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.