Language and Art

I believe that art and literature go hand in hand. Writing and creating a work of art are very similar, and I'm sure many writers feel what they do is just that. They both deal with being with a certain vision of what is supposed to come out of the experience. Both are a process, and the final result may not necessarily be what we had intended from the beginning, but it becomes a reflection of the process itself. These ideas become prevalent in the works of many artists.

Scott Kim is an artist known for his puzzles and art that he creates using language. He creates works that play on both the definition of the word and visual space in which the words exist. For example, this particular piece called Mirror, creates an illusion where the word "mirror" is actually a mirrored image of itself. Combines visual meaning with understood meaning. His work is very clever and often very elaborate.

I’m actually very interested in the idea of language as a game and connecting art with literature, because I have utilized these ideas in the past for my own artwork. I created a recent work of video art that deals with illusions in words and that there are many layers to words. I was a performance piece of video where painted on a larger piece of canvas while a video projected onto the canvas. The video was of myself painting onto a canvas as well. As the performance goes on, the viewer sees that I am painting the word “false” onto the canvas. The projection is painting the top half of the letters and the actual me is painting the bottom half. As the piece goes on, it becomes more clear that the actual me is painting the words “true,” but they appear to be “false” when paired with the projection.

The work plays on the idea that in the process of creating art we come reality and hyper-reality (true and false) in order to create art. Art cannot be created without first creating some sort of falsehood. Learning to understand art is a process of being able to separate the true and the false. By separating the two the viewer learns that a piece that appears straight forward, as many layers to it.

Making Art

Coming up with ideas for art projects can be one of the most difficult things about being an art major. I always have lots of ideas that I'm interested in for my work, but it comes to assignments its a lot more difficult. Every once in a while I might have an old idea that I've been wanting to try and it fits perfectly into an assignment. The majority of the time, however, this is not the case. I usually have no idea what to do for a particular project and find myself scrambling at the last minute to think of something.

I think a major part of the problem is how busy it is being a student. I usually have too many school assignments, church events, errands to run or too much time spent at work to really focus on my art. 90% of the art I make is for school, so I don't really have time develop my own work. Although a lot of my more successful works have been created in the midst of all this and with no time at all, I find its good to have time to spend relaxing or clearing my head.

There are a few things that work for me. I find a quick walk or running with no set goal, to be a really useful method for clearing my head. If I have a lot going on at the moment, I often find it is a good way of getting a way from it. In life, it seems we always have somewhere to be or something to do, but by running to nowhere in particular, I am able to get away from confines like time and destinations. Getting away from these confines helps to clear my head and allows me to think about things that I would otherwise be too busy to think about.

This is very useful when I am making art. I work and go to school and a lot of the time I am too busy with both to create art outside of school. Most of the art I make in school is very restricted in method and criteria, so it is nice to be able to get away every once and a while and create art that I am actually interested in. Unfortunately, if you sit down and decide you are going to make art right now, it is impossible to do so. Art is something that comes to you spontaneously and you can’t simply tell yourself to make art. When I need to get away from everything and clear my head for new ideas to come in, running is a very useful tool for me.

Street Art

Once again on my search for new and innovative art, I found something that peaked my interest. I came across a video interview with a NY artist named Joshua Allen Harris. The video is about how we got started doing what he does. In is work he creates these fairly large, inflatable creatures that fill up with air from the subway vents. It was something he just thought would be cool to try and has quickly became quite popular via the internet.

When making his work, he uses materials that are appear to be just trash (garbage bags and tape mostly) and shapes them into strange creatures. The work becomes interesting when the air fills up the creatures inconsistently, giving them life and animation. Each piece started out fairly simple, but as his popularity begins to grow he starts to create more and more complex pieces. In video, he unveils his newest piece, a large black monster made of trash bags.

It is interesting to see how art like this gets started. He has begun his road to fame with art without ever being hired, commissioned or getting in a gallery. He utilizes the street as his gallery space. It is only a matter of time before he starts getting grants and begins to create much more elaborate pieces. It will be interesting to see his work in a year or 2 and see what he is doing then.

It is amazing how the internet can shape an artists career. He never even put his work up himself, but some random people taking pictures and videos have caused his popularity to skyrocket. Perhaps this will inspire artists to really put their work out there. Although the internet is filled with a lot of crap art as well, it really can be an incredibly useful tool in getting yourself recognized. Joshua Allen Harris is certainly a name that I will remember now and I know I will show this to other people.

Movements of Art

I just finished a paper for my art history class about the transition into postmodern theory in sculpture. I was reading an article from 1979 by Rosalind Krauss as part of the paper. In her article, Sculpture in the Expanded Field, she talks of developing a historical map to find exactly where postmodernism began for sculpture. While writing the paper I became conflicted with certain ideas. Is postmodernism, as well as other art theories, more of a way of making art or just a particular movement of a group of people making art at the same time?

For example, if an artist created a piece of art in 1930 that adheres to postmodern principles, is it postmodern because of this or is it not because it wasn't made during the "postmodern era." This is something that has bothered me for a while, but never really had to think into to much until this paper. I've had several class where I have had to replicate certain movements like postmodern or fluxus art and if it the work follows that movements ideas or manifesto, then it is excepted as that. Does this same idea apply to someone who created art that follows a manefesto's principles, but was before the movement and wasn't created for any other specific movement?

I think a lot of it depends on the type of art. For something like architecture, it is much easier to pick out certain methods. Different types of columns, patterns and themes can definitively belong to a particular movement. Certainly earlier paintings are a little easier to define, because everyone was following the same principles. As time goes on, however, artists begin to create work they want and get more into theory rather than creating merely commissioned works.

The more I study art, the easier it becomes to see the differences and similarities in different styles. It becomes easier to tell when certain works were made and often who made them. I think my opinion is that art is made during a particular time frame or for a particular movement. They also can have elements that follow movements long after them or before them. There will always be ways to connect certain works of art to any particular movement, because when it comes down to it, it's all art. I've found that anything in art can be argued and more often than not, artists spend more time theorizing and justifying their artwork than they actually spend on creating the art.

Stop-motion

Continuing on with ideas in the previous post, I've decided to start doing some research into the art of stop-motion animation. I was surprised to find that the first instance in which stop-motion can be credited was in 1898 in The Humpty Dumpty Circus by Albert E. Smith and J. Stuart Blackton. It is a short film where a set of toy circus animals and acrobats come to life. It is always interesting to see where something began, noting what things have developed and what things have stayed the same.

I was surprised to find that stop-motion was used as a common special effects tool in a lot of movies in the 70s and even up to the 90s. Many major Hollywood films, such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Robocop, and Terminator, used stop-motion animation in many of the special effects sequences. Looking back, it seems obvious that that was how they did the sequences, but I suppose I never really thought about it. Stop-motion has very unique look to it, but I guess you don't notice it as much when your not as familiar with it.

It's interesting to see that a lot of movies are still using stop-motion. Movies like Corpse Bride, Coraline, and Fantastic Mr. Fox are still using these techniques, all of which were made in the 2000s. It can be difficult to tell if a movie is actually using stop-motion or if they are just simulating it's style, which is becoming more and more common with a lot of older animation techniques. It is very rare nowadays to find an animated cartoon that was actually hand drawn. It's much more common to just simulate the look to save time and money.

It's always nice to see movies come out like this that try to create a more interesting atmosphere by using stop-motion. The differences in styles between movies like Coraline, which is a much smoother animation, and Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is very rough and raw looking. Although I would like to use these techniques for creating art, I believe a lot can be learned from these movies. I look forward to seeing what other movies will utilize stop-motion in the future.

William Kentridge

Since I started working with video, I have always been interested in stop action animation. When I was younger, I remember the first job that I ever wanted was to be a cartoonist. I was fascinated with how cartoons were made. I even had the opportunity to tour through some Disney studios to see the process taking place. This only fueled my desire to become a cartoonist. I eventually became more interested in more conceptual arts and drifted away from this.

The more I work with video, the more I want to experiment with stop action. More recently I have been particularly interested in the art of William Kentridge, a South African artist who creates extremely powerful animated films, most of which dealing with political and social themes in South Africa. He is able to use animation to send a very powerful message that would never be as successful in any other media. He as created a style of art that is very unique to him, both simple and complex at the same time. This piece Felix in Exile is a perfect example of Kentridge's style.

Kentridge's work as a whole deals with time and change. He uses charcoal, a medium that is easy to manipulate, to convey this. By constantly drawing and erasing over the same image, he is constantly leaving behind marks of the previous drawing. The change over time is clearly visible through the eraser marks. This creates a very interesting effect, as well as support the themes and statements he is making in his videos.

Now that I am coming to the end of schooling (for now), ideas for Senior Thesis have been constantly floating by. Nothing is certain at this point and I want to go into the class with a relatively open mind, but I have been thinking about ways to develop techniques I have already used in previous projects. Since I have previously worked with animation and I have been looking for that next step or inspiration to help me reach that next level, I think Kentridge might help point me in the right direction. Whether or not I do anything with it I don't know, but it is something I definitely want to experiment with at some point in time.

Process

A Ray of Light

I was looking at some random video art pieces when I stumbled upon this. The video uses time-lapse to document this particular painting. Although I am not particularly interested in the painting itself, I am interested in the way the piece is presented. Showing the painting this way presents an interesting argument. Which is the art itself, the painting or the video?

I personally would not be interested in the painting, but by creating a video out of the work the artist makes the painting much more interesting for me. I am not able to see the actual painting so this limits my ability to judge for myself and the artist gives no real indication in his statement as to what his intentions are. Seeing the piece as is, I would have to say that it is a video over a painting.

The problem with that is that one could say that of any documentation. Once you take a photograph of a painting, it immediately becomes a photograph over a painting for someone only seeing the copy. Although the artist's intentions may be different, the experience itself is none the less altered. This has happened to me many times where I have seen the photograph of a work of art many times and then when I finally see the piece itself, it is completely different than what I thought it was through the photo.

Many works of art function as art merely through the process or action. Performance based work is this way, where the performance itself is more important than the finished product. Many artists make work the is meant to self-destruct and this act is the art rather than the finished product. It is difficult to say with something like a painting when it is already considered art by itself, but this idea of process is interesting to me.

Art Reproduction

In a recent article in ARTnews magazine, they have been covering a controversy about some recently discovered plaster casts that were supposedly done by Degas. There has been much debate as to whether or not these casts were in fact done by Degas, or if another artist created them some time after his death. Many scholars are very split on the subject. It is interesting to see that it really isn't the work itself that's important, but rather the artist themselves.

This idea of reproduction is very important, especially to me, as an artist who works in digital media. Digital artists are constantly plagued by the idea of an original work because of who easy it is to duplicate something digital. An amazing piece of art done on a program like Photoshop could be exactly reconstructed if someone followed the steps exactly. This is very different from something like a painting or a sculpture due to the fact that no single stroke or act will ever be the same.

This one of the most useful aspects of digital media and also its greatest weakness. Its ability to be so easily reproduced makes it much easier to distribute and commercialize. At the same time, having no true original it makes the piece worth less. This doesn't mean that paintings and sculptures can't be commercialized. Great works like the Mona Lisa and the statue of David have been reproduced so many times that it would be hard to find a person who has never seen at least a reproduction of them. The difference is that all of these works have an original.

I believe video is in a place somewhere between digital images and painting. Although it can still be easily reproduced, it still has something closer to an original. Compression is another one of those plus and minuses. Even though sites like YouTube make the spread of video art much easier, the loss of quality through compression still gives more value to the original. The only problem is most people don't appreciate great art, but instead appreciate a great artist.

Bill Viola

I would like to take this post to talk a little about the first video artist whose work I really found an interest in. Of all the video work I've seen, none of them have inspired me as much as that of Bill Viola. I have always been fascinated by his work. His work is very simple, yet dramatic. He is also the first video artist that gave me a idea of where I want my work to be.

One of the main reasons I like Viola's work so much is because of the subjects he chooses. His work deals a lot with human consciousness and emotion, having a very mystic quality to it. He also deals a lot with natural elements, particularly water, a subject I'm also interested in. One of the first pieces I saw of his was The Crossing. This piece contains to projections of men facing each other, one is consumed by fire and the other by water.

This idea of duality has been a common element in many of my drawings and paintings, especially my artist book as I have mentioned before. This idea, along with the way it was presented, was simply amazing. Seeing the man consumed by the elements in slow motion was incredible to watch. This still, slow motion style appears in many of his works. It is something that I would like to be able to replicate if I could shoot video at that quality.

It is always interesting for me to here him talk about his work, being interested in a lot of similar subjects. I normally have trouble focusing or following the artist's thought process. Viola is one of the few artists where I really feel like I understand what they are trying to do. Seeing his work makes me want to explore other artists and see what other contemporary artists are doing. It's nice to see every once in a while that other people are interested in the same things you are.

Field

I try to check every now and then and see what other contemporary artists are doing. It is always interesting and inspiring to see other's works. In my search, I came across a group called Self Burning. The group is made up of two Russian artists named Nikolay Luchkiv and Alexsander Shpakov. This piece of theirs is called Field and I found it particularly interesting.

The piece is an experimental short movie that is about the idea of transformation. It is meant to show a very supernatural event in a very ordinary place. They also intended for the piece to play on the word "field." The surrounding area is a field, but a sort of transforming field is created in the video. It also plays on ideas of nature, mathematics and physics.

I have always been interested in art about natural elements, which is probably why this piece appeals to me. It is very interesting to watch and the scene itself is very dramatic. I often find art that is very simple, yet stunning at the same time, to be the most effective art. I find that when the artist goes to overboard on the deeper meaning of the artwork, the viewer can often be put off by the work if they don't immediately get what the artist is trying to say.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with deep art, because I often find myself doing the same thing. I believe that the important thing is that there has to be something physical that draws the viewer in and creates a desire to see the piece again. It is here that all the smaller details and deeper meanings can be noticed. This can also go too far the other way as well, creating art that is flashy, but has no meaning. It is the balance of the two that makes good art.

Art for Oneself

One topic that has always been interesting for me is whether or not artists make art for themselves or the viewer. Is it possible to make art specifically for oneself? The answer usually seems obvious, but the more you thing about it the less obvious it becomes. I've always been kind of back and forth on this so perhaps with this blog I can clear things up for myself.

The most obvious answer would be to say yes, you can make art for yourself. You often hear stories of reclusive artists who shut themselves up and make art that they never show anyone. The art is never found until after the artist has died. This may seem like they are making art for themselves, but one could argue that the art is still being made to be seen by others. Through the artist's death the art becomes available, probably even more so than it would if the artist tried to show it while they were living.

When thinking about it more personally, I thought that I made art that I never intended for anyone to see. I often fill up notebooks full of sketches and doodles done at work or school when I'm by myself. The more I think about it, however, I think that at some point in time they were seen by someone else. Whether a person happened to see me when I was drawing it or someone stumbled upon it later, they have been seen one way or another.

The only way I can think that art could be made for oneself would be to create something and completely destroy it. If the artist themselves were the only person to see it and then all traces of the artwork's existence are completely removed then I think one could argue that the art was being made for the artist. This brings up another argument. If the art is made and nobody sees it, is it really art?

Artist Book

I recently got the chance to visit OU's gallery. The show that was currently on was about the artist book. I have some experience with this having made one of these myself. It was particularly interesting to see some of the things other artists have done with their work. Here is couple pages from my book.

As you can see, my art has a very distinct comic book look to it. This is probably due to the fact that every page is done in ink and marker. This brings to my topic. Can a graphic novel be considered an artist book?

The common definition for an artist book is works of art realized in the form of a book. This sounds very similar to that of a graphic novel, which is an artistic book, produced by a graphic novelist utilizing the form of a comic book. Even this definition is starting to change as graphic novelists are becoming more abstracted and less tradition in their works. If they really are so similar, why do people have such a difficult time excepting graphic novels as art?

Other countries have had less difficulty with this. Japan's comics or "manga" actually stems from their traditional woodblock prints. They have also been credited for creating the first comic book. Their country, as well as many others, have had much less difficulty excepting the graphic novel as art. Perhaps one day people in the U.S. will be able to spend less time debating what is art and instead just appreciate something for what it is.

Developing Art

I've been finding myself creating more and more art based on personal experience. Much of my previous work as been of things of interest. It seems natural that I would do this, but that this is merely a way of distancing one's self from the art work. When the art becomes personal, the artist is laying all of their flaws and weakness out for people to see. This is probably why most create art of interest over personal art.

When I was in high school I was very interested in drawing anime and comic book art. I was very involved in drawing classes in high school, partly because it was an hour where I could draw and get credit for it and partly because I wanted to become a better artist. My teacher was constantly trying to push me away from comic art. I never drew much that I was interested in, but instead spent most of my time drawing still lifes. This was always a constant battle between my teacher and I.

It wasn't until later that I realized that it is impossible to grow as an artist creating the same type of work over and over. I have always loved comic art, but in order for me to grow as an artist, I needed to be able to draw from life as well. My teacher had my class create two self portraits, one at the beginning of class and one at the end. On the last day of class she showed us our original drawings and they were ridiculous. You never realize how much you grow unless you see it like that.

I think it can be the same with the type of art we make as well. If you get caught up in making art about one type of idea, technique or method, you limit yourself as an artist. Even if your good at what you do, the reason you do it over and over again because you feel comfortable doing it. By creating personal art, I find that the rest of my art develops as well. The art means something. The only problem is that it took eight years of art classes to figure this out.

Comics

I was recently at a very interesting talk at Oakland. The speaker was an English professor named Jeff Chapman and the talk was about graphic novels as art and literature. Graphic Novels are becoming much more accepted in the art and literary community. He argued that comics can be up there with other great works of literature and that comics are capable of many technical and narrative aspects that art and literature cannot do on their own.

He went on to explain some of these methods, showing some actual works as examples. One that had greatly influenced him from his childhood was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic book. What was so interesting about it was the way it told the story. Every page separated the panels into two completely separate stories that were happening simultaneously. The book ended with the two stories unexpectedly coming together.

Something like this could never really be told to the same effect in a novel. It is the combination of graphics and literature that creates this effect. He showed many other interesting works that other comic artists are doing now. Something that I had never really seen before that was interesting was abstract comics. These contained little to no words and had no fluid narrative.

I have always been interested in graphic novels and have been reading them since I was a kid. It is probably because of this that I have no trouble in agreeing with him that graphic novels can become great works of art and literature. I think one of the biggest problems with people's acceptance is that they limit themselves to thinking of comics as a pop culture item for children. Perhaps if people simple read more more than they wouldn't be so quick to judge.

Illusions in Art

Probably the first artist that I became really interested in as a kid was M.C. Escher. His work was always extremely interesting. Even though his work was done mostly from wood blocks and lithographs, I felt that I could relate to his work because it looked like pencil, my tool of the trade at the time. He was the first artist that inspired me to try and make art with more meaning than just a doodle.

Optical illusions have always been interesting to me. I have been playing with them in my artwork for many years now. My most recent attempt at combining the two was a video performance that was inspired by an ambigram done by Scott Kim called "True/False." His work is almost entirely text based. He makes his living designing puzzles and illusions in everything from puzzles to computer games.

Another artist that uses illusions that has inspired me in my work is Rex Whistler. He creates pencil drawn inversions of faces that when looked at upside down create a new image. That faces are very bizarre and all share some similar qualities between them. I used this idea to create a series of full bodied creatures in a series on optical illusions. The drawings were all done on a single board that could be flipped either way.

Although the majority of these artist's work may not be considered high art, it is what has always appealed to me. This is probably because it is much easier to connect with illusions because the meaning of the work is clearer than most high art. People understand that the work is suppose to create an illusion making it easier to except the work. On the other hand, if the illusion is deeper than that, it is often overlooked and the art is misunderstood. It's an interesting paradox.

Future

In the 1960s there was an architectural group called Archigram. Ron Herron, a member of the group, did a project called A Walking City in 1964 where he created architectural designs of buildings after a nuclear war in the future. This series featured drawings on insect-like buildings that can actually walk to locations throughout the city. They were meant to be intelligent robots that formed self contained living pods that could walk through the city. The idea was that they could plug in to different locations throughout a city to exchange supplies and occupants.

I am particularly interested in the style in which the drawings were done. They have a very unique style to them. Although they are recognized as looking futuristic, they don't really look like anything that we would expect in today's future. Today's vision of the future looks like something out of an Apple store. Everything is minimalist and white.

Ideas of the future fit to change the current technology. Since Apple's technology is considered to be some of the most "hi-tech," our general vision of the future is one designed by Apple. Herron's designs of these robotic buildings has a very distinct 60s style to it. It looks like someone took apart an old TV and made these robots out of the pieces. The current vision of the future is not reflected on any new ideas for technology, but of simply advancements of current technology.

I would be interested to see a group try to do a similar project in today's society. I'm sure that they would retain the popular minimalist look that Apple has made so popular. When looking at the future, people forget the one thing that is even more difficult to predict than the advancements in technology. That's style and fashion.

Apocalyptic Art

I was recently working on a paper for an art history class. For the paper, I needed to look for artwork from the 1950s to 1960s that deal with the future. Surprisingly it was an extremely difficult task, but in looking I came across a genre of art that I suppose I never really thought of as a specific genre of art. Apocalyptic art.

I have always been interested in the apocalypse in art, having done works including the Four Horsemen and scenes of Death. Now I have been looking at works as a collection. I find them extremely interesting.

When researching, I found that much of the art began after the bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Much of the art is of ruined, post war cities, completely devastated. They are desolate, sad yet much of them very beautiful. Some are very vibrant and fiery. They are very interesting works.

I have become very interested in these works. I am planning on researching this type of art further. I am interested in a lot of the theory behind the art. I would like to eventually begin to try and experiment with these elements in my own work.

Essence

I'm really interested in the TV series Lost. The last season just premiered and I was looking at some images of the characters and they recently made a reenactment of DaVinci's painting The Last Supper. When looking at this I came across at least 10 different renditions of this painting on the first few pages alone. This got me to thinking about whether or not a piece like The Last Supper loses something because of how iconic it has become through popular culture.

I think that the majority of people would be able to immediately identify The Last Supper when they see it. It is a very iconic image. If people haven't seen the original they at least recognize a rendition when they see it. It's easy for anyone to sit a semi large group of people, sit them at a long table, with one figure emphasized in the middle, and it would become a substitute for the work.

My question is does this take away for the piece itself? Does the work of art lose some of its meaning? I think it does. The painting is no longer a symbol for Christ and communion. It becomes merely an iconic image, a symbol, for others to use.

This has happened with many other famous works of art. The Mona Lisa, The Scream, and American Gothic are a few of the most commonly used paintings. Have these paintings also lost some of there essence or aura because of popular culture? I believe they have. I think that every single time one of these paintings is reproduced in some way, shape, or form, a little bit of their essence is lost forever.

Kinetic Art

I was recently looking at some video art on YouTube, when I stubbled across this piece by Tim Fort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRYo4V3HB8

Tim fort deals with kinetic art. His pieces are an giant elaboration on what we all used to do with dominoes as kids. The work is about cause and effect and are truly amazing. What I'm interested in is what part of this performance is the art.

Normally with art, the general consensus is that the finished process is the art. For artists like Jackson Pollock, it was the act of making it that was the art. But for kinetic artists like Tim Fort his work is destroyed when it's finished. The art exists only for its own destruction. Because of this, for kinetic art and other performance based works, it is not the finished product nor the act of creating it, but its own destruction that is the art.

Since this art only truly exists when it is being destroyed it can only be viewed as a performance. That means that this art can only reach larger audiences through video. Before video, if art like this was made it would exist only for the small group of people that saw it in action and then would be lost forever. It could be talked and written about, but it would never truly exist ever again.

Video has become a not only a method of creating art, but also immortalizing it. So many pieces of art have been lost forever because of an inability to record it. Through sites like YouTube we are able to spread art faster than ever before and also immortalize it further. People will copy that video from YouTube and duplicate it further than further. This ensures that the piece will never be lost, even if the creator destroys it.

Video

Most of the artwork I have done has been hand drawn and I have a somewhat limited experience with digital media. I did a little work in high school, but most of my art was with drawing and painting. Since in college, I began to work more with digital programs, such as Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Final Cut. I want to take this post to talk a little about my digital work, in particular video.

I was never really exposed to video art until I took a class in it. Most of my knowledge of video art was taken primarily from more "artistic" music videos. After becoming more involved and exposed in the world of video art. I began to realize how different the two are.

It is funny how ideas of art change as you slowly get influenced more and more by professionals. I remember thinking when I made my first video art piece, that I needed to pick out a song that would suite it. It seemed like such a necessity to have music in it. Now I think the only time I included music in any of my video works was for a music video.

One becomes much more aware of the little sounds when you make a video work. Since then I feel that I have really grown as an artist. I feel much more confident in my work. My work accomplishes what I want it to much more successfully.

Duality

I had previous touched briefly on one of my more recent projects I did on existence and duality. It is an artist book that translates natural elements into human emotions. It deals with opposites in nature together with opposites in personalities. It gives nature a human identity. I am interested on expanding on these ideas in a later work, so I want to expand on it through this blog.

The book itself consists of 24 pages and is divided into two sections: dualities and trinities. The dualities consist of two elements opposite in nature parallel to each other (light/darkness, fire/ice, air/earth, water/lightning, plant/metal, sand/mist). These objects are similar in one aspect, but opposite in another. The second part deals with trinities (bone/blood/flesh, sun/moon/stars, time/space/void.

The purpose of the book is to show that nothing can exist without its opposite. At the end, the last page is void, which is the absence of time and space. Since everything exists in time and space, the entire book becomes the opposite of void. The book proves that in order for something to exist, nothing must also exist because everything must have an opposite.

My obsession with existence probably has much to do with me growing up in church. I find the subject of existence very interesting. I often find it creeping into my work, even when I don't intend it to. All of my work can be traced back to religion. It is very important to me in my life so I suppose it's only natural that I make art about it.

Drawing to Digital

I have always had a strong background in drawing. I did four years of drawing classes at my high school and have taken a couple since I have been at OU. Although I love drawing, I realized that it would be much more difficult for me to get a job with my drawings than it would for me to just go digital. I still love to draw and that is probably why I still try to incorporate it into my digital work.

I have only used a small number of programs since I have been at school. Most of my experience has been with Photoshop and Final Cut. I have experimented with drawing several times, but nothing has really stuck. I really like the idea of using both in my work and finding someway to get the two to coexist in my work. I'm starting to think that I might have to choose between the two of them.

Art in Second Life

Most of the art I have been currently working exists in Second Life. I only have one studio art class this semester so I'm limited to what I am doing in this particular class. I've never worked with Second Life prior to this, so it has been an entirely new experience for me. When looking for some information on SL I happened across this article.

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artnetnews/artnetnews1-23-07.asp

It is amazing to see how many things are happening through Second Life. I never thought that there would ever be a thriving art world hidden in SL. I think the reason it attracts many artists is how easy it is to make things. It is surprisingly simple to make incredible sculptures that defy physics. Of course there are also so many more ways of creating art in SL.

Whether it's sculptural or social art, SL is really designed for this environment. It's so easy to gather small or even large groups of people together. No one has to step outside their front door. I also thinks SL attracts more people to art than I website might, is because of its three dimensionality. 3D art always loses something when transferred to two dimensions. This is a way of avoiding that.

I'm not sure how much most SL artists make, but it sounds like from the article that it's quite possible to make a decent living. Even if the transfer rate is about $250 to L$1, if your selling art in the 6 digits, it can really ad up. Plus you don't have to deal with any expenses in making the art because SL is free. The only costs would be if you want an island to show your work instead of gallery space, or if you wanted to buy something someone else made to use. I wouldn't be surprised if more artists start working virtual, even if it isn't just in SL.

Why I hate Mark Rothko

I recently had to give a presentation on Mark Rothko for my art history class. I never really liked his work, but here was a chance for me to find more about his art. I thought that maybe if I understood his art a little better, I would be able to appreciate it. After studying his art and theory I came to a conclusion. I really don't like Mark Rothko.

I guess it would be rude to limit it to just Rothko. Other groups gave presentations on other artists during the same time period. I think it has more to do with the Modernist ideology, than anything personal against Mark Rothko. The one commonality I found between the painters, Rothko, Pollock, Rauschenber, and de Kooning was that they are all hypocrites.

Rothko goes on and on about how he doesn't care about form and how his works are taking away form. His work his supposed to be about the emotions of colors. The problem is that if he didn't care about form, then why is he so obsessed with the rectangle. Every single one of his paintings contains rectangles. Over and over again, all he paints is different colored rectangles. Obviously the rectangular image must mean something to him, otherwise he would paint it so much.

The same holds true to all the others. Pollock tries to create random splatter art, but as soon as he decides to do something to the canvas, it is no longer random. Rauschenberg sits around complaining about how everyone else complains about art. It's all so pointless. It just feels like so many wasted years in art.

Memory Games

Most of the experience I have with art has been with drawing. I have slowly started to dable in painting and more digital media, such as video. Since I am not really familiar with a lot of video artists, and haven't been exposed to too much video art, I feel really limited in the field. I've started exploring it a bit on my own and came across this video.

http://www.videoart.net/home/Artists/VideoPage.cfm?Artist_ID=2757&ArtWork_ID=3082&Player_ID=2

It is a video piece by an artist named Yuval Yairi called "Memory Game." I found the piece particularly interesting. I love all the texture that is in the video, from the old worn books to the stone of the buildings. I found the comparison between taking books of a shelf and tearing down a building very interesting and intriguing. I thought the piece was simple, yet it got its point across smoothly.

To me, the piece was about books being a symbol for memory and the idea of tearing down knowledge. The video reflects on how books are slowly being removed from our society and as they are knowledge and memory are being removed with them. It uses the scenes of the buildings being torn apart to help show how destructive removing the books is. The video ends with scene of rubble and fades out, giving a grim outlook on the future.

I felt this video was very strong. I agree with the artists feelings about the loss of books and knowledge. It seems that with everything turning to digital and going paperless, the actual need for books becomes less and less. A person can now buy digital books, in which thousands of digital books can be stored and brought up at any given time. The question is, will deconstruction of books truly lead to the deconstruction of memory as well.

Number Theory

The last few posts I have been talking mostly about other people's art work, so I would like to take this post to discuss my own. Since I have spent much of my time learning a lot of new programs I haven't had much time to really focus in one particular area. Therefore, much of the commonalities in my work is in concept rather than any particular style or medium. The many reoccurring ideas in my work consist of time, existence, religion, nature, and numerology. Not all of them are obvious, but I find that some of these always exist in my work, whether I intend them to or not.

Much of my work dealing with time and numerology go hand in hand. I often include clocks in my work in order to bring focus to specific numbers, usually those that the hands of the clock are pointing to. I am particularly interested in the number 7. The number is meant to represent completion, this stemming from Genesis (the world created in seven days). I have been experimenting with patterns on the clock, particularly combinitions that add up to seven (1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2). Counting seven itself there are six numbers on a clock that when broken down to single digits, add up to the number seven: 7, 16, 25, 34, 43, and 52. Being only six, therefore incomplete, it lead me too latest obsession, the number 61.

Since there are only 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, for a clock to reach the number 61, it is impossible. 61 is a number that cannot exist in time. I have also been studying duality, meaning everything as an opposite and nothing can exist on earth without something to balance it. This means that if time exists, there must also be an opposite plain where time does not exist, where the number 61 can exist. This absence of time is called void and is represented in my work as the number 61.

I plan on expanding my theories on time and numerology as I continue my work. I don't really know where all of this will eventually lead, but at the very least I would like to create a set of symbols that helps to identify my artwork. These symbols would only mean something if the viewer was familiar with my work. The number 61 is only one item, but as I develop my own person theories I hope to add more to the list.

Art Theory

I am currently taking an art history class that focuses in art from 1940s to the present. Much of the work done in this time frame is some of my least favorite art. I would much rather be looking at art from the 1700 - 1800s, but that's a different matter entirely. What I would like to talk about today is art that we have been discussing in the class I AM taking. Art that is justified through writing and without it, would be truly atrocious art.

It's art like this that I really can't stand. This piece by Dubuffet, "Volonte de Puissance," is one of those pieces that truly infuriates me. This has to be one of the most unproductive periods in art. Despite being bashed by critics at the time as literally being called "caca art," many critics later changed their tune and went on to talk about how great it was. I think they had it right the first time.

I think what bothers me the most about art like this is the lack of skill required. This probably explains why I love much older art. I understand that it's art like this that is meant to progress art theory rather than be proof of any sort of skill, but I honestly think that too many artists back then and today that get so caught up in theory that the art itself is completely forgotten.

This ultimately comes down on art critics. An artist can only succeed if he is uplifted by art critics. The problem is that most critics care more about art theory than the art itself. This causes artists to be constantly pushing the boundaries and exploring new theories, and all together abandoning the art itself. I feel like I spend more time hearing about theories of other artists than actually developing myself as an artist...

High Art - Pop Culture

I was looking through some art related articles online when I stubbled upon this. It's article about a gallery in Beverly Hills showing Japanese anime displayed as high art. The exhibition is called "Anime! High Art - Pop Culture."

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2009-05-15

I had never seen anything like this where Japanese anime was being shown in a gallery. Most people see comic book art as something completely different from fine art. It has only been recently that Western comic art has started to be more respected as art.

I used to draw a lot of anime when I was in high school and being involved in art, I had always been steered away from drawing that because it was not "art." There has always been this dividing line between fine art and comic art. It is seen more as cartooning and childish. It's interesting to see how the general definition of art changes over time. It shows just how fickle art is.

It makes me wonder if something becomes art simply because it is seen in a gallery. It seems like as soon as something is shown in a gallery everyone immediately excepts it as art. if something is big, matted, and hung on a wall, it becomes art. This is really frustrating as a student trying to become an artist it means our work is only excepted as art once it shown in a major gallery. It's things like this that make me want to steer away from the art community...

Good Art

One of the questions that always seems to come up in art theory classes is "what makes good art?" It's one of those questions that no one can really agree on a definite answer. When looking at art, it is nearly impossible to get a group of people to agree that a single piece of art is good. There is always someone who love it and someone who will hate it.

Because of this, I believe that is no true classification or defining factors that separates art into categories.

It simply is a matter of opinion. For example, I enjoy a lot of older religious art like this painting by Benjamin West.

I enjoy the complexity of the piece, as well as the themes it depicts. By my definition, this painting qualifies as good art.

This next piece is done by a contemporary artist named Jose Morello. This is the type art that I really can't stand. In my book, this is bad art. I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. I'm also sure a lot of people would disagree. I'm sure he has his reasons for making art like this, whether I understand it or not.

I think that in order for art to be considered good it must mean something. Whether it means something to the viewer or the artist itself, whether it's intentional or not there is a reason for everything. I think it is the connection that is created between a person and art is what makes it good and gives it depth.

To start of my blog I would like to make my first post explain a little bit about my artwork. Most of the work I have done while I have been attending Oakland University, but I had a good art program at my high school so I did a lot of work while I was there as well. I have taken mostly drawing and painting classes while in high school, but I'm now starting to more video and digital work.

I have been into drawing for as long as I can remember. My dream was to become a cartoonist, then a graphic novelist, to a concept artist and finally to a "I don't care what I am, as long as I can get a job and make a decent living in this economy." I'm still very interested in comic art and a lot of it shows through in my work. I've done several works in ink and marker because I love the medium so much and have even created a 24 page book on ideas of existence, done completely in a very comic book style. This style of drawing has also shown through in some of video work as well.

Existence has been another reoccurring theme in my work. Probably because I've been involved in church all of my life. I keep finding that most of my ideas for art are in some way rooted to existence. I'm really interested in a lot of older religious art, particularly works by Benjamin West and Gustave Dore. I use a lot of similar subject matter such as angels, demons, death, and the four horsemen.

My goal is to utilize my skills in drawing for my digital art. Being unsure as to what I really want to do after Oakland makes it difficult to direct that at anything so I'm doing a lot of experimental work. Although I haven't done much work in it thus far, I think I will probably try to get into web design simply because there is a need for it and I enjoy doing it. It's hard to say for sure, but we'll see what the future brings.