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.