WEEK 6: ANISH KAPOOR SCULPTURE

1.Research Kapoor's work in order to discuss whether it is conceptual art or not. Explain your answer, using a definition of conceptual art.

                                               'Turning the World Upside Down'     2010

Anish Kapoors work can certainly be defined as conceptual art in the sense that it defies traditional artistic aesthetics. In fact it somewhat defies the definition of art itself, which is a common trait of conceptual art.
Conceptual art is generally defined as art where the idea or concept of the work is more important than the execution. Or more specifically, an artform where the objective is to present the viewer with an idea or concept which rejects the sensibilities of traditional art, such as a painting or sculpture, and the conventions which are expected of traditional art.
In other words, it's a really really vague term which describes any art which is abstract, without practical purpose, and experimental in some way. And Anish Kapoor's work fits neatly into this category because it is impossible to categorize.
In the case of Kapoor's work however, it looks like the execution and craftsmanship of his work is vitally important in conveying the impact of his ideas, and conceptual art is generally understood to place very little value on executuion. This makes Kapoor's work hard to define as strictly conceptual because his works seem to rely precisely on immaculate craftsmanship. 'Turning the World Upside Down' for example, probably wouldn't work nearly as well if it's surface wasn't immaculately crafted and polished from stainless steel. 

2. Research 3 quite different works by Kapoor from countries outside New Zealand to discuss the ideas behind the work. Include images of each work on your blog.

                                      'THE DISMEMBERMENT OF JEANNE D'ARC' 2009

 This work is Kapoor's foray into the world of macabre subject matter. It is an abstract representation of a mutilated female body (Joan of Arc in this case) spread across the floor of a Brighton warehouse. This is kind of a departure from his usual works up to that point, because its not visually pleasing for one thing, and also because it is less abstract in the sense that it is actually a literal representation of a figure. When asked about this, Kapoor replied:
"It's true, it's much less abstract. I'm not making a figure - and yet I am, of course. I'm at ease with that. But it doesn't feel different from my previous work: I've made red things for a long time; I've been engaged with this quality of rough and readiness for a while. There have long been certain preoccupations in my work - red, a certain implied and very overt sexuality - and this is part of that language."
With this work, Kapoor seems to delving into a more somber and reflective territory. Now well into his fifties, he might be starting to contemplate more on things like mortality and death or something like that.
"after years of looking for a kind of wholeness in my practice, I find myself, over the past couple of years, dealing with tragedy and anxiety - with things that are fragmented".
(qoutes taken from 'the Guardian' April 2009)

                                                       'SKY MIRROR'                           2007

'Sky Mirror' is a fairly self explanatory work. It is literally a polished 35 foot stainless steel mirror which reflects the sky. It is interesting because despite being a massive 23 ton object, this work is actually designed to create the illusion of a void.
Since the mid 1990's, Kapoor has had an avid fascination with the dualities of volume and space, and the lack thereof. In other words he enjoys manipulating our perceptions of scale and distance and size by using mirrored surfaces, forced perspectives and things like that.
And the Sky Mirror does this very efectively because it changes from every angle, as well as with changing light, and by reflecting an image of what is not physically there, it becomes a 'Non Object', which seems to be one of Kapoor's favourite terms.
"I am really interested in the 'non-object' or the 'non-material.' I have made objects in which things are not what they at first seem to be. A stone may lose its weight or a mirrored object may so camouflage itself in its surroundings as to appear like a hole in space,"   
(Kapoor quote taken from publicartfund.org)



                                           'LEVIATHAN'                                            2011

With the 'Leviathan' Kapoor has truly had a chance to indulge his playful love of volume and space. He has created three conjoined enormous 35 foot high spheres covered in a very specific light sensitive fabric which is inflated in order to fill the vast space of the magnificent Grand Palais building. The Leviathan also features an airlock which allows visitors to go inside the first 'chamber', where they are confronted by the nauseating sensation of being inside the stomach of some vast creature..
"People will be invited to enter the artwor to immerse themselves in its colour and it will be I hope a contemplative, poetic experience"  (Kapoor)
In a video interview for 'Monumenta' Kapoor said that the main intention behind the creation 'Leviathan' was to awe the viewer with the sheer scale of it, to the point of disorienting the viewer by literally overwhelming the physical perceptions of the eye and the mind.
He has also made in some Press releases some comments of a more esoteric nature, something along the lines of the Leviathan representing the sleeping giant monster of our internal fears bla bla and so forth, but after perusing numerous interviews it's clear that deeper subtext is not the main priority of this piece. It is simply Kapoo's love of space and volume and colours being exercised on its grandest scale yet, and Kapoor's enthusias shows clearly in his interviews.
"While Kapoor has stated that the work’s title. ‘Leviathan’, was inspired by the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s idea of the state as an unwieldy, inchoate monster, he has advised against over-literal interpretations. First and foremost the piece is a play of structure and scale."
(Mark Hudson, Telegraph UK, art reviews)

3.Discuss the large scale 'site specific' work that has been installed on a private site in New Zealand.

This is a recent installation for 'The Farm', a 400 hectare private outdoor art gallery in Kaipara Bay, north of Auckland. The sculpture cosists of a sturdy steel frame covered in a PVC coated polyester fabric, and it is also called 'The Farm', or 'Dismemberment site 1' (It seems unclear which exactly). It is supported structurally by two matching red steel ellipses at either end. It was commisoned by New Zealand's wealthiest man, and patron of the arts, Alan Gibbs, who contacted Kapoor “to devise a form that was both freestanding and capable of surviving a constant arm-wrestle with the sky and the mercurial weather conditions."
As for the ideas or subtext behind this work, I really don't know, and am hesitant to speculate because I really cannot find any firsthand sources of Kapoor discussing this sculpture.

5. Comment on which work by Kapoor is your favourite, and explain why. Are you personally attracted more by the ideas or the aesthetics of the work?

                                           'Untitled' 2007   alabaster, 96cm by 70cm by 29cm

For some reason, this one is absolutely my favourite piece of Kapoor's work so far, even though it probably seems very tame and boring compared to the more striking and bold sculptures that he is known for. But the thing I like about this is that this work evokes so many different ideas, or possibilities for ideas. Looking at this, it's easy to imagine all sorts of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' type scenarios where some kind of mystical artifact comes to life and tells an ancient story of sorts.
If I had to be specific though, it is probably the aesthetic of this piece that I like the most. Everything about this piece just works from a visual standpoint, and it's aesthetically very pleasing on the eye.

What makes this piece so different from Kapoor's usual work is the way this piece blends visually with it's surroundings. It looks like it belongs there, and could easily have been there for thousands of years, which is very out of character for Kapoor, who usually tends to create sculptures that appear very alien against their surroundings.

I can't really say if I am more attracted to the aesthetics of this piece or the idea behind it. I think I am actually attracted to this piece because the idea and the aesthetic execution seem to work perfectly together, almost like they're one and the same thing.

REFERENCES:

http://fabricarchitecturemag.com/articles/0110_sk_sculpture.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/8506594/Anish-Kapoor-Leviathan-Monumenta-2011-Grand-PalaisParis-review.html

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=16659

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385590/Anish-Kapoor-Leviathan-sculpture-unveiled-Grand-Palais-Paris.html#ixzz1WaKS4300

http://www.publicartfund.org/pafweb/projects/06/kapoor/kapoor-06.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/apr/29/anish-kapoor-artist-brighton

WEEK 5: PLURALISM AND THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

1. Define the term 'pluralism' using APA referencing.

Cultural Pluralism

It's a sociological term describing a condition where minority groups are fully integrated into the dominant society, while maintaining their cultural individuality.

Retrieved on 01 September 2011 from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cultural+pluralism

2. How would you describe New Zealand's current dominant culture?
I would describe it as western. And although largely multi cultural, it is definetly a predominantly western culture, swayed a little more towards caucasians, which is perhaps due to New Zealands background as a British colony.

3. Before 1840, what was New Zealand's dominant culture?

I suppose it was Maori. Even though there were by that time, quite a few well established European settlements around the country, the dominant culture was Maori. That is however, probably based more on numbers that actual cultural influence, because one could argue that even back then, european culture had a bigger impact on maori culture than vice versa, in which case the european culture would have to have been the dominant culture. Or at the very least, the more influential of the two cultures.

4. How does the Treaty of Waitangi relate to us all as artists and designers working
in New Zealand?

I think that depends on the context. In a historical context, I guess it relates to all artists in the sense that the treaty of waitangi made it possible for europeans and maoris to co exist side by side and make artwork together,  and influence one another mutually, because without the treaty, who knows what kind of country this would be right now; maybe europeans would have simply conquered the whole country and squashed maori culture, in which case there wouldn't be any maori influence in our aesthetic sensibilities, or maybe the british would have decided to simply leave this little island alone, in which case none of us would be here making art in the first place.

And in the context of artistic sensibilities, I think it affects some artists more than others. Sure, the treaty of waitangi played a huge part in enabling maori and european culture to intertwine, and thus create a national aesthetic which is strongly influenced by the visual style of maori patterns and designs. But times have moved on, and these days most of our art is influenced by american movies, music, and video games, so I think a lot of artists are not directly influenced by maori culture anyways. Tese days, the treary's influence on artistic sensibilities is probably only relevant for artists who have a direct interest in making art which deals with the subject matter of our cultural heritage and so forth.

Overall though, the Treaty of waitangi certainly does provide a cultural context to which all art made in this country can be sociologically back tracked to.

5. How can globalization be seen as having a negative effect on regional diversity in New Zealand in particular?

I think it is not just globalization itself, but also the technological advancements that come with it, which are threatening to subdue regional cultural diversity. The problem is that these days, with the internet, and facebook and youtube, everyone around the world seems to be connected to a universal stream of media, where everything blends into a sort of instant global culture for everyone. That is to say, because every culture and its manifestations is now instantly accessible from anywhere around the world, it loses some of its mystique. And instead of existing as an individual diverse regional culture, it gets swallowed up and becomes a minor part of today's online global culture, where every aspect of humanity is a constantly accessible stream of youtube videos.

6. Shane Cotton's paintings are said to examine the cultural landscape. Research Cotton's work 'Welcome'(2004) and 'Forked Tongue' (2011) to analyze what he is saying about colonialization and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Shane cotton began researching his Ngapuhi background in the late nineties, and since then he's had keen interest in the subject matter of colonization , maori cultural heritage, etc. 'Welcome' is a clear reflection of this. Shane otton is obviously making some kind of deep statement about the influence of western culture or religion coming in and influencing maori traditions. I just don't know what the statement is exactly. It has been said that Shane Cotton likes to keep his works deliberately vague, and open for interpretation.

But wait a minute, I just noticed that the four symbols actualy form a cross, with the head of Jesus Christ at the top. And I also noticed that the maori head looks like a shrunken head, or perhaps a dead maori warrior who looks like he's been embalmed. So perhaps there's some kind of message going on here that western religion/culture came into this land, and has put the maori warrior to rest, so to speak. In other words, the maori warrior of tradition is now resting peacefully beneath the influence of western culture, or jesus, who is looking over the entire land which is represented by the fantails. There is in fact, an almost sinister undertone to the whole piece, one of victory and defeat between one tradition and another. Maybe. that's as far as I'm willing to specultate. I'm sure Shane Cotton left it vague for a reason after all.

                                            'Forked Tongue'

'Forked Tongue' is a perfect example of Cotton's taste for ambiguity. There are clear connotations of cultural subjects and themes being evoked here, but one is not quite sure what is being said exactly. Cotton's favourite subject matter has always been New Zealand's cultural landscape, and his place in it. But in his earlier paintings, pre 1990 specifically', he would often make the meanings of his paintings more clear, through the liberal use of symbols and sometimes even text. These days however, he seems to prefer more subtlety and ambiguity, as this painting shows. And looking at 'Forked Tongue', I have to admit that I have no idea what he is saying. I could make something up, but it would be rampant speculation at best.

"In his more recent work he has developed a more refined symbolism which operates at a subtle and less direct level."  John Daly Peoples

7. Tony Albert's installation 'Sorry' (2008) reflect the effects of colonization on the aboriginal people of Australia. Research the work and comment on what Albert is communicating through his work, and what he is referring to. Describe the materials that Albert uses on this installation and say what he hopes his work can achieve. Define the term 'kitsch'.

                                          'SORRY' was made by gluing 'kitsch' objects depicting

                                          aboriginal faces, such as trinketts, ashtrays, souvenirs, etc

                                          onto large black acrylic letters.

["My work is always about appropriation, that's why it exists," Albert says. "The Sorry work is about my personal collection which, in a way, was always a comfort to me. There were images of Aboriginal people around me and my collecting these objects was my way of marking my respect."]
                                             taken from 'The Australian' march 2009

This work actually represents a step backwards for Tony Albert because at the time he was commisioned for this project, he was planning to move on and explore new mediums. But by that time he had also famously collected a million items of aboriginal paraphernalia and so he made this work as a way of paying tribute, not only to aboriginal culture in general, but also to a time in his life where he had comfort and success, because by then he had found some recognition for making works in the same vein as 'Sorry'.
The work is itself is kind of an ironic statement on prime minister Kevin Rudd's 2008 apology to the australian indeginous people. It's ironic in the sense that he uses 'kitsch' representations of aboriginal faces to form the word 'sorry'. 'Kitsch' in this case referring to the somewhat stereotypical, and slightly derogatory way in which aboriginal characters had been portrayed in australian culture, particularly on the sort of trinketts sold to tourists which Albert utilized a lot of for this piece. 

"Each (face) represents a false identity, manufactured black faces made to fit white society." taken from Queensland art gallery. com

It's also ironic in the sense that the aboriginal people are still waiting for real changes in australian society before being able to accept the prime minister's 'sorry' as just words.

8. Explain how the work of both artists relates to pluralism.

The works of both Tony Albert and Shane Cotton are good examples of pluralism at work. Both artists are fully integrated into the the dominant society of their culture because both of them are thriving and finding recognition within the infrastructure of western society; western art gallerys, financial infrastructure, media exposure and so forth. But at the same time both artists are being able to remain true to their individual cultural backgrounds, and are expressing the heritage of their respective minorities.



REFERENCES:

http://qag.qld.gov.au/collection/indigenous_australian_art/tony_albert

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/curios-of-the-contemporary/story-e6frg8n6-111111915152

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/shane-cotton-paintings-examine-cultural-landscape-126412

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Drb9RbW3Tw

http://www.flickr.com/photos/artimageslibrary/5456472216/

http://thearts.co.nz/artist_page.php&aid=24

http://www.gowlangsfordgallery.co.nz/editions/shanecotton.asp

WEEK 4: KEHINDE WILEY AND INTERTEXTUALITY

1. Find a clear definition of Intertextuality and quote it accurately on your blog using the APA referencing system. Use your own words to explain the definition more thoroughly.

Dictionary.com defines intertextuality as "The whole network of relations, conventions and expectations by which a text is defined; the relationship between texts."

So as far as I understand, 'intertextuality' is an academic term invented to describe the fact that all texts are somehow interconnected because they are inadvertently inspired by every other text that has come before, and are therefore, also an inadvertent reference to every other text in existence. For example, A woman somewhere in the past reads a poem that greatly moves here, and inspires her to write a book called 'Gone with the wind' which in turn inspires the next generation of novelist to write sweeping love stories set against the backdrop of a senseless war, which in turn inspires some movie maker to make a comedy about people who read romance novels, which in turn inspires another filmmaker to make a modern love story set in an airport, because thats where people buy cheap romance novels, which in turn inspires another director to make the second Die Hard movie in an airport, so that he can have a scene of John MacLane's wife buying a novel at the airport kiosk, and so forth. So basically intertextuality means that everything is connected because every idea is built upon the ideas that have come before. And therefore the reading of every text also requires an understanding of the texts surrounding it.

2. Research Wiley's work and write a paragraph that analyzes how we might make sense of his work. Identify intertextuality in Wiley's work.

Kehinde Wiley's paintings are highly intertextual in the sense that they reference many different genres and cultures at once. His paintings are interesting because they play upon the notion that there is no one specific way of reading the text. For example, his portraits are generally painted in the style of the old rennaissance master, and some of his portraits are even 'direct' representations of classical works, to the point that many of his subjects were asked to reproduce verbatim poses from the works of rennaisance masters such as Veccellio and Giovanni batista Tiepolo.
However his subjects are usually young african american men from the streets of Brooklyn, and dressed accordingly. So he is mixing the textuality of classical art with the textuality of modern african american street culture, and in order to 'read' the text, one has to be aware of the visual styles of the rennaisance as well as being aware of the visual style of urban street culture, because otherwise one would be able to appreciate what his paintings evoke. So in essence, Wiley's paintings are a perfect representation of intertextuality at work.

3. Wiley's work relates to next weeks Postmodern theme "PLURALISM" . Read page 46 and discuss how the work relates to this theme.

According to Caldwell "Each individual artist and student belongs to several overlapping cultures and subcultural groups. Art can communicate multiple identities within one culture as well as make crosscultural comparisons. Artistic processes and products may also show cultural mixing."

As 'pluralism' refers to the mixing of cultural backgrounds in the culmination of modern artwork, the term is exemplified almost verbatim in Kehinde Wiley's paintings. In fact, Wiley's work could be used as a dictionary definition of pluralism, that's how verbatim it is. His paintings clearly show the cultural backgrounds of two (sometimes more) highly contrasting societies. On the one hand, he uses a medium and method of execution that directly emulates the stylistic values of classical 'white' society (i.e. the rennaissance, fine art,etc), and on the other hand his subject matter intones a completely different flavour of 'black' street culture.

Wliey's work seems to be commenting almost directly on the fact that during the modernity period, the art world definetly favoured the upper layers of privileged white society, and that over time, society has come to accept the fact that there can be no culture and no art without the expanding influx of intercultural influences. And Wiley's paintings clearly show how two contrasting styles or cultures can be built upon, as well as blended harmoniously in order to create a new generation of art. A new generation which has intertextual awareness of all these things which have come before.

4. Comment on how Wiley's work raises questions around social/cultural hierarchies , colonisation, globalisation, stereotypes and the politics which govern a western worldview.

In almost all of Wiley's paintings, his subjects are assuming very majestic poses, and a certain air of elegance, or nobility. I think Wiley deliberately paints his subjects this way, not only in order to evoke the stylistic sensibilities of the traditional fine art culture, but also in order to actually portray them with genuine dignity. So in a way, they are genuine celebrations of the young african american man's place in society today. Wiley seems to be marinating them in his joy over the acceptance which black culture has gained in today's society. And maybe the majestic demeanor (as well as elegant classical style) with which they are portrayed is a reference to cultural hierachy in the sense that the young black male no longer has to feel like a second class citizen in today's society, because these days hip hop culture has actually become one of the dominant subcultural groups in western society.

And the clothes his subjects are dressed in are very stereotypical in one sense, but the opposite in another. Visually they are stereotypical in the sense that most african american males dress in a very distinct 'hip hop' fashion, and that they are easily recognisable as such in his paintings. But they are unstereotypical in the way they are portrayed. Stereotypically, there is a school of western cultural thought which usually associates their look with gangs and street crimes, but in Wiley's paintings, they are portrayed to look peaceful and dignified, almost tranquil in a way. So maybe Wiley is subtly adressing a stereotyperelated issue here.

REFERENCES

 

Chandler, D (2003) Intertextuality. Retrieved 16^th Aug, 2011

From http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/documents/S4B/sem09.html

www.kehindewiley.com/

http://www.interviewmagazine.com/art/kehinde-wiley/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kehinde_Wiley

WEEK 3: HUSSEIN CHAYALAN

1. Chalayan’s works in clothing, like Afterwords (2000) and Burka (1996) , are often challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. What are your personal responses to these works? Are Afterwords and Burka fashion, or are they art? What is the difference?

Not all clothing is fashion, so what makes fashion fashion?

My personal response to 'Burka' and 'Afterwords' is one of extreme discomfort, especially in regards to 'Burka'. 'Burka' is visually very powerful and haunting in its boldness and simplicity. And it's very confrontational in that it forces one to think about one's own perceptions about modesty, and about the idea of objectifying women, or people in general. On the surface, it seems to be expressing the idea that the arabic custom of shrouding women in black robes is a gross infringement on their individuality. But underneath that, there might be an underlying idea that perhaps there is no difference between the west and the east. Maybe society objectifies women(and people) equally everywhere, as evidenced by the fact that the models from left to right, are all equally impersonal to the viewer, despite their varying degress of nudity. i.e. No matter to what degree people are exposed, they can still be viewed as impersonal objects if displayed in a particular way, which is quite an unsettling concept.
As for 'Afterwords', I don't really have have a personal reaction other than:"Oh, that's pretty clever, the furniture is turning into clothes. Cool." To me, there isn't really anything deep and intellectual to talk about there, even though I quite like the work as it is visually interesting, and has an interesting practicality to it. But I don't think there's any deep statement in it.

'Burka' is probably closer to being art than it is to being fashion. Mainstream fashion is generally geared towards being more on the practical side, with an eye towards actually producing marketable lines of clothing or dresses, whereas 'Burka' was presented as a singularity, with the entire show being the 'work'. It's definetly more of an artistic statement than a genuine proposal for a line of clothes.
But then again, 'Afterwords' is a lot more fashion-y as well, so maybe it is both. In the case of Afterwords, there probably is no clear distinction regarding whether it is art or fashion. It could easily be both. It's fashion in the very basic sense that it is clothing, and it's art in the sense that it's very stylized and 'designed'. And it appears very art-like in the sense that it is presented to almost resemble a piece of installation art, rather than a straight forward fashion display on the runway.

Overall, there probably is no real categorical distinction between art and fashion. There are clothes which are cheap and mass-produced, like a sweatshirt one would buy from K-mart, which has very little 'art' to it, and then there are elaborate dresses designed by highly talented designers, who would definetly consider their works to be art. So maybe the difference is not between art and fashion itself, but between the individual works, and their respective ratios of 'style' versus 'practicality', as well as the intentions of the person responsible for creating them.

Chalayan himself though, seems to think of himself as fashion designer, as the following quote would suggest:

"..I first wanted to be a pilot and then I wanted to be a hairdresser,
no sorry, first a hairdresser, then a pilot, then an actor,
then an architect and then a fashion designer. yeah." 
                                                                     (designboom.com)

2. Chalayan has strong links to industry. Pieces like The Level Tunnel (2006) and Repose (2006) are made in collaboration with, and paid for by, commercial business; in these cases, a vodka company and a crystal manufacturer. How does this impact on the nature of Chalayan’s work? Does the meaning of art change when it is used to sell products? Is it still art?

Having commercial endorsement and funding behind his work probably affected the nature of Chalayan's work in several ways. For one thing, it provides him with more freedom in the sense that his ideas are not as limited by the cost of materials. But on the other hand it probably forced him to make certain stylistic adjustments because there is more pressure to present something slick and sophisticated and proffesional. This really shows in 'Repose' and 'Level Tunnel', because both those pieces look very technically polished and proffesionally engineered.

                               (note the immaculate standard of craftsmanship in the above pictures)

Also, being commisioned would certainly dictate the nature of his subject matter. Something like 'Burka' for example, while being very bold and art-like, would not be considered proffesional in a sponsored design project associated with a major brand or label. In that sense both 'Repose' and 'Level Tunnel' are very clinical, and to the point. As for the nature of whether it is art or not, I don't think that changes just because there are parameters involved. The project still involves creative design and execution. The only thing that changes is perhaps the 'genre' of art. On a commisioned project like these two, it can no longer be just a randomn abstract intellectual expression like 'Burka', with no practical purpose behind it other than 'art'. It now has to fullfill a purpose, and as such, meet the confines and requirements of a design brief. But I don't think that having a practical purpose makes it any less credible as 'art'. If anything, it probably makes it more credible. Afterall, a movie for example, has to adhere to millions of different parameters in order to fulfill its purpose of entertaining the audience, but that doesn't mean it's not art. In fact it probably ranks a lot higher on the art food chain than some installation in some obscure gallery somewhere, because the degree of difficulty is a lot higher, just as the degree of difficulty was a lot higher with 'Repose' than it was with 'Burka'.
There is a school of thought out there which would say that art is no longer as pure when it is used to sell products. Movies, songs, books and video games all sell products in one way or another, but to say that they are no longer art because they are commercially viable, is absurd. If anything, the opposite is probably true. Afterall, it probably requires far more effort and dedication to make a blockbuster movie which brings entertainment and joy to millions of people (and thus, sells tickets), or to write a popular song which moves millions of people, than it does to throw some black garments over a few women and line them up in some gallery.


3. Chalayan’s film Absent Presence screened at the 2005 Venice Biennale. It features the process of caring for worn clothes, and retrieving and analysing the traces of the wearer, in the form of DNA. This work has been influenced by many different art movements; can you think of some, and in what ways they might have inspired Chalayan’s approach?

Uhm, I couldn't find a copy of the actual film anywhere, but judging by the photograph, it seems that maybe Chalayan was somewhat influenced by modernism, simply because of the sterile, machine-like aesthetic to it.


4. Many of Chalayan’s pieces are physically designed and constructed by someone else; for example, sculptor Lone Sigurdsson made some works from Chalayan’s Echoform (1999) and Before Minus Now (2000) fashion ranges. In fashion design this is standard practice, but in art it remains unexpected. Work by artists such as Jackson Pollock hold their value in the fact that he personally made the painting. Contrastingly, Andy Warhol’s pop art was largely produced in a New York collective called The Factory, and many of his silk-screened works were produced by assistants. Contemporarily, Damien Hirst doesn’t personally build his vitrines or preserve the sharks himself. So when and why is it important that the artist personally made the piece?

There really is no right or wrong answer to this, particularly when it comes to modern art, where there is such a wide variety of mediums and formats and genres out there, that the lines become very blurred. I guess there are certain categories of art where it is important that the artist made the work personally, and some categories where it is not. When it comes to straightforward paintings for example, then I guess it is very important, because every inch of the canvas is a direct representation of the artist's skill and interpretation of the subject matter. A Monet would no longer be a Monet if someone else had painted it. The same could be said for sculptures. Ron Mueck's work for example, is every inch his own work, and only he would sculpt the vivid expressionson his sculptures faces the way he does it, so it is very important that those sculptures be made by Mueck personally, or they would certainly have a different feel to them.
However, there are certainly areas where it is not nearly as important. For example, some art is actually impossible for any one person to create, simply from a technical standpoint. A beautifully designed building for example, could be conceived and designed by an artist, but that artist couldn't actually go and build the whole thing himself. Yet the fact that it was built by a team of construction workers and engineers doesn't mean that it is no longer the creation of the artists who designed it. The same could be said for movies, whose scope and technology dictates that it must be a collaborative process, even though the finished product can still be a direct manifestation of the writer/director's vision, particularly auteur-films like 'Citizen Kane'.
And perhaps the genre of the project can also dictate whether it's important for the artist to make the work him/herself. A sculptor for example, may be commisioned by a wealthy patron to create a majestic marble portrait bust of himself. In this case it s important for the artist to sculpt the face him/herself, because the patron is paying for the artist's personal interpretation. And only the artist himself can capture certain nuances of expression, which would be lost in the hands of a different artist who has a different style. But the same sculptor could then be commisioned to design a Han Solo action figure, and it would no longer matter whether he personally sculpts the torso, or lets his assistant do it according to a quick pencil sketch, because the overall design is still his own, and the genre of the work does not require finely tuned artistic nuances of expression.
So overall, the artists personal hands-on involvement in the creation of his work is only as important as the medium, or perhaps genre, dictates.


REFERENCES:

http://www.designboom.com/

http://www.brand.swarovski.com/Content.Node/ourinitiatives/fashion/hussein/gallery/

http://vimeo.com/4187825

http://www.impactlab.net/2009/04/12/designer-hussein-chalayan-wearable-portable-architecture/

http://www.husseinchalayan.com/#/home/

http://fashiontecture.tumblr.com/post/94187137/hussein-chalayan-afterwords-furniture

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/review-23626540-hussein-chalayan-is-fashions-techno-wizard.do

WEEK 2: POSTMODERNISM, WAI WEI AND BANKSY

Here are 8 bullet points about postmodernism:

-'Postmodernism' is not easy to define.


-The term is used in philosophy, literature, social sciences and architecture. (but mainly social sciences)


-It's one of those vague academic terms which are really quite open to interpretation and debating amongst people who specialize in the area of social sciences. "Different postmodern thinkers may have different opinions, and people from different fields might have somewhat different definitions of 'postmodernism'" - A. Saugstad


-If modernism is Batman, then postmodernism is the Joker. Batman wants to ensure that there's peace and order and a proper financial infrastructure in Gotham city, whereas the Joker just wants to do as he feels because he believes that anything goes, and that there is no absolute truth, and therefore no actual rules and ethics.


-The above bullet point is actiually too black and white because the 'postmodern is deliberately vague as a concept' (ALVC Textbook)


-"'Postmodernism' is related to 'relativism'. Relativism is the idea that anything goes." - A. Saugstad
So in some aspects of postmodernism, there is a thought that everythiong is relative to one's own perceptions. That is to say that one cannot say with any actual certainty that the sky is actually blue, because 'blue' could be just a perception in one own's mind. So again, the whole thing is really vague.


-There's constructive and de-constructive postmodernism. De-constructive postmodernism is very nihilistic in the sense that it deems everything to be meaningless because everything is relative to the perceptions of the individual. And constructive postmodernism is looking for some way to restore structure and stability by unifying the systematic and machine-like progressions of a modernist society with pre-modern values of divinely wrought truths and cosmic and spiritual philosophies about nature and harmony and things like that.


-Postmodernism introduces the idea of there being no grand narrative. The idea that people are constantly evolving in their own vaccuums, and are forming their own ideas about reality. i.e. a majority of the population believed in god, but postmodernism encouraged plurasim -"A theory that there is more than one basic substance or principle." (Dictionary.com)




SUMMARY OF THE FEATURES OF POSMODERNITY:
society being shaped by the simulations presented through the media, a dominance of pop culture over high culture, no grand narrative-people delevop their perceptions independently and relative to their own perceptions, there's often a fascination with irony and self awareness, and artist became more interested in exploring with new materials and methods, and the process often became more interesting than the result as a finished piece. Post modernity artists were super interested in making statements whenever they could, social, political, etc




THE POSTMODERN ARTIST:

       

“The post- modernist artist is reflexive in that he/ she is self-aware and consciously involved in a process of thinking about him/ herself and society in a deconstructive manner” (Witcombe, C)


I guess in a way we could say that the postmodern artist is very self-absorbed. That is to say that he/she seems to be very interested in expressing their own perceptions about their own perceptions. In a way they seem to be saying something along the lines of: "Hey chicks! Look at me and look at how deep I am, thinking  about our world and our cultural perceptions and stuff. That's why I painted a soup can  because I am really creative and I understand that everything can be turned into an ironic statement about our culture and the progress of humanity , and the fact that everything is relative in our own minds." 




AI WAIWEI'S HAN DYNASTY URN WITH COCA COLA LOGO:





 During his time studying in New York, Ai Waiwei was heavily influenced by the likes of Dada, Duchamp, and Warhol. I guess in this particular piece, we can see how Waiwei may have been channeling a little Warhol in the sense that Warhol liked to use prominent cultural icons in an irreverent fashion, to create quirky subtexts about society.
So Waiwei is perhaps using that playful postmodernist approach to show how traditional chinese culture both clashes and blends with the bold and colourful contrast of western culture, which is in keeping with the postmodern theme of pop culture over high culture. It's showing that no matter what the cultural background and socio-political parameters will be, society will always be influenced by the prevalent pop culture of the times.
I guess this work is also postmodernist in the sense that it's a personal expression. He's essentially expressing his own perspective, which a lot of postmodern art tends to do. Someone like Monet by comparison, wasn't trying to express himself in some quirky way. He was simply trying to capture the feeling of a particular kind of light hitting a courtyard on a summer afternoon, or something like that. Postmodernist artist by contrast, always seem to be trying to express what they think about society in some deep and meaningful, playfully abstract,  and masterfully poetic way.
A lot of Ai Waiwei's work was in fact a personal reaction to the depressed state of China's art community after Tiananmen square.


BANKSY:
This work by by british street artist Banksy is postmodern because it's a statement. It's deep and political and social and stuff.

 “Los Angeles” is also postmodernist because it's also a statement, which is very much in keeping with the postmodernist movement's penchant for making bold statements. There's all sorts of stuff going on here, fast food, consumerism, natural cave man, social critique, etc.

Both the Banksey works pictured above are also postmodern in the sense that they are street art, which means that the process, or in this case the medium, becomes as much a part of the art as the artwork itself. The very placement of it is designed to become part of the statement somehow.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

http://www.banksy.co.uk/

http://www.aiweiwei.com/

http://www.artzinechina.com/display_vol_aid109_en.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/8004485/Ai-Weiwei-and-The-Unilever-Series.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov06/Chinese.artist.dea.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm

WEEK 1: NATHALIE DJURBERK'S CLAYMATION

1. What do you understand by the word 'claymation'?
'Claymation' is a method of animation. It's the same thing as stop-motion capture with animatronic puppets, except that the puppets are usually sculpted out of clay or plasticine, and are left in a malleable state so that their poses and positions can be changed between each frame. Claymation is preferred by some film makers because clay figures can be more easily animated than animatronic puppets, because their movements and expressions are virtually limitless. i.e one can shape or contort a clay object into almost any form.

2. What is meant by the term 'surrealistic Garden of Eden'? and 'all that is natural goes awry'?
Djuberk's Biennale exhibit portrays a nightmarish version of the Garden of Eden. It's surrealistic in the sense that it's not realistic. It's depicting a vision of what the garden of Eden might look like if one found themselves trapped in it within a nightmare. And it's sculped and assembled in a way which evokes the surrealist paintings of people like Salvador Dali and M.c.Escher ( except for the forced perspectives ) i.e. Everything is crafted in painstaking detail, almost realistically in the sense that individual parts can be recognized for what they are, but completely unrealistic in its entirety, and in terms of the moods it evokes.

And in this Garden of Eden 'all that is natural goes awry' . What this means (probably) is that everything in this garden that looks natural turns into something nightmarish and surrealistic. For example, there are a lot of sculptures of flowers and plants in this exhibit which look natural enough at first glance, but upon closer inspection, turn out to be somehow macabre and nightmarish..... 

..like this grotesque bleeding flower, or whatever it is.

Also, the two naked young women in the video installation, look like they are about to get into a perfectly 'natural' situation of sexual exploration, but things go 'awry' when one of them decides to tear strips of flesh off the other and go into some weird cannibalistic fetish rage-mode.

But then again, the term is somehow inept here, because almost nothing in Djuberg's exhibition actually looks very 'natural' to begin with. Perhaps what is meant is that 'all that is already awry goes even more awry'

3. What are the 'complexity of emotions' that Djurberg confronts us with?
I guess we are confronted with a 'complexity of emotions' in the sense that her work here tends to evoke certain emotions in us which are then overriden almost immedialtely by other kinds of emotions. djurberg's video installations for example, might evoke an initial feeling of wonderment and curiosity in the viewer, which is then closely followed by a sudden revulsion mixed with a bit of shock and awe, like in the above mentioned example of the two naked young ladies.."Oh this looks interesting. I wonder how these innocent looking young girls are going to explore - Oh wait a minute, that's disgusting!!"... This might be a very basic level, but I think there's an underlying sense of conflict permeating this entire exhibition. One is never quite sure what to feel. There's a macabre sense of beauty about the entire display ( I don't actually think that, but I suspect that the artist might claim this) which is mixed with an underlying sense of dread and violence. So one might find themselves conflicted in their emotions regarding this piece. On the one hand hand there's a sense of wonderment and curiosity about this fantastical 'wonderland garden' and on the other there's a palpable sense of impending doom. The sense that everything is about to turn very very hellish.
And also the perversely sexual nature of the narratives in her videos creates conflicting emotions within the viewer. As in :"Aw man, that girl just got severly physically maimed during some weird and brutal sexual torture thing - what the hell am I supposed to think about that.."
It is probably designed to evoke conflicting emotions in the viewer, because he/she does not know how they are supposed to react to it emotionally.
'Through these minutely composed sequences of stop-motion animations, Djurberg toys with society's perceptions of right and wrong, exposing our own innate fears of what we do not understand and illustrating the complexity that arises when we are confronted with these emotions.' (Venice Biennale: Nathalie Djurberg, 2009).

4. How does Djurberg play with the ideas of children's stories, and innocence in some of her work?
I'm not sure. Perhaps the medium itself evokes a child-like spirit simply due to the fact that claymation is usually asociated with animated movies for children. And also stylistically her work mimics the aesthetics of a child's imagination in the sense that her figures and characters are designed and sculpted in a very childlike and clumsy manner compared to her more finely crafted plant sculptures. So Djurberg may be playing with the idea of children's stories and the idea of 'innocence' by subconsciously evoking the aesthetics of a children's story type of world, and then putting a perverse twist on it through her macabre narrative and grotesque subject matter.

5. There is a current fascination by some designers with turning the innocent and sweet into something disturbing. Why do you think this has come about?

I think that most artist are trying to achieve maximum emotional or socio-political impact through their work, and the idea of turning something harmless and innocent into something dark and disturbing can be a very effective tool in shocking audiences, or at least polarizing them, which is probably quite fashionable in the contemporary art world. Also, I think there are a lot of strong aesthetic benefits to this concept, just from a design point of view. There is a general rule of thumb in modern design that the opposite to what is expected is often the correct aesthetic choice, i.e, in horror movies for example the antagonist is often a lot scarier when they are aesthetically 'unscary' or 'innocent'. The little girl in the movie 'The Ring' for example was a lot scarier than an elaborate CGI demon with fangs and horns out of some B-grade creature horror movie, simply because it is somehow unexpected, but at the same time more feasible as well - it has more of a 'what if' factor.

6. In your opinion, why do you think Djurberg's work is so interesting that it was chosen for the Venice Biennale?

I think Djurberg's work was chosen for a number of reasons. For one thing, it has a very distinct visual style which makes her work distinctly recognizable as 'Djurberg', which in turn lends itself well to being marketed and promoted under the banner of 'an upcoming new artist', so to speak.

Also, I think her work is very confrontational, which again, lends itself to promotion because it polarizes audiences, thus opening itself up to interesting discussions and debates in the media of the contemporary art community. Basically, the subject matter of her work, and her distinctly unique visual style is perfectly suited for exposure in the art community. And the fact that Djurberg herself is a very attractive young woman would make her a very viable brand name in the art world.

Oh, and I am absolutely not being fascetious here. The fact that her particular style of work is probably very marketable in the contemporary art world is in no way a slight on the artistic merits of her work itself. If anything, it's a confirmation of her talents. I mean, personally I'm not a fan, I'd pick a James Bond movie over a Djurberg exhibit anyday, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate how her work brilliantly ticks all the boxes required to stand out in the highly competitive field of contemporary arts.

7. Add some of your own personal comments on her work.
Uhm, I would really rather not. I don't have any expertise in the field of modern art. I mean, I can appreciate a Monet landscape, or an Edward Hopper painting, but this weird esoteric abstract stuff like Djurberg often just strikes me as being 'arty' for the sake of being 'arty', with not too much of an actual concept or idea in there. Real art to me is the design of the metal suit in 'Iron Man' or the trailer for the upcoming 'Assassins Creed-Revelations' game, or the soundtrack for 'Master and Commander'. I look at that kind of stuff and think: "Wow, that is really brilliant and creative." And I look at Djurberg's videos and I think: "Aw geez, I have to write a blog about this?."
In other words, I am, regretfully, just far too ignorant, juvenile and narrow minded to really open myself up to the many brilliant and multi-layered aspects of this type of abstract work, and therefore it is difficult for me to analyze it in any great detail. But I will say that I think Djurberg's work, however grotesque and repulsive, does strike a very deep primal chord within my phsyqe (actually it doesn't) and therefore I deem it to be very succesful and effective in creating a kind of subconscious impact. (Actually I don't, I will have forgotten about Djurberg the minute I finish this blog)

REFERENCES:

http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/10/nathalie-djurberg-who-won-the.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathalie_Djurberg

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/10/view/6886/nathalie-djurberg-experiment-at-venice-art-biennale-09.html
http://www.wexarts.org/ex/?eventid=5289

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WojgB4PL4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWrPZGgudMM