensional and cheap looking. I thought the original was gorgeous and then I noticed that the re-production was exactly the same as the original but with no depth and plastic lamination. I thought this re-creation was an innovative take on an expensive piece of jewelry that a royal would have worn at one point. The artist has taken something very rare and made it very accessible. Of course, his re-production doesn’t look entirely functional or fashionable for that matter. But the concept for the piece is very interesting and is almost entirely opposite of Gober’s sink. While Gober explored how to create one individual, unique piece based on a line of objects that is uniform, Bakker created something you can reproduce easily and uniformly flawless inspired by one individual unique piece.

I found John Feodorov to be what I perceive as a “typical artist.” Of course, this class has opened my eyes to a variety of different artists and methods but I haven’t entirely shaken my old preconceived notions. His cynicism and skepticism about corporate America, mass production, spirituality and environmental issues was apparent in the work on ART21. Taking on these conventional ideas is somewhat unoriginal so that’s why I may have pegged him as a typical artist but Feodorov goes about it an innovative way. His Native American heritage, as well as his experience growing up in a California suburb, plays a large part in is work and helps distinguish his demeanor from other artists who address these same concepts. He talked about how the “Office Deity” was “about the exploitation and inevitable destruction of the earth for the ends of the corporation.” What he said was the inspiration for the piece was a statement by a Native American author who said that corporations were becoming the new manifestation of the tribe. Feodorov thought this to be a very thought provoking claim and said it got him thinking about the dynamic and relationships within corporations with respect to a hierarchy such as a spiritual, religious or Native American one. I found it ironic that the office paintings were actually going to be hung in offices. It came across as somewhat offensive to me because Feodorov is essentially mocking their jobs but then I thought that the office workers would probably find it amusing. Feodorov made the CEO a godlike figure and showed how his minions were like angels which conveys a sense of acknowledgement for the nonexecutives and “little people” who run the show for their almighty leader who just sits on his chair and smokes a stogie. I thought it was interesting that Feodorov said he isn’t a spiritual person but it is inherent to the work he does. It’s a central concept to his pieces even though he doesn’t revere spirituality as a devout Catholic might. Actually, it’s quite the opposite because Feodorov seeks to explore spirituality and questions it rather than accepting it. Even though it’s not a part of his everyday life, he doesn’t let this concept go and examines spirituality in a variety of outlets. I admire his perseverance of the exploration regarding this topic considering his lifestyle isn’t influenced by spirituality. Through surveying his work, reading the interviews and watching the videos I found that Feodorov’s work greatly revolves around concepts of spirituality and while some of them may be comical or critical of modern culture, the fact that he is delving into these issues shows that he is trying to thoughtfully trying to understand higher powers, the cosmos and the like. It takes a sense of maturity to continually work through a puzzling question on your own terms rather than accept the common answer or reject it as impossible and I think that is what John Feodorov is essentially trying to do.

I wasn’t quite sure how to relate a presentation regarding metalsmithing and jewelry to an artist who paints and makes figurines. But then I realized that it’s not the medium, it’s the message. Both Anya’s presentation and Feodorov’s work address issues surrounding mass production and subsequent consumerism. In Anya’s presentation there were examples of artists who were playing with the idea of mass production without being totally uniform. Roxy Paine was one artist who created a machine called a Painting Manufacture Unit that was programmed mechanically produce paintings. It was odd to see a machine making something artistic because it’s devoid of emotion and feeling. The actual composition of the painting doesn’t have much artistic merit to me, not to mention that it’s nothing more than globs of white paint. However, in context this piece certainly has a deeper meaning because of the way it was produced. Painting is an esteemed, unique art form and because these pieces are coming from a machine, I think that has some very strong implications on what that says about mass production. The Painting Manufacturing Unit could produce hundreds of paintings and could go on to replace the making of all future paintings. Clearly this would be an abomination to the art world if it were to happen because as I said earlier, machines don’t have feeling or meaning. There’s this idea of sacredness of hand painting that’s being mocked by the threat of mass production. But there’s really no threat at all because the art community and mass production are polar opposites—which is why there’s humor in this piece and all other pieces that contrast are with mass production. This relates to John Feodorov’s Totem Teddies because he uses a humorous object (a bear) to imitate Native American spirits. He says that the Totem Teddies explore the issues of commercializing spirituality and how these teddy bears are turned in to powerful totem symbols because of their traditional feathers and packaged “Native American” look. This project takes a common, mass produced children’s toy that is seen as a jovial and harmless and turns it in to a feared deity. Again, there is this relationship with taking one product not central to art and recontextualizing it to something else. The PMU takes a machine and tries to imitate artists while Feodorov uses teddy bears to imitate divine spirits. They both are exploring the boundaries of consumer products and how they relate, or are unrelated.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0807_ford_model_t_100_year_celebration/photo_02.html