The purpose of art can't be limited to a single aspect.
As Januszczak describes it, the purpose of art can't be pinned down to a single aspect.
However, it should help you see your surroundings and environment differently.
As he talks about the experieces he had in southern Africa finding out the origins of art, he surprisingly descovered the specific connection between a place and the art made for that place. As an example he mentions Carsten Höller's project. According to Januszczak, making art was a form of magic if you did the right thing, in the right place. Thereby, he emphasizes, you made possible a transformation.
Another aspect that gets attention from Januszczak is the power of art to free one's mind to take him to various mystical and distant places. In his words, "You haven't moved an inch, but your thoughts have gone travelling to a very dotty destination". He moreover explains that art is pretty much "the last bastion of insoluble mystery and radical transport" and sums its purpose up by stating that ist purpose is "to get you out of here".
Further ideas are given by Jerry Saltz in the article "The Whole Ball of Wax
Can Art Change the World? A Holistic Theory". He points out that art is part of a universal force. It has no less purpose or meaning than science, religion, philosophy, politics, or any other
discipline; it is an energy source that helps make change possible; it sees things in clusters and
constellations rather than rigid systems.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Respond to Art21 viewings
Vija Celmins's reference of "building a painting" rather than painting a painting appeared quite interesting. She compared this process to one of building a structure. But what caught my intention the most was her comment about the emotional connection to her works. She mentioned that she truly felt connected to most of her works because she had been working on them for too long. She even once said that sometimes the works develop feeling on their own. According to her, they develop a dense feeling and built memories of their own. However, what was kind of surprising for me, was the fact that her objects mostly don't have any kind of symbolic meaning to her.
Elizabeth Murray's work reminded me, as she also stated herself, of actual physical work, as by mixing the colors. Her comparison of her work with one of a safebreaker, who waits for the right combination to make everything work together until all the fragments live together. Nevertheless, For some reason I couldn't connect my idea of art with her. This also happened to me regarding Ann Hamilton's work. Their ideas of art just don't match with my imagination of art. However, this is the way it works, as also Bruce Nauman states. According to him, he doesn't seem to think about large audiences. As soon his work meets a specific aim, it should attract many people automatically. I truly admired him for his patience and courage as he said that his "final results" mostly were products of many "accidents".
The most connected I felt with Matthew Barney's way of making art. His approach somehow reminded me of several movies I really liked that I have seen in my life so far. He furthermore stated that he was attracted to all the things he worked with. In my eyes, this is very important. He also mentioned that a few fragments of his movie were autobiographic. I really would have liked to know which one...
Elizabeth Murray's work reminded me, as she also stated herself, of actual physical work, as by mixing the colors. Her comparison of her work with one of a safebreaker, who waits for the right combination to make everything work together until all the fragments live together. Nevertheless, For some reason I couldn't connect my idea of art with her. This also happened to me regarding Ann Hamilton's work. Their ideas of art just don't match with my imagination of art. However, this is the way it works, as also Bruce Nauman states. According to him, he doesn't seem to think about large audiences. As soon his work meets a specific aim, it should attract many people automatically. I truly admired him for his patience and courage as he said that his "final results" mostly were products of many "accidents".
The most connected I felt with Matthew Barney's way of making art. His approach somehow reminded me of several movies I really liked that I have seen in my life so far. He furthermore stated that he was attracted to all the things he worked with. In my eyes, this is very important. He also mentioned that a few fragments of his movie were autobiographic. I really would have liked to know which one...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reflection of Today's Class
After the individual artist presentations we broke in four groups and compared images of related subject matter supplied by the professor.
My group, which was number one, dealt with different pictures of symbols. The first symbol was one of a one-way sign. The second consisted purely of letters, arranged in a certain way and thereby representing a language we couldn't decipher. The third one was a picture of a finger print. The next one was a picture showing different footprints in the sand on a beach, all going into different direction. The last two pictures where so called icons showing a drawn figure sitting on a chair waiting. The other one was the commonly known sign for a non-smoking area.
The term of an icon is used in a wide number of contexts for an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it either concretely or by analogy. However, it can be also used in the general sense of a symbol — i.e. a name, face, picture, edifice or even a person readily recognized as having some well-known significance or embodying certain qualities. Each group had a different set of pictures with a different focus.
In order to talk about our respective pictures and to represent them in class where were given certain questions we should consider and try to answer.
-Where do you think the images originate from and why?
-Compare the way each image communicates.
-What types of different languages are at play?
-Can you give them names?
-How can you tell one from another?
-Do you approach each with different expectations (the way you respond, interact, and read each)?
-Can you apply any of Buster’s observations about the nature of signification in art to
-your own findings?
I truly enjoyed today class because talking freely about those pictures revealed so many different points of view to me and depicted them from so various angles. Sometimes the groups had difficulties drawing a connection between the pictures within a single group. Nevertheless, each one came up with surprisingly interesting results and associations.
My group, which was number one, dealt with different pictures of symbols. The first symbol was one of a one-way sign. The second consisted purely of letters, arranged in a certain way and thereby representing a language we couldn't decipher. The third one was a picture of a finger print. The next one was a picture showing different footprints in the sand on a beach, all going into different direction. The last two pictures where so called icons showing a drawn figure sitting on a chair waiting. The other one was the commonly known sign for a non-smoking area.
The term of an icon is used in a wide number of contexts for an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it either concretely or by analogy. However, it can be also used in the general sense of a symbol — i.e. a name, face, picture, edifice or even a person readily recognized as having some well-known significance or embodying certain qualities. Each group had a different set of pictures with a different focus.
In order to talk about our respective pictures and to represent them in class where were given certain questions we should consider and try to answer.
-Where do you think the images originate from and why?
-Compare the way each image communicates.
-What types of different languages are at play?
-Can you give them names?
-How can you tell one from another?
-Do you approach each with different expectations (the way you respond, interact, and read each)?
-Can you apply any of Buster’s observations about the nature of signification in art to
-your own findings?
I truly enjoyed today class because talking freely about those pictures revealed so many different points of view to me and depicted them from so various angles. Sometimes the groups had difficulties drawing a connection between the pictures within a single group. Nevertheless, each one came up with surprisingly interesting results and associations.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Artist Response No 2
Empire 24/7 by Wolfgang StaehleWolfgang Staehle is a German artist who was born in Stuttgart in 1950 lives and works in New York. As the short essay about him and his work states, he founded the internet forum "The Thing" , a creative online community where debates about art happens at the beginnings of the 1990s.
However, the first thought that came to my mind while reading about Wolfgang Staehle's work was the way how he, as a modern artist, uses new and present technology to create "art". Although I am not familiar with the history of art, I could imagine that there are only a few artist who move with the times and adapt their way of producing art. That is way, I am so interested in his project Empire 24/7, showing the Empire State Building around the clock. As already in the essay mentioned, anybody around the world who has access to the internet would have been able to witness Staehle's idea of art.
Another aspect I would like to mention is the legitimized questioning of this truly being art. Wouldn't be anybody be able to set up a digital camera pointing at the Empire State Building and thuis creatinga "virtual window, as if one could see through the Karlsruhe museum's gallery wall directly into New York City"? Well, at this point, one can draw the connection to Bart Rosier's text "What is Art?". He states that there are six critera worth considering. One of them says, "anything can be a work of art". So in the same way as Warhol already did, Wolfgang Staehle made it no longer possible to distinguish something that is art from something that is not.
Furthermore, his project Empire24/7 shows not merely the Empire State Building, but also the two twin towers and how the got destroyed. In order to depict this tragic historical event he displays five chronological pictures. The firts one depicts the New York city in all its beauty, the last one, however, shows the dust and darkened sky after the the twin towers collapsed. Through this row of pictures, the artist is able to communicate with us. It appears as if he would tell us a story and tells us what exactly happens. Here again, we can draw a connection to Rozier's text. He states that according to John Fowles, author of The French Lieutenant's Woman, art is "the best, because richest, most complex and most easily comprehensible, medium of communication between human beings". So here art is defined as symbolic images as a means of communication.
Furthermore, his project Empire24/7 shows not merely the Empire State Building, but also the two twin towers and how the got destroyed. In order to depict this tragic historical event he displays five chronological pictures. The firts one depicts the New York city in all its beauty, the last one, however, shows the dust and darkened sky after the the twin towers collapsed. Through this row of pictures, the artist is able to communicate with us. It appears as if he would tell us a story and tells us what exactly happens. Here again, we can draw a connection to Rozier's text. He states that according to John Fowles, author of The French Lieutenant's Woman, art is "the best, because richest, most complex and most easily comprehensible, medium of communication between human beings". So here art is defined as symbolic images as a means of communication.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Artist Response No 1
Telegarden (1995) by Ken GoldbergKen Goldberg's way of challenging peoples' perception is quite interesting and depicts, in my eyes, a very fascinating approach. I agree with him stating that it has become even more difficult to distinguish fake from reality in the online world. Since anyone is able to use the internet or even publish information, it has gotten harder to find reliable sources and information.
However, Ken Goldberg's idea of a garden that gets taken care off via the internet by people from all over the world at the same time might stand for a small example what else might be possible in future. Ken Goldberg just used a plantes which might be considered living objects. Who knows where this idea will end in the future. Maybe some day it won't be plants anymore that will get controlled by unknown people.
Another idea that comes to my mind was the fact that he provokes us to consider whether the garden really exists. On the internet there are probably so many things that doesn't exist in reality. Nevertheless, this phenomena seems to attract even more people all over the world. It seems that people are really searching for those non-authentic things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
