Check out the wonderfully creepy wrinkled wall install.
Check out his work
10.23.2008
10.22.2008
this friday
Dear All,
If possible, I highly recommend you attend the artist presentations this Friday 12-3pm. These are three finalists the Department and School have invited to propose for site-specific work in conjunction with the new building. The artists will discuss their process and make a formal proposal in order to aquire the bid to be the finalist. Artists are working with a budget that will have to be considered in their presentation... it should be REALLY informative.
(The artists are Willie Cole, Jonathan Shahn, and Chakaia Booker)
The meeting is in the ADMIN SERVICES BLDG (look on tcnj map, if you are not aware of it) rooms 103 and 203.
PLEASE RSVP to me with a yes or no, so I can give a final headcount to the Dean.
THANKS!!!
10.21.2008
Nadia and Barthes and Warhola
I feel like I can't even say, "Death of the Author" by Barthes because it would contradict his entire essay. This essay actually took me back to my first year at the college taking an approaches to lit class. My professor threw two poems at us and said, "One of these is good and one of these is bad." After reading the poems (The authors and titles escape me, It was 3 years ago) I concluded that first one was very open to interpretation whereas the second one was much more specific and personal. The second poem was certainly not easy to relate to and it was also the poem that earned the most merit in my professor's eyes. You could essentially figure out the author without ever being told.
Warhol truly had a way of unifying his life and his work almost completely and at the same time managing to keep himself personally out of a majority of the works. It's interesting to once again encounter one of his more well known quotes, "In the future everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes" because he totally called it. I feel that if Andy were alive today he would fit in perfectly with the advent of reality TV. Sure, he was shrewd and at times stresses this lack of emotion, but I think this technique benefited him as a business man. The lack of emotion is what makes him fascinating. As artists we tend to conduct pieces based on feelings. Feelings and emotions are bursting out of almost every kind of art, but what a concept to create art that tries to make us numb to all emotion. He states, "...Because the more you look at the same exact thing, the more meaning goes away, and better and emptier you feel."
Warhol truly had a way of unifying his life and his work almost completely and at the same time managing to keep himself personally out of a majority of the works. It's interesting to once again encounter one of his more well known quotes, "In the future everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes" because he totally called it. I feel that if Andy were alive today he would fit in perfectly with the advent of reality TV. Sure, he was shrewd and at times stresses this lack of emotion, but I think this technique benefited him as a business man. The lack of emotion is what makes him fascinating. As artists we tend to conduct pieces based on feelings. Feelings and emotions are bursting out of almost every kind of art, but what a concept to create art that tries to make us numb to all emotion. He states, "...Because the more you look at the same exact thing, the more meaning goes away, and better and emptier you feel."
James G: Warhol, Barthes, and that dude who talks to himself
The readings this week talk about the way audience responds and interprets art, how they should interact with art. In “Death of the Author,” Barthes suggests there should be a disconnection between the artist and the audience. He feels that artwork or literature should stand alone with no regard for who made it. He feels that if the author’s biography is taken into consideration a caricature of the author/artist casts a cloud over the work which then prevents it from being properly analyzed.
Lucas Samaras says that he wants to protect himself from other people’s imagination. Lucas Samaras seems to simultaneously want to keep himself separate from the audience and be accepted by them. Within half a page he says “most of my work was done to prove to others including myself that I was an artist” and then that he is running away from people’s evaluations. He doesn’t want the audience to interpret his work, but he makes it anyway. It is an interesting question whether or not the artist and the audience should have a relationship, or just the audience and the artwork.
There is no direct contact between the artist and the audience, the only communication is the artwork. There isn’t an ongoing dialogue between the two, the artist throws his work into the world, and then it is consumed by masses with the artist having no say over how the audience digests it. I think that aspect scares Lucas Samaras.
In contrast, Andy Warhol probably thought it is a wonderful idea that his artwork could be treated like a commodity, to be consumed and digested without his say in the matter. Andy Warhol says that his work is distant from himself, that there is only surface to the work. He doesn’t seem to want there to be an interpretation at all, just consumption.
Lucas Samaras says that he wants to protect himself from other people’s imagination. Lucas Samaras seems to simultaneously want to keep himself separate from the audience and be accepted by them. Within half a page he says “most of my work was done to prove to others including myself that I was an artist” and then that he is running away from people’s evaluations. He doesn’t want the audience to interpret his work, but he makes it anyway. It is an interesting question whether or not the artist and the audience should have a relationship, or just the audience and the artwork.
There is no direct contact between the artist and the audience, the only communication is the artwork. There isn’t an ongoing dialogue between the two, the artist throws his work into the world, and then it is consumed by masses with the artist having no say over how the audience digests it. I think that aspect scares Lucas Samaras.
In contrast, Andy Warhol probably thought it is a wonderful idea that his artwork could be treated like a commodity, to be consumed and digested without his say in the matter. Andy Warhol says that his work is distant from himself, that there is only surface to the work. He doesn’t seem to want there to be an interpretation at all, just consumption.
Barthes, Samaras, & Warhol
When does an artist’s persona and individual history become unwarranted within others interpretations of his or her own artwork? Gathering from this week’s readings of Roland Barthes, Lucas Samaras, and Andy Warhol, an artist’s vision and connection to his art can be exaggerated, twisted, and/or lost in translation.
Roland Barthes’ Death of the Author explicates the literary ideas of a “special voice” and an author’s relationship to his work. From this text, one might realize the similarities between writer and artist and thus construct parallels between the two creative disciplines. Death of the Author addresses topics such as the identity and generalization of a work and the creative mind behind its conception. In relation to our current class discussions, an artist may relate to the identity Barthes’ writes of that a writer must loose. Barthes’ examples of character becoming a component in generalizing an artist’s work such as “Van Gogh’s madness” can be said of many other noteworthy people in literature and art. For example, Artemisia Gentileschi, a member of the Caravaggisti, not only embraced the grittiness of Caravaggio, but also had the ability to transform the conventions of seventeenth-century painting and give new content to the imagery of the female figure. Gentileschi’s work depicting either innocent and victimized (Susanna and the Elders) or strong vindictive females (Judith Decapitating Holofernes) is often coupled to her personal experiences of being raped. This association can be seen as an additional layer to the psychological underpinnings of Gentileschi’s work, or as detraction from the craftsmanship, content, and skill put into her art as a whole.
Barthes’ postmodern perspective of a successful form of literature requires an author’s identity to be completely erased from his work leaving only language itself behind. Is this belief applicable to an artist and his/her work? Lucas Samara’s “auto interview” and Andy Warhol’s quotable quotes are snippets inside an artist’s mind, or at least that’s what they want you to think. Gathering from these excerpts, one can see how easily an artist’s thoughts and words can be interpreted different ways all depending on the language in which it’s described. In Samara’s auto interview he asks himself, “Why are you conducting this interview?” over seven times, and for each question, he responds with a different answer. Andy Warhol’s commentary on the press quoting him: “ I’ve been quoted a lot as saying, “ I like boring things.” Well, I said it and I meant it”, is accompanied with an elaboration: “…But that doesn’t mean I’m not bored by them.” A work of art can gain meaning by an artist explaining it, but an explanation has the possibility of also devaluing or failing to provide substantial backing to a piece of art. Should a work of art stand separate from its creator? If so, how does internal sourcing relate to this perspective? In the words of Barthe:
“The author is supposed to feed the book. He pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with is child. Quite the contrary the modern writer is born simultaneously with is text; he is in not way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate…”
A work of art or literature cannot exist without a creator (be it concept, or manual work). I believe the voice or identity of an author or artist has the ability to live on within the work he or she produces. Creative vision and character can be linked together, but according to Barthe, a writer or artist should be capable to step back and disconnect his personal-self. Through this, an artist concurrently reinvents himself/herself alongside his/her work. This work becomes no longer defined by a character or persona, but purely by the words and/or images that exist before the viewer.
A witty title about DEATH, by Lauren
The theme of this week’s readings revolved around the question of, “Who am I and what is my purpose in creating?” This is a good question to ask oneself, certainly. Purposeless people are terribly dull. But I don’t know if everyone else needs to also know the answer to that question.
In the two interviews we read, I found some statements by Warhol and Samaras to be profound. Other statements were absolutely inane. And in the end, I did not know either of them any better than I had previously. Knowing oneself is a valuable thing, but thinking everyone else wants to, or should, know you, or that you can get to know a person through something like an interview or clever quotations, is mistake.
On the subject of the death of the author/artist, no matter what a writer or artist’s intentions are it is impossible to shut out the filter of personal experiences and philosophies when creating. The self will always be an influence and always come across in the work somehow. But I do not find it essential to know about the person behind a work to have an opinion about the content and quality of that work. Art needs to work on two levels: there is a relationship between the artist and the work, and the relationship between the work and its audience. Those two relationships do not need to be parallel. The relationship of the artist to their work doesn’t need to be laid bare to an audience or taken into consideration by critics when judging the meaning or value of a work. I’d go so far as to say what makes an artist good is to transcend the need for explanation and background. The work should always speak for itself. Besides, literary and artistic criticism is by its nature absurd, no?
In the two interviews we read, I found some statements by Warhol and Samaras to be profound. Other statements were absolutely inane. And in the end, I did not know either of them any better than I had previously. Knowing oneself is a valuable thing, but thinking everyone else wants to, or should, know you, or that you can get to know a person through something like an interview or clever quotations, is mistake.
On the subject of the death of the author/artist, no matter what a writer or artist’s intentions are it is impossible to shut out the filter of personal experiences and philosophies when creating. The self will always be an influence and always come across in the work somehow. But I do not find it essential to know about the person behind a work to have an opinion about the content and quality of that work. Art needs to work on two levels: there is a relationship between the artist and the work, and the relationship between the work and its audience. Those two relationships do not need to be parallel. The relationship of the artist to their work doesn’t need to be laid bare to an audience or taken into consideration by critics when judging the meaning or value of a work. I’d go so far as to say what makes an artist good is to transcend the need for explanation and background. The work should always speak for itself. Besides, literary and artistic criticism is by its nature absurd, no?
10.20.2008
Death of Cody and Warhol
arhol writes in a way that is very relatable, yet eludes to a sense of chosen words used to further an image of an enigma. Though I don’t find him credible on “factual” aspects of is life, the opinions about art and business are blatant. What is intriguing about Warhol is that he doesn’t need to fluff his writings with pretentious language to sound serious. He says what he feels and leaves it at that, highlighting the obvious and straight-to-the-point thoughts on art and humanity.
“And the more you decide, the more wrong it gets. Some people, they paint abstract, so they sit there thinking about it because thinking about it makes them feel like they are doing something.” – Andy Warhol Ibid, 149.
I feel I can relate with Warhol in an innate sense. I seem to personally struggle with this idea, that thinking can easily obstruct the creative process that is driven by intuition. Though, it is quite important to understand your piece and own it, not to have it leaving you blubbering about the ‘content’. I’m torn between letting myself instinctively work, but at the same time making sure everything has a purpose and will further the piece. Its difficult because the more I think, the more ideas come and take the place of what has been working, causing a discord and ending in frustration.
What I took out of “Death of the Author” was that the writer feels that he is apparently dismissed because I am now deciphering his message. According to Roland Barthes, the author of this article, the moment an idea is spoken by a third party to a fourth party, neither being the creator, the idea changes and becomes ultimately less powerful. This is seen in many instances. “The book was good, some people went on a road trip and found a magic book and killed people.” This is an example of what we here everyday; a quick synopsis of someone’s idea that is translated to fit our rushed lifestyles. The only way a reader, or second party, could fathom the entirety of the creators idea is to experience it themselves. Even then their mind lends its own experiences and opinions into the forming of interpretation.
Though this does make sense, it is crucial for an artist to debutante their ideas to the world. Art is not only therapeutic but can also hold strong messages. It’s a vehicle for the creator to be heard and contribute to a wider societal demographic. An artist thrives off of public criticism and opinion, using them to mature his ideas. Though I believe Barthes is accurate to an extent, this is an inevitable repercussion of a creator’s nature.
“And the more you decide, the more wrong it gets. Some people, they paint abstract, so they sit there thinking about it because thinking about it makes them feel like they are doing something.” – Andy Warhol Ibid, 149.
I feel I can relate with Warhol in an innate sense. I seem to personally struggle with this idea, that thinking can easily obstruct the creative process that is driven by intuition. Though, it is quite important to understand your piece and own it, not to have it leaving you blubbering about the ‘content’. I’m torn between letting myself instinctively work, but at the same time making sure everything has a purpose and will further the piece. Its difficult because the more I think, the more ideas come and take the place of what has been working, causing a discord and ending in frustration.
What I took out of “Death of the Author” was that the writer feels that he is apparently dismissed because I am now deciphering his message. According to Roland Barthes, the author of this article, the moment an idea is spoken by a third party to a fourth party, neither being the creator, the idea changes and becomes ultimately less powerful. This is seen in many instances. “The book was good, some people went on a road trip and found a magic book and killed people.” This is an example of what we here everyday; a quick synopsis of someone’s idea that is translated to fit our rushed lifestyles. The only way a reader, or second party, could fathom the entirety of the creators idea is to experience it themselves. Even then their mind lends its own experiences and opinions into the forming of interpretation.
Though this does make sense, it is crucial for an artist to debutante their ideas to the world. Art is not only therapeutic but can also hold strong messages. It’s a vehicle for the creator to be heard and contribute to a wider societal demographic. An artist thrives off of public criticism and opinion, using them to mature his ideas. Though I believe Barthes is accurate to an extent, this is an inevitable repercussion of a creator’s nature.
Museum Chachki
As I read this week's reading, which included of a litany of isolated statements attributed to Andy Warhol, one struck me in particular: 
"When you think about it, department stores are kind of like
museums."
Though Warhol meant to glorify department stores with this observation, perhaps the inverse is more true. Museums are just like department stores, where art is merely a commodity to be procured, reproduced infinitely as prints, magnets, bags, postcards, mugs, calendars, and various other useful incarnations, and purchased infinitely. I find this process of imposing meaningless function on the work a little unsettling.
One of the most overwhelming places I've ever been was the gallery store at the end of the Frida Kahlo exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Strangely, replicas of her jewelry, clothing, pottery,
even toy versions of her pets were just as plentiful as the reproductions of her paintings. I found it fascinating how artists' personas could be auctioned off just as easily as their work is. In many ways, Andy Warhol did just that--but to himself and his own work. The mass-production of his work sickens most of us, yet what was the alternative? Dying in obscurity, only to have a museum pimp out both your work and identity after your death?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)