Monday 11 May 2009
Monday 16 March 2009
Textiles, An Overview
The very first lecture we had was about creating a timeline of when we had physically come into contact with textiles through out our lives. When thinking about this, it shows how important textiles are to everyone, from clothing, to home accesories, to tools. Textiles is involved in almost every aspect of life. It gives us warmth, communication, protection, amusement etc. As I started this blog with textiles I feet it is appropriate to end with it as well. I have looked at many different artists and forms of art over the last few months of lectures, I have slowly gained more knowledge and realization of what shapes my artwork. What ideas and concepts I would like to explore more, and with what medium I would like to use. This is why I am ending with textiles, this is why I am in a textiles course. Textiles affects so many different aspects of our lives and expands over so many different genres of art that whatever meaning or purpose I wish to convey, I'm sure I can do it with textiles. One particular part of textiles I appreciate is it doesn't just have to be fabric, or making clothing. I could use wood, or metals or any other material because textiles incorporates it all. I feel I am constantly dancing around methods to find my own 'artistic handwriting' and I still struggle with explaining the concepts of reality, and ironic taboos of culture with it that one day I hope to achieve. However these lectures have taught me a lot of things I wasn't expecting to learn from them, and hopefully that's on the right track.
Wearable Technology
In this part of the lecture we were shown a video game group called Blast Theory. They use a GPS tracking system to locate themselves in a city and run around with all the technology strapped to their body, while players online can try to capture their avatar, with an avatar of their own. This must be the most ridiculous game I've ever heard of. Why do it?!? So I asked if the developers of the game made money from it, and the answer was: sort of, a little bit sometimes. I'm stumped. I can't grasp the purpose of what they're doing. Maybe if I look at it from a side angle, like perhaps that they are interested in developing hand held and wearable technology that has some substance to it. But the overall idea of running around in a city while the avatar of a person tries to capture you just seems so crazy. Where's the fun in that? It is a 'game' after all isn't it?Well if I go back to the idea of developing wearable technology
that's very inetersting. It's the new stage of computing called 'Ubiquitous.' It means 'being everywhere at once', and that is exactly what this is all about. Technology that isn't just one microchip in a big clunky object, it's about spreading the intelligence all over, so it's existence is a thin layer within every inch of an object. Or the chip affects the entire object, in a minamalist way. An example of this is a contact lense developed to allow the user to see more detailed information on something far away (like a zoom feature), and also to be 'beamed' information like a map from a computer. The map would appear in front of the user as if it were really there. Another example is jackets, skirts, hats etc. that connect to the users mobile phone. One feature I found very cool on a shirt I looked at was the ability for the shirt to squeeze the user giving the person a 'hug'. The 'hug' was sent from another phone using bluetooth. This attracted my attention, because it is looking at technology moving forward in a 3D interactive and physical way. Instead of just saying, or seeing something, the user would actually be able to experience it practically firsthand. Technology seems to be continually addressing the issue of affecting the five senses. So what's next? Smell? Taste?
Guerilla Art
Guerilla Art
Also sometimes called activist art, or political art. This genre usually consists of the artists name being unknown and illegal controversial artwork being located in a public spaces. Some forms of this art include altering billboards and graffiti. Although many people I talk to say Banksy is overrated because his art is too obvious and simple, I still find it pleasant to look at. In particular his work on the Gaza Wall (West Bank barrier). Another famous group of guerilla artists is called the Guerilla Girls. Started in the 80's, the Guerilla Girls have included hundreds of different women working for the group. Mainly based in New York, they raise awareness of feminism, usually focused on sexism in museums and the artworld.
There is always an exception to the rules. Recently, in the last few months there has been a campaign by the BHA (British Humanist Association) to put slogans on buses in London containing the phrase, "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE." One thing that immediately jumps out at me, is the fact that since all the letters are in capitals you don't know whether they have chosen to capitalise the word 'god' or not. This just plays into the meaning of the advertisement. For if they had capitalized the word 'god' it would be contradicting their meaning.
The part I full heartedly agree with is a quote from Professor Richard Dawkins, "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride... unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children. Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side. This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think... and thinking is anathema to religion." (BBC News, 21 Oct. 2008) This is an exception to the rules, because it is legal, and people know who made it. So in the lecture I asked if this would still be considered Guerilla art, I was told yes. Art can be controversial without being guerilla art, so what makes it Guerilla art, if this example I just gave could also be considered Guerilla art? This also looks at the question of what is considered controversial? What we are used to is usually not controversial, so it is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply what is different that is controversial.
Just for some laughs:
In retort to the campaign Stephen Green of Christian Voice said, "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large. I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it." (BBC News, 21 Oct. 2008)
Also sometimes called activist art, or political art. This genre usually consists of the artists name being unknown and illegal controversial artwork being located in a public spaces. Some forms of this art include altering billboards and graffiti. Although many people I talk to say Banksy is overrated because his art is too obvious and simple, I still find it pleasant to look at. In particular his work on the Gaza Wall (West Bank barrier). Another famous group of guerilla artists is called the Guerilla Girls. Started in the 80's, the Guerilla Girls have included hundreds of different women working for the group. Mainly based in New York, they raise awareness of feminism, usually focused on sexism in museums and the artworld.
There is always an exception to the rules. Recently, in the last few months there has been a campaign by the BHA (British Humanist Association) to put slogans on buses in London containing the phrase, "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE." One thing that immediately jumps out at me, is the fact that since all the letters are in capitals you don't know whether they have chosen to capitalise the word 'god' or not. This just plays into the meaning of the advertisement. For if they had capitalized the word 'god' it would be contradicting their meaning.
The part I full heartedly agree with is a quote from Professor Richard Dawkins, "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride... unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children. Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side. This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think... and thinking is anathema to religion." (BBC News, 21 Oct. 2008) This is an exception to the rules, because it is legal, and people know who made it. So in the lecture I asked if this would still be considered Guerilla art, I was told yes. Art can be controversial without being guerilla art, so what makes it Guerilla art, if this example I just gave could also be considered Guerilla art? This also looks at the question of what is considered controversial? What we are used to is usually not controversial, so it is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply what is different that is controversial.
Just for some laughs:
In retort to the campaign Stephen Green of Christian Voice said, "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large. I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it." (BBC News, 21 Oct. 2008)
Time Based Art
Looking at the definition of time based art, most sources say it is computer/video associated. I disagree with this term, I think that there are other types of art, such as photography, that have n
othing to doing with computers, but are time based. Also, time is such a broad base for any artwork, I can't think of any art that doesn't include it in some way. Whether it is a main variable in the work or not, time is a constant existence in our world, so it is part of everything. So in a sense, what isn't time based art? That said we had a look in our lecture at artists who use time as a major factor in their work. One that I found slightly disturbing, but very interesting was Tony Oursler. His work involves projecting human faces onto inanimate objects, mainly puppets.
I am working on the Doll's project at the moment, dealing with the purpose and function of dolls and trying to turn their inanimate limbs into useful tools assisting humans everyday actions. Succeeding in this would be sort of giving them life. This is along the lines of Tony Oursler's work. I think the main reason why I am fascinated with giving life to an inanimate object is because it pushes the boundaries of what we expect and know as being real. If an artist were to change the shape of something like furniture, it would simply be considered a great design, but because we are dealing with the subject of applying life where there is none, it is disturbing because it doesn't look like it should exist. Dealing artistically with the subject of life is an abused issue. Many artists try to deal with this subject, perhaps because the creation of our minds and conscience is still very unknown. So Tony Oursler is really dealing with the issue of the unknown and why we react (usually) negatively to a similar state of being that we do not recognize. This is supported by Dr. Gunther von Hagen's work with manipulating our bodies. The work is human, yet disturbing because it triggers the thought of pain and discomfort in my mind.
othing to doing with computers, but are time based. Also, time is such a broad base for any artwork, I can't think of any art that doesn't include it in some way. Whether it is a main variable in the work or not, time is a constant existence in our world, so it is part of everything. So in a sense, what isn't time based art? That said we had a look in our lecture at artists who use time as a major factor in their work. One that I found slightly disturbing, but very interesting was Tony Oursler. His work involves projecting human faces onto inanimate objects, mainly puppets.I am working on the Doll's project at the moment, dealing with the purpose and function of dolls and trying to turn their inanimate limbs into useful tools assisting humans everyday actions. Succeeding in this would be sort of giving them life. This is along the lines of Tony Oursler's work. I think the main reason why I am fascinated with giving life to an inanimate object is because it pushes the boundaries of what we expect and know as being real. If an artist were to change the shape of something like furniture, it would simply be considered a great design, but because we are dealing with the subject of applying life where there is none, it is disturbing because it doesn't look like it should exist. Dealing artistically with the subject of life is an abused issue. Many artists try to deal with this subject, perhaps because the creation of our minds and conscience is still very unknown. So Tony Oursler is really dealing with the issue of the unknown and why we react (usually) negatively to a similar state of being that we do not recognize. This is supported by Dr. Gunther von Hagen's work with manipulating our bodies. The work is human, yet disturbing because it triggers the thought of pain and discomfort in my mind.
Sunday 15 March 2009
Land, Earth and Environmental Art
In this lecture we looked at several artists who create art using the Earth. Whether large or small pieces of work, they all include either man made objects or man's opinions of nature. Would it be considered art without this, and should thoughts/ideas be considered part of nature? These artists include Robert Smithson, James Turrell, Walter de Maria and Nancy Holt etc. They have all dealt with different aspects of nature and land. Out of all of these artists I must say that James Turrell has caught my attention. After all what is visual reality other than our own perspectives? Turrell has the ability to visually create space and change where it is not physically existing. I find his work rather hypnotic and enchanting, with a futuristic twist. I have read that James Turrell is a Quaker, so the manipulation of light and space is much more than just a fascination of logical being. It has a deep spiritual meaning applied to it. Living with Quakers for nearly a year, I learned how important 'light' is when exploring oneself. It is a type of meditation. Although all Quakers interpretation of their religion seems to differ, light represents the soul to me. So when I think of Turrell's work, it's about the seemingly impossible evolution and adaptation of the mind and soul in the world around us. It's about what's real and what's not. It's about breaking and pushing the boundaries of the existence of the soul and conscience, and understanding their relationship with reality in a visual 3D way. Turrell's work is overlapping the interest and unresolve of reality I have and hope to express with artwork. I just haven't found as clear a route as this is to explain myself with yet.
Friday 6 March 2009
Body Extensions and Body Art
This topic is very interesting to me, because it relates so closely to the project I am working on at the moment. The project is about dolls, I started by looking at types of dolls, their function, purpose and role in our culture. This research also lead me to Hans Bellmer, an artist who created disfigured female dolls in the mid 30's to mid 40's, in opposition to the Nazi's idea of a 'perfect' Arian nation. A couple of weeks ago I had a conversation about the purpose of dolls, and how creepy and strange dolls look, and why that is. Perhaps it's because of their similarity to the human body, but complete lack of movement. Or that sometimes the dolls eyes have black iris' or no pupils, which makes them feel empty and consciousless. Or maybe it's because of the lack of purpose for many dolls. Why do some people collect porcelain dolls and just put them on show in a glass cabinet, etc? Of course there are some dolls like a nutcracker or sex doll that do have purpose. Just as in the lecture, what is the space between human and machine, what is the space between human and doll? I am now looking at the function and visual aspect of the limbs of dolls and human body.
Dr. Gunther von Hagen's bodies are both repulsive and strangely intriguing to me. The layers of muscle, bone, skin, and veins are beautiful, but hold very negative connotations in my mind. They remind me of pain and it is almost a taboo to see this part of the human. Yet it is what makes us human. I want to incorporate this human aspect with function to create a fine art glove. It will have layers of textiles imitating the layers of the human body, have function and purpose (like a mechanical hand gives to a handless person) but will have the doll-like aspect as well, which is the inanimate glove. This way combining human and doll, giving purpose to something not made by nature.
Dr. Gunther von Hagen's bodies are both repulsive and strangely intriguing to me. The layers of muscle, bone, skin, and veins are beautiful, but hold very negative connotations in my mind. They remind me of pain and it is almost a taboo to see this part of the human. Yet it is what makes us human. I want to incorporate this human aspect with function to create a fine art glove. It will have layers of textiles imitating the layers of the human body, have function and purpose (like a mechanical hand gives to a handless person) but will have the doll-like aspect as well, which is the inanimate glove. This way combining human and doll, giving purpose to something not made by nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)