Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Medium is the Message: Marshall Mcluhan
Lecture recorded by ABC Radio National Network on 27 June 1979 in Australia.
Lisa Rovner: Message is the Medium
I just found this artist this morning. Looking forward to exploring her work.
How you see it is just as important as what you see.
Pippilotti Rist: Heros of Birth Opening exhibition
Green Pink Caviar by Marilyn Minter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz1Bh1_28As
This is one of my favorite works of art and ironically it's video art. I saw it at the MOMA last march 2011. (this is just the trailer type in youtube official long version it's 7min)
Video Installation
Did this chapter "Video Installation Art" ever mention the internet? Because, I believe that's the best installation or context for this content i.e. video art. The chapter began talking about how the physical presentation and surroundings of art have become part of the art itself and how the object "frames" the gallery and it's laws, and, these notions force me to ask: why not just use the internet for video installation art instead of these old fashion art museums and institutions anyway? "Rooted in expanded notions of 'sculptural space' in Performance art and the trend toward greater viewer participation in art, Installation is another step toward the acceptance of any aspect or material of everyday life in the making of a work of art." I know this book was only published in 1999, but, if you want 'greater viewer participation' and 'acceptance of any aspect or material of everyday life,' then just post your artwork on the internet. Using this blog right now is much more efficient at greater viewer participation ;) and accepting any everyday materials-laptops for instance-in the making of art, when compared to any art museum. The internet also provides complete autonomy and therefore freedom of the context of your content; the viewer is in the comfort of their own context/installation/space of your artwork, I feel they are therefore bound to be more optimistic of your piece being exhibited.
...I honestly am not a fan of political art; it's definitely an integral part of our and video installation's history, but, I don't know I guess Communism and Nazism kind of ruined it for me.
I found the section "Exploring the Lyrical" interesting because I'm currently taking Philosophy of Art and my professor has mentioned how philosophers believe true art is poetry. Poetry uses language which is essential in the depiction of reality and unfortunately I forgotten the rest but ya haha it was funny to see video be compared to poetry as well.
I am not a fan of Bruce Nauman...to me he's no more than the less extreme grandfather of Jackass, and I'm pretty sure Steve-O and Johnny Knoxville haven't the slightest clue who he is.
I am also not a fan of Adrian Piper's and Steve Mcqueen's mentioning/reference in this chapter. The section is titled "Exploring Identities" and Rush says video went on to search for the "ever-deepening examinations of the self," but, Adrian Piper's "With What It's Like, What I Is"s exhibit "spews forth retorts and racial slurs?" I thought we were talking about 'ever-deepening examinations?' Not skin color and stereotypical examinations I thought had been addressed 30 years prior to Piper's piece even being created. I didn't even go on to look at Steve Mcqueen's work, but please remind me why his work is being compared to "the nameless thug on the late night news" again? Sure he's boxing so I get the connection between the athlete in media and the role he's playing in his art but also, what the hell is a 'nowhere zone?' Is there a nowhere zone for white males? Hispanic females? etc.? I respectfully "keep my cool."
Speaking of context and content for video art, I question the efficiency of the context of Rush's book for the content video art. I believe me posting a video on this blog is doing a much more successful version of what he's talking about this entire chapter.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Identifying the Unknown
I was very interested in reading about artist Susan Hiller's interest in the unknown, and the idea of the unknown depicted in art in general. Hiller particularly used the unknown to depict things that were otherworldly and typically based in a horror genre. Artist Gary Hill applied characteristics of the unknown to his art, as well, especially in his piece Tall Ships, in which images of various people appear in front of the viewer as if from seemingly nowhere- essentially a spooky apparition. Though Hiller and Hill seem to enjoy focusing on the scary aspects of the unknown, I don't think this idea of the unknown has to be restricted to something disturbing. The unknown can actually be quite beautiful, and video installation art can be one of the best mediums to depict the unknown as beautiful, and maybe even soothing.
This piece of work, by artist Sonia Falcone, interested me for a number of reasons. I think this piece broadens the scope of what art really is, which video art installation had been doing for years. This piece of work combines music with lighting and color and manipulated images to create art. Not only does this video manipulate images, but it manipulates emotions, too- While the blue lights are flashing, the viewers feels at at ease and calm, especially with the music playing in background. There are also pictures that resemble things found in nature, such as flowers and the sun- however, you're not quite sure if these are actual pictures that the artist took and then put onscreen, or if they're simply lights manipulating the colors to form a picture in our heads. This video has an aspect of the unknown to it that, rather than disturbing me, as Hiller would have wanted out of her audience, actually makes me feel both intrigued and at ease.
This piece of work, by artist Sonia Falcone, interested me for a number of reasons. I think this piece broadens the scope of what art really is, which video art installation had been doing for years. This piece of work combines music with lighting and color and manipulated images to create art. Not only does this video manipulate images, but it manipulates emotions, too- While the blue lights are flashing, the viewers feels at at ease and calm, especially with the music playing in background. There are also pictures that resemble things found in nature, such as flowers and the sun- however, you're not quite sure if these are actual pictures that the artist took and then put onscreen, or if they're simply lights manipulating the colors to form a picture in our heads. This video has an aspect of the unknown to it that, rather than disturbing me, as Hiller would have wanted out of her audience, actually makes me feel both intrigued and at ease.
Social Protest and Video
I thought Gordon's piece centering on the clip from Taxi Driver was very interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because Taxi Driver is probably my favorite film of all time, but more importantly because I feel that Taxi Driver is a prime example of the social protest that has been exhibited through video formats. Rush does not really give a reading of Gordon's piece, and I think that does both Gordon's work and Taxi Driver a huge injustice. When understanding how Travis Bickle sees the world, as being inhabited by the "scum of the earth," I believe it is not a stretch to suggest that Gordon is saying the same about his audience. Travis is disgusted with the complicity of the masses and decides to take it upon himself to make the world a better place for Iris, a child prostitute. When Gordon has Travis pointing his gun directly at the viewer he is directly implicating them as a necessary mechanism in the same system that Travis is so disgusted with. While the film eventually punishes "the scum of the earth" (pimps, murderers, perverts, etc.) Gordon takes it a step further and suggests that the viewer should be punished for their complicity as well. Taxi Driver is a fascinating film, especially when looking at the impact it had on American history. (John Hinckly Jr. attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan to get Jodie Foster's attention, which was inspired by Travis Bickle's assassination attempt to get Cybil Shepherd's character to notice him). If you haven't seen Taxi Driver, I highly recommend it; I assure you, you will never be the same after watching it. I've attached a few clips from Taxi Driver to show the film's social commentary, as well as show what has inspired my reading of Gordon's piece.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Context is content
"As modernism gets older, context becomes content," Rush quotes from Brian O'Doherty. To installation artists, the contexts in which their pieces are presented are fundamental. These artists creating "context art" seek to control the environment in which the viewer experiences the piece. This notion leads to the creation of pieces like Video Corridor, an tunnel enclosure with video screens playing "surveillance" footage of the viewer. I would imagine that this piece might control of viewer's consciousness in a way would be impossible without its focus on context. In a previous chapter, Rush stated, "the museum culture "has become the ultimate validating source for all works of art", but is the museum environment conducive to context art? Isn't there a limit on how much an artist can control the context of his or her piece if it is required to be a subset of the museum context? I wonder what advantages and disadvantages the online gallery format might have over a physical museum with regards to context. What are other ways artists could install their pieces to circumvent the museum context?
About the Waste
The specific pattern of art that entails abandoned electronics is a kind of demonstration against the eternity of things outside ourselves.
In our daily life, we always keep our room clean, live in a new house and purchase new electronics after the former one become dysfunctional. The scenes we see on daily basis are full of new things. It is reasonable to assume in subconscious mind that things are what they are, while ourselves are the one changes more dramatically and frequently.
Nonetheless, this kind of arts present us an 'inconvenient truth' - that after we leave or abandon the items, they became old, dysfunctional, and finally die, just like every human being.
In our daily life, we always keep our room clean, live in a new house and purchase new electronics after the former one become dysfunctional. The scenes we see on daily basis are full of new things. It is reasonable to assume in subconscious mind that things are what they are, while ourselves are the one changes more dramatically and frequently.
Nonetheless, this kind of arts present us an 'inconvenient truth' - that after we leave or abandon the items, they became old, dysfunctional, and finally die, just like every human being.
By drawing a human face on the abandoned car, the artist draw a parallel between the limit of human lives and the constraint of human products.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Art vs. Cinema / Art with Cinema
At the very end of the chapter Michael Rush writes "it is likely... that film will supersede video as the choice for artists. Single-channel videos and multi-channel installations may well become artifacts of history. In order to remain viable, video artists will have to maintain their unique connection to video as an art of 'real time,' and not try to mimic the illusion of cinema" (165). I found this statement interesting, mostly considering that Rush had mentioned a few artists who had work that was in response to, and in conversation with, cinema. Is their work allowed to distort and critique and pull apart pieces of cinema, but not actually become them?
The first artist who plays around with films a lot is Douglas Gordon. His installation piece cited in the chapter, through the looking glass (1999), appropriates the most well-known, and by that time iconic, scene from the 1976 film Taxi Driver. He doesn't change the scene at all, but places it on both sides of the viewer so they feel that they are on the other side of Travis Bickle's gun and practice-menace in the mirror (the "looking glass"). [what would be played around you]
He's done countless other "experiments" with iconic film images: his In Between Darkness and Light (After William Blake) comments on William Blake's opposing songs of innocence and experience; and the general, perennial conflict between absolute good and evil by superimposing the films The Song of Bernadette and The Exorcist over each other to give the viewers a disorienting experience.
His 24 Hour Psycho slowed down Alfred Hitchcock's classic film so it lasted 24 hours. He's never changing the films themselves that much, so those works on their own have a power that comes with them. He just adjusts the presentation a bit and he has an installation piece. If an artist's original work to be more like "cinema," I don't see what would be so detrimental, or inartistic, about that.
Another artist Rush mentions briefly is Steve McQueen. In one of his most famous installations, Deadpan, he modifies the image from silent film star Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, Jr. - that of the frame of a house falling down on a person, missing them by having the person stand inside the space of a window. Here he's playing with the recognized imagery that comes with that house falling down, and using it for his own artistic purposes.
To say anything along the lines of art or video art/installations must be completely separate and unique from cinema, or full-length films, is kind of closed-minded. Steve McQueen has even branched out recently, creating two full-length films (Hunger and Shame), even winning several awards at film festivals. To say that anything in those films isn't similar at all to his earlier "art" work, because now it's cinema, is kind of absurd. The "art world" should stop this whole idea of being better than or more artistic than cinema; that might have been true at one point, in some ways, but now the two are blending together so easily and so frequently that there's no more reason to create distinctive borderlines.
The first artist who plays around with films a lot is Douglas Gordon. His installation piece cited in the chapter, through the looking glass (1999), appropriates the most well-known, and by that time iconic, scene from the 1976 film Taxi Driver. He doesn't change the scene at all, but places it on both sides of the viewer so they feel that they are on the other side of Travis Bickle's gun and practice-menace in the mirror (the "looking glass"). [what would be played around you]
He's done countless other "experiments" with iconic film images: his In Between Darkness and Light (After William Blake) comments on William Blake's opposing songs of innocence and experience; and the general, perennial conflict between absolute good and evil by superimposing the films The Song of Bernadette and The Exorcist over each other to give the viewers a disorienting experience.
His 24 Hour Psycho slowed down Alfred Hitchcock's classic film so it lasted 24 hours. He's never changing the films themselves that much, so those works on their own have a power that comes with them. He just adjusts the presentation a bit and he has an installation piece. If an artist's original work to be more like "cinema," I don't see what would be so detrimental, or inartistic, about that.
Another artist Rush mentions briefly is Steve McQueen. In one of his most famous installations, Deadpan, he modifies the image from silent film star Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, Jr. - that of the frame of a house falling down on a person, missing them by having the person stand inside the space of a window. Here he's playing with the recognized imagery that comes with that house falling down, and using it for his own artistic purposes.
To say anything along the lines of art or video art/installations must be completely separate and unique from cinema, or full-length films, is kind of closed-minded. Steve McQueen has even branched out recently, creating two full-length films (Hunger and Shame), even winning several awards at film festivals. To say that anything in those films isn't similar at all to his earlier "art" work, because now it's cinema, is kind of absurd. The "art world" should stop this whole idea of being better than or more artistic than cinema; that might have been true at one point, in some ways, but now the two are blending together so easily and so frequently that there's no more reason to create distinctive borderlines.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Art's transition to the common man
As I was reading this chapter, I started to really notice how art has transitioned from becoming a "rich man's" thing to something everyone and anyone can be a part of. Even though museums can be accessed by everyone, there still is a sense of class in a museum. Going into a museum means that you are specifically going there to enjoy art. Even though many of them are accessible freely or with a small value, going into a museum means that you have the time to go there, something a common man may not have. Thus, the ant-museum movement in the 1960s and 1970s brought art closer to the people and out of institutionalization.
To go even further into the common world, art started to use surveillance cameras and sensors, so it is how the person acts and reacts that makes the piece. This makes the art more personal to the viewer, and in some cases, more understandable. Speaking from experience, art can sometimes be confusing to the untrained eye. It sometimes seem weird and, not to be harsh, but, unnecessary. The point sometimes is not passed on to some viewers than to others. However, when placing the viewer into the art itself, the viewer seem more connected to the art piece and how the art piece works. As the person's actions make them feel a certain way, the viewer can understand the person's viewpoint. This was exampled excellently in Nauman's "Performance Corridor." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IrqXiqgQBo&feature=related)
Using art as a way to express political ideas and modern ideas was another way to bring the common man into the world of art. These were things people knew, had an opinion, and talked about. By bringing themes that people knew, artists were able to approach the common man and introduce them to the world of art.
To go even further into the common world, art started to use surveillance cameras and sensors, so it is how the person acts and reacts that makes the piece. This makes the art more personal to the viewer, and in some cases, more understandable. Speaking from experience, art can sometimes be confusing to the untrained eye. It sometimes seem weird and, not to be harsh, but, unnecessary. The point sometimes is not passed on to some viewers than to others. However, when placing the viewer into the art itself, the viewer seem more connected to the art piece and how the art piece works. As the person's actions make them feel a certain way, the viewer can understand the person's viewpoint. This was exampled excellently in Nauman's "Performance Corridor." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IrqXiqgQBo&feature=related)
Using art as a way to express political ideas and modern ideas was another way to bring the common man into the world of art. These were things people knew, had an opinion, and talked about. By bringing themes that people knew, artists were able to approach the common man and introduce them to the world of art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)