Thursday, October 28, 2010

Ron Graff


Our presenter this week, Ron Graff, was the first lecture we’ve had involving any form of painting. His quick wit, edgy vocabulary, and opinions on his art make him very intriguing. He began by telling us about his background, explaining that he failed out of high school, and with no degree, entered the Navy. When he returned, he enrolled at Weed College in California, where he studied to be an engineer like his brother. However, he soon decided against that profession and attempted to be an artist. In was then he met Professor Wilbur, who Graff was fascinated by because the professor had the ability to correct the contrast, colors and shades of a painting to make it easily resemble the actual scene. Ironically, Wilbur was fired the same year he received the “Teacher of the Year” award from the Art Institute. I thought that Graff’s insight on the matter was spot-on, observing that there were too many rules now-a-days of what you can and cannot do in relation to art, that it makes it almost impossible to teach. It seems that people are afraid that someone’s feelings will get hurt if their art is corrected or altered, because in their eyes, everything is “art”.


From this week’s lecture, the point that really stood out in my head was when Graff said that you needed to paint something you hate, and you won’t hate it anymore. You have to recreate it for yourself. An example of this within his own work, was his paintings of flowers. He called his first few pieces “stupid” because they never turned out the way that he wanted them to, but when he moved to Oregon there were flowers everywhere he could use, and he began painting them all of the time. This goes without saying, that Graff’s idea is relative to a lot more things even outside of art. Hearing about popular television shows or movies can make you despise them because you never think they’ll live up to the hype, but when you actually watch them, you fall in love. Or, for me, an example comes from my summer job. I never found myself dying to get out on a golf course. There were few occasions I can recall that I had a burning desire to just “play some golf”, but this summer, I worked as a maintenance employee at Michelbook Country Club in McMinnville. After spending 8 hours a day doing everything you possibly can to make the course playable, all you want to do is get out there and play. You may think things are boring or not intriguing, but when you actually try it and give it a chance, you may end up falling in love.


The readings this week had a lot to do with identity politics, which I learned are basically the political arguments focusing on self-interest and perspectives of minority groups. In “Searching for the Essence of Art,” Arthur Danto refers to our society as a sinking ship where everyone is trying to kill one another. In laymen’s terms, we’re all being selfish while our planet is being destroyed. Danto’s concern is what is happening to earth and how much more it’s able to handle. Coco Fusco stresses how important the past is in her interview in “Two Undiscovered Aborigines Dancing on the Wound of History.” She said that “in a moment where some - not everybody, but many people - involved in making contemporary culture are really interested in transforming what we understand as art.” I found this interesting because it seems as if we are trying to understand our past but are unable to. Fusco seemed very frustrated by this. In her exhibit where she posed as an aboriginal inhabitant from an island in the Gulf of Mexico, she was treated poorly by spectators; beer bottles of urine were tossed at her, teens attempted to burn her with cigarettes and grown men treated her as an animal by making gorilla noises directed at her. What she did was very bold, because she wanted to represent her body as an image of what should be the endlessly recycled colonial motives that our country was formerly based on.

For my visual piece this week, I’d like to show you the golf course I found employment at. I was thinking a lot about the course, so here she is..


Thursday, October 21, 2010

They be snappin', Baby!

Four weeks in and I’d dare say I’m developing an eye for this stuff. Professor Dan Powell, a decorated instructor at the University of Oregon, gave a presentation in class this week; an impressive one, at that. Powell is an experienced photographer who has taken pictures literally all over the world. His art has been featured in more than one hundred exhibits across the world, and we are fortunate enough to call him our own here at the U of O. I was worried for Powell when he started speaking and his faint whisper sounded a lot like a lullaby I’ve heard in the past, but his work seemed to shout as he projected it to our classroom projection wall. Powell described his work as “photographic language”, and said he became inspired with not only his camera and his photos but the way he could manipulate and layer his images into something that portrayed language and feeling. His recent work connected closely to his dedication and love for traveling, as well as a medical condition that gave him another chance to live, which was a humbling experience for him, he expressed. Powell used the beauty of landscape, sculptures as a stage for his photographic pieces. Being from the Northwest, his passion and love for the outdoors is apparent in his images. To me, this is very special, because I too have a deep love for Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Sure, it’s nice to travel to big cities with warm, dry weather year-round. Or, to mountains with snow 12 months out of the year, but there is something about those four very distinct seasons we see in the Northwest that keep me coming back for more. To see Powell share that same love is like a breath of fresh, Oregon air.


In When You’re Healed, Send Me a Postcard, James Hillman explains that therapy results in self-preoccupation, much like how art, over time, has become more individualistic and lost connection with the outside world. Hillman's point that people have been going into the world unhealed for thousands of years is a valid one. He asks, "Is anyone healed?", and it really made me think. We all have our own issues that affect us on different levels, but I do not think there is one person who is completely level-headed. That being said, people get by with whatever cards their dealt. Some things are better off because of it, and others worse. Carolyn Merchant explains that art has become completely visual with any participation to a "faceless" audience in her interview from Viewing the World as a Process, because there is no direction to anyone in particular. This seems to be quite converse thinking in comparison to last weeks' reading, which said that art shouldn't have any deeper meaning than aesthetic presentation.


I'm beginning to think that Art is what you want it to be and what you make of it. If you want art to move mountains, break barriers, and inspire people, then it will. If you want art to give people something to look it, then do just that. But whatever you do, visit Portland.



http://www.picmet.org/conferences/2005/images/portland3.jpg





Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Goodbye, Blue Skies.

As I reread my first two blog posts, it seems that I have addressed the speaker more so than I have the readings, and focused more emphasis on the in-class presentation rather than my tone or blog presentation. Nonetheless, I have enjoyed writing about their style of art and what their goal in creating different pieces was. However, this week when listening to Jack Ryan, to be honest, I wasn’t sure if I had any idea what he was talking about. Now that’s not to say I wasn’t listening, but I would have to agree with my classmate who made the comment of his work being like a science experiment. I found it interesting to see his views on what makes an artist and how artists what their work to be taken.

“I want the audience to have an experience. I want my work to generate complex questions,” said Ryan, when speaking of his own work. For me, his work did these things. “I feel like I’m on a trip,” came from a few rows back during the presentation. Whether this statement was generated from the presenting artist or illicit drug use, I felt the same thing.

In the interview with Hilton Kramer, I thought he touched on valid points about where the direction of art was headed too. “I find these comments interesting… you seem to suggest that they (traditional artist) are in the position of underdogs at this point” (111). I had to read over this passage a couple times before I could really digest it and make something out of it. I feel like Kramer and I might share a similar view on art in the sense that today, it seems as though anything can be considered art, if that was the intention, and we are teaching young artist to be different and be more modern in their pieces. Maybe it is that I am misunderstanding his argument, but I can’t help but feel like we label too many things as art and read too much into the simplicities of life and nature. Now maybe going back to these simplicities is what we as a nation or people need to do to fix the different environmental and global issue we currently face but I am not exactly sure….

I actually thought Satish Kumar’s interview was a little more down to earth and reasonable because he seemed more in tune with art as a changing process and the need to constantly push the boundaries. Specifically, I liked what he had to say about what we need to do to “fix” the world. “Why the world is facing this crisis is because we have become dualists, we have separated ourselves from nature…Whereas the artist can still see the relationship of unity between human beings and nature” (148). I thought this was really moving because I have always believed artists have been on the cutting edge of where we, as a nation, are headed. It got me to think that maybe artists today are trying to say something about the present and feel a need to express it. Not simply painting a landscape or drawing a Maple Tree that sits alone in a white room, but physically getting out there and creating art with raw materials and using nature as their canvas.

I feel like I may have taken a step back this week in truly understanding art. I looked at Jack Ryan’s work and could not get the words “science experiment display” out of my head. That being said, I was thoroughly engaged with the presenter and felt like his work was deeply impressive. His incorporation of music into his work was my favorite aspect of his art. I have a passion for music, and seeing him share that passion gave me a bit a bias in his favor.

Here is one of my favorite songs with the title being directly tied to one of Ryan’s pieces..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0v07InoFiU

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Colin Ives, boii!

Week two is underway, and the Artist’s Experience is continuing to challenge how my mind looks at art. The University’s Director of Digital Arts, Colin Ives, presented his work to the class this week, and similarly to Professor Warren’s work, Ives primarily works with digital media, such as, photography and video. Also, in Ives most recent work, he puts a heavy emphasis on ecological issues, which, conveniently, fits right in with this week’s readings by Rachel Dutton, Rob Olds, and Christopher Manes.

Taken from “Doin’ Dirt Time,” Rachel Dutton speaks of her work and says, “The images in my work were what would grow from that seed if it had a chance to grow; it was a new way of living with nature, something that’s different from what culture provided.” Ives’ piece, The Clearing, demonstrates this point very well; only, he does it backwards. Rather than showing what would have been there, if it wasn’t for mankind, he shows what mankind does to a certain setting. In his interactive video installation, he finds a way to use the audience to deliver a very powerful message. It is my understanding that Ives used an oscillating projector to project a thin image onto the wall. This 360-degree, interactive experience, projected what appeared to be a wooded area, until someone in the room came between the projector and the wall. When the projection was interfered with, the projection on the wall turns from a wooded area to a clear cut. This actively displays Ives’ message that humans interacting with ecological areas is harmful.

The environment and natural world are topics that have taken a back seat in modern art to that of mankind, industrialization, and what we consider to be our world. These few articles offer a revitalization of environmental art and respect for the world around us for which we have done just as much to destroy as we have to promote. The second article entitled “Making Art About Centipedes” discusses this feeling of superiority that we as humans feel towards our animal relatives and brings forth the ignorance in the statement. We feel so powerful but what do we have that sets us apart from other species? This is a question that I have found very surprisingly hard to answer. After all mankind has become extinct what will still endure on this earth, the answer is nature. Nature has endured for all time through civilization after civilization it has remained constant, and we still think of ourselves as powerful?

The connection between this weeks’ readings and our presenter Colin Ives is not one that is hard to see. The environment is much more powerful than mankind will ever be, yet we lose sight of this concept in thinking that we are the center of this world. In this time of ignorance and selfishness, artists have found a way to communicate the importance of awareness to the pubic in an effective manner just as you see in the work of Ives. Hopefully one day we will begin to see more of an awareness for our environment and our place in the world as humans, but for now what we have is art.

Here is a little tid bit that I would like to share with you.. Related? Tough to say..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BgjH_CtIA