'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).
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
