5. 4th April 2011. Angela Rogers.
Visual Enquiry. Video Lecture.
Examining various commentary and online resources.
Tomas Schutte. Gerhard Richter was his tutor, and since he had said everything there was to say with paint - TS moved into sculpture. He is prolific, manipulating scale and material - no title/context/scale/date.
Untitled enemies - one man house.
Adrian Searle guardian critic at exhibition, describes in audio the models and views. Huge space, buildings within buildings. Modernistic/modern. atmospheric . angels, distortion, stupid head. Very wide range of work.
Endless staircases - place of imagination/distance. The purpose of the building is not understandable. Weird humour, sinister, storage.
Architecture/sculpture. What is really real - the encounter.
TS a free artist - free to move between ideas and forms. The hotel on the 4th plinth had a mediocre reception.
Time out, Ward.- all art is a form of proposition and anything is possible. A proposal for a proposal
the placing of artworks - what works on the 4th plinth, the gallery.
But the Telegraph Richard Dormant called it an abstract assemblage of coloured glass, a miracle of engineering, suggesting lightness. colour/light changes. the juxtaposition of monumentality. the proposition to create one's own experience, it is not resolved.
Kiki Smith (father minimalist sculptor Tony Smith), influencial artist of her generation.
'94. born, solid fragility, body, non political.
Body art, feminist, political, undelying erotica male gaze.
Unconventional female views.
Different sources, vastly different points of view and interpretations.
not a fixed picture on an artists work.
Aspects of biography inform an artists work.
Louise Bourgeois.
In the '50's the rise of abstract expressionism took over. She taught.
"Body is sculpture, sculpture is body"
the life story is easy to equate to the work, literal, indexical symbolism.
Without symbolism ans biography what does it mean?
LB invented confessional art.
Siri Hustvedt. LB, her life and work enmeshes.
Object and narrative become inseparrable. Problem?
Bobby Baker - domestic life
Kitchen show '93.
Routine tasks/ contemplation.
Personal and political questions. Larger to world.
Mental health drawings. daily life.
Tomma Abts blank painting
object/image illusion.real
Creates a mood - sequence, distance. Shows state of mind - builds up.
She know when - it comes alive.
Lack of research shows?
the stuckists say it makes 1950's wallpaper look profound.
Stuckists - figurative painters - revealed corruption in Turner prize.
Artists who don't paint aren't artists.
In what way do artists biographies inform or detract from the viewer's experience of the work.
If the artist presents aspects of their experience it can be included as part of the work, but otherwise, there is not always a direct correlation. Sometimes artists almost illustrate their life in art, and at other times you just can't tell what is going on. I have always been struck by this in learning about composers or novelists lives also. Sometimes the cycles of creativity do not seem to coincide with life events - perhaps it can be an escapism, or a greater sense of purpose. It is certainly illuminating to learn about what is behind the scenes, but it can occasionally be disappointing and offputting to learn a personal detail.
What are the implications of Ward's assertion that "All art is a from of proposition and anything is possible"
I would add to the above that all art is a form of fiction and anything is possible. It is all ideas and imaginings in different forms. It turns into a successful form of art if it can suggest the idea to the viewer without the artist having to constantly reinterpret and explain. A proposition presents the possibility of an idea - it is definitive when it is expressed as eloquently as possible. That's about as solid as it can get - solid in form and idea.
If you could only read or hear one view of an exhibition would you choose the artist's view or that of a critic or reviewer and why.
It would be the artists view every time, and then the reviewer and then, as a last resort, the critic. Sometimes it is too seductive to read what the critic tells you the meaning is. They tend to write with such authority, so defintively, that it is almost like being a young child illuminated by a teacher. Of course, I am only thinking of certain critics here, as an extreme example, the ultra conservative Brian Sewell of the London Standard. The learned onslaught of such opinion makes one unsure of one's own reactions, simply because it may not be as erudite or as thought through. Sometimes it is an eloquent thing to be tonguetied before a piece of art.
By contrast there are critics who critique rather than criticise. I always like to listen to what Matthew Collings has to say.
Or Robert Hughes.
Or Sister Wendy
I would also have to add to this a distinction between a reviewer and a critic. Perhaps not everyone defines them so, but as a reviewer myself, I declare an interest. When I review books my intention is to give the viewer a clear idea of what the book is like. I rarely refer to other books or authors. My voice is not neutral, I will give opinion, but it is more as if a reader were to ask me what a book is like, and I tell them if the book delivers what it says it does. When I assess exhibitions, I have a similar intent. I will draw on more references and knowledge, but still I only disagree with an exhibition if it disagrees with itself. I think the scope of the critic tends to be wider, or perhaps the evaluation is the same, only the platform is different.
I saw an exhibition earlier this year, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, Shadow Catchers, camera-less photography from five practitioners.
I was very struck there by a piece of text next to a work by Pierre Cordier, who makes Chemograms, using chemicals directly onto paper, and creating patterns and abstracts by accident and design.
The particular piece had a white background, and many tiny crossing horizontal black lines. The text said that is was reminiscent of an analogue TV tuned out of a station. This was presented as the definitive interpretation of the piece, but nowhere, in the exhibition, the supporting material or the website, is it revealed who has made the comparison. It makes all the difference in the wworld to know if it was the artist himself who said this, or a V&A curator. I really found this outrageous. Pierre Cordier numbers and dates his works as titles, and seems to give no such interpretations of his own work.
It's like changing the title on a piece of work against the artis'ts will and intention.
 | |||
| Pierre Cordier Chemigram |
The image in the exhibition was similar to the above.
Reflection
There are always various interpretations of artworks - sometimes vastly different. It is always worth considering where the writer or viewer is coming from, what they are informed by. Times change, ideas change. Perhaps also it is important to ask oneself through which lenses one is interpreting.
13th April 2011
Reflection
There are always various interpretations of artworks - sometimes vastly different. It is always worth considering where the writer or viewer is coming from, what they are informed by. Times change, ideas change. Perhaps also it is important to ask oneself through which lenses one is interpreting.
13th April 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment