Thursday, 12 June 2008
I'm getting married.....
I'd just like to confirm a new blog that has been created, entitled 'Hayley Dixon and R B Grange are Wed'. It's true, we will be soon. For more details on the ceremony, probably mostly from the point of view of R B, but obviously with my input, go to the new page. And the ring is fabulous.
Monday, 25 February 2008
Cave Mark 2
Yesterday, Clare and I went to visit the 176 gallery, drawn by the lure of works by Frank Auerbach, Michael Landy, Gavin Turk, Gillian Wearing and Richard Wentworth.
On leaving one of the small upper rooms, I noticed the Turk piece above the door. I was immediately excited, as it was the 1991 piece Cave, probably my favourite of his works. I had never seen it before, and indeed commented that I did not know that it was still in existence. Our eyes were then drawn to the accompanying plaque, at which we noticed an anomaly; the date on the work was 1991, whereas the plaque read 1995. We quickly realised the work was a copy. It appears that in Turk establishing a name for himself through a seemingly unworthy method, he has indeed created a profile enough for his appeal being shown through out of context copies. The piece made no sense in this show, or will in any other position than the original, but proves that any connection made with the artist will be valued by the market, as it is of importance to the public. If this was Turk’s intention I applaud him, but I rather feel that he was conforming to the precedent rather than questioning it. Either why however, it has drawn my opinion, so value should be placed.
On leaving the gallery, we saw Richard Wentworth in the foyer. Had we arrived an hour and a half earlier we could have gone on a walk with him. So is life.
On leaving one of the small upper rooms, I noticed the Turk piece above the door. I was immediately excited, as it was the 1991 piece Cave, probably my favourite of his works. I had never seen it before, and indeed commented that I did not know that it was still in existence. Our eyes were then drawn to the accompanying plaque, at which we noticed an anomaly; the date on the work was 1991, whereas the plaque read 1995. We quickly realised the work was a copy. It appears that in Turk establishing a name for himself through a seemingly unworthy method, he has indeed created a profile enough for his appeal being shown through out of context copies. The piece made no sense in this show, or will in any other position than the original, but proves that any connection made with the artist will be valued by the market, as it is of importance to the public. If this was Turk’s intention I applaud him, but I rather feel that he was conforming to the precedent rather than questioning it. Either why however, it has drawn my opinion, so value should be placed.
On leaving the gallery, we saw Richard Wentworth in the foyer. Had we arrived an hour and a half earlier we could have gone on a walk with him. So is life.
Sunday, 10 February 2008
So long, and thanks for all the fish...
This is really an extended, more coherent version of my previous post entitled 'Familiarity'. All thanks to Hitchhiker's.
When Arthur Dent hitched a lift with Ford Prefect from earth to a spaceship of the Vogon Constructor Fleet in Douglas Adams’s The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, his disappointment was found in the lack of familiar around him; he thought if only something as simple as a box of cornflakes was present, he would have felt safe. The familiar provides us with a sense of security. Existing material is stable, unchanging, it is part of a system that is constantly relied upon not to surprise us. We take comfort in knowing exactly what we are going to get when we open up the packet of cornflakes each morning. The unknowns within life leave us exposed and unsure, and therefore it is only natural that we may try to find something to make our situation equivalent to, so it becomes more manageable.
Fortunately, this has been provided for us. Stories have been told throughout existence to explain the occurrences we experience throughout life. Life is used as a basis for which tales can be extrapolated from, forming a system of reference that runs alongside our everyday existence. This is constantly called upon to justify our lives and establish peace of mind. Due to this, the familiar establishes a position of importance.
The system that runs alongside our own is one that is a heightened version of our existence. This is why we chose to keep familiar with it, and hold it with so much regard. We begin to desire that which is presented all around us, as due to it’s popularity it seemingly becomes worthy. The more familiar something is, the more people that are aware of a certain thing, the more famous it is. The general public pick up on this hierarchy, and become more and more fascinated with allying one’s self with situation or character in an attempt to be raised to this status, and been seen in the same light as the subjects they revere.
The attraction has come from creating the appearance of being at a status that is deemed to be what others desire to see. It is the exterior view that provides the appeal rather than the reason for it. In creating the appearance or name of how they want to be seen, the individual moves themselves up in the apparent hierarchy to a position in which they feel more comfortable and appealing.
The ability to be viewed in a certain manner, one of which has been proved to be acceptable and just by those around provides a great sense of security. Fear comes in breaking out from the system; staying within to a certain extent ensures acceptance and acknowledgement. The lengths that are taken to achieve, then maintain the appearance vary depending on how strongly one desires the effect, and how much they want to distance themselves from the reality. Whether the process is necessary depends on those who surround, the audience for which the familiar role is created.
When Arthur Dent hitched a lift with Ford Prefect from earth to a spaceship of the Vogon Constructor Fleet in Douglas Adams’s The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, his disappointment was found in the lack of familiar around him; he thought if only something as simple as a box of cornflakes was present, he would have felt safe. The familiar provides us with a sense of security. Existing material is stable, unchanging, it is part of a system that is constantly relied upon not to surprise us. We take comfort in knowing exactly what we are going to get when we open up the packet of cornflakes each morning. The unknowns within life leave us exposed and unsure, and therefore it is only natural that we may try to find something to make our situation equivalent to, so it becomes more manageable.
Fortunately, this has been provided for us. Stories have been told throughout existence to explain the occurrences we experience throughout life. Life is used as a basis for which tales can be extrapolated from, forming a system of reference that runs alongside our everyday existence. This is constantly called upon to justify our lives and establish peace of mind. Due to this, the familiar establishes a position of importance.
The system that runs alongside our own is one that is a heightened version of our existence. This is why we chose to keep familiar with it, and hold it with so much regard. We begin to desire that which is presented all around us, as due to it’s popularity it seemingly becomes worthy. The more familiar something is, the more people that are aware of a certain thing, the more famous it is. The general public pick up on this hierarchy, and become more and more fascinated with allying one’s self with situation or character in an attempt to be raised to this status, and been seen in the same light as the subjects they revere.
The attraction has come from creating the appearance of being at a status that is deemed to be what others desire to see. It is the exterior view that provides the appeal rather than the reason for it. In creating the appearance or name of how they want to be seen, the individual moves themselves up in the apparent hierarchy to a position in which they feel more comfortable and appealing.
The ability to be viewed in a certain manner, one of which has been proved to be acceptable and just by those around provides a great sense of security. Fear comes in breaking out from the system; staying within to a certain extent ensures acceptance and acknowledgement. The lengths that are taken to achieve, then maintain the appearance vary depending on how strongly one desires the effect, and how much they want to distance themselves from the reality. Whether the process is necessary depends on those who surround, the audience for which the familiar role is created.
Louise Bourgeois
On the 13th of December I went to the Louise Bourgeois exhibition at Tate Modern. First thoughts, - seems very self indulgent, merely a visual representation of thought and experience without question; purely visual narrative. In viewing the works together, we are seeing the visual thought over a lifetime, the exhibition is indeed a visual map of a life. She is putting herself on show in the most blatant of manners.
I think now of modern day celebrity, or the unworthy celebrity, people attempting to get their lives into the papers, to become read about and become well known, but without any significant achievement to justify it. As a viewer, we may be interested for idle gossip purposes, but do not take it seriously. When then, when Bourgeois displays herself through the seemingly higher medium of art do we offer her respect and award greatness? Is her achievement the skill in which she displays herself? The crafting of the objects she has made?
As a viewer coming to this show, I think the real questioning lies here, why are we so eager to know about an artist, or life, with whom we have no connection to? But then that is the current culture, we desire to know about what goes on in the lives of others as we wish to be involved, we do not want to be seen to be missing out on anything.
Louise Bourgeois. A high class Heat magazine
I think now of modern day celebrity, or the unworthy celebrity, people attempting to get their lives into the papers, to become read about and become well known, but without any significant achievement to justify it. As a viewer, we may be interested for idle gossip purposes, but do not take it seriously. When then, when Bourgeois displays herself through the seemingly higher medium of art do we offer her respect and award greatness? Is her achievement the skill in which she displays herself? The crafting of the objects she has made?
As a viewer coming to this show, I think the real questioning lies here, why are we so eager to know about an artist, or life, with whom we have no connection to? But then that is the current culture, we desire to know about what goes on in the lives of others as we wish to be involved, we do not want to be seen to be missing out on anything.
Louise Bourgeois. A high class Heat magazine
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
A Phenomenological Experience of an Artwork
My intention was to write a description of the above on the Douglas Gordon piece, Confessions of a Justified Sinner. I cannot particularly give my reasoning for this, only for some reason this stood out to me over any other piece I had recently seen. Gordon has always been a particular favourite artist of mine; I seem to be able to relate my thoughts to his and gain understanding from them. I decided upon the artwork before truly discussing the idea of phenomenology, thinking this may be the best approach.
On viewing the meanings of phenomenology, it stuck me that the process of the task I have been asked to do is somewhat obscure.
‘Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.’
The above is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. The phrase structures of consciousness is particularly confusing as it suggests that what appears to our consciousness has the ability to be categorized. My impression of phenomenology is that it is a moment in time when the object you are confronted which completely overcomes your senses and emotions. The feeling it gives cannot be explained through any method of reason, but a connection has been made between yourself and the object, which has triggered memory and experiences to the forefront through your senses. Logic is void.
I have experienced this most significantly when listening to music. My most recent example of this was listening to the song Together by The Raconteurs, which appears on the album Broken Boy Soldiers. I have heard this song many times before, but it was only at moment I am about to refer to that it had such a specific effect. The moment was not particularly special; I was sat in my studio listening to this song on my ipod. There wasn’t very people around, it was quite quiet and I was doing anything else at the time. I cannot really say why the piece had such a profound effect on my, only that it seemed I had no control over myself, and I started crying in the studio. This is something against all of my rational instincts, to publicly display true emotion on a reason no-one else could relate too for it was very much my personal experience.
My apologies for being vague in this description, but as previously stated, I find this a very bemusing task. My phenomenological experience was taken from an object containing great structure, which was interpreted by my senses in this moment. In trying to write of this moment, I am re-categorising the event into a system of the English language, which is known to myself in any case. I am re-establishing a system through text that can never truly be done, and in trying to do so is undermining the original concept. This reasoning is also true of trying to recreate the emotion of this situation. I have since listened to this piece and tried to establish the same feeling as this moment. Due to my awareness of what I wanted it achieve however, I was unable to do so, I was putting pressure on the experience, it ceased to be a natural response.
I now find myself feeling slightly foolish in selecting the object of this writing before researching the concept. The same experience occurred when trying to recapture the moment of the song Together, I pressured myself into letting the Gordon piece to overcome my senses, rather than exposing myself to works and allowing the process to naturally occur. Although Gordon’s work means a lot to me, as I was approaching it with intent and reasoning, I was holding myself back from full involvement within it, preventing it from fully capturing my senses.
On viewing the meanings of phenomenology, it stuck me that the process of the task I have been asked to do is somewhat obscure.
‘Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.’
The above is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. The phrase structures of consciousness is particularly confusing as it suggests that what appears to our consciousness has the ability to be categorized. My impression of phenomenology is that it is a moment in time when the object you are confronted which completely overcomes your senses and emotions. The feeling it gives cannot be explained through any method of reason, but a connection has been made between yourself and the object, which has triggered memory and experiences to the forefront through your senses. Logic is void.
I have experienced this most significantly when listening to music. My most recent example of this was listening to the song Together by The Raconteurs, which appears on the album Broken Boy Soldiers. I have heard this song many times before, but it was only at moment I am about to refer to that it had such a specific effect. The moment was not particularly special; I was sat in my studio listening to this song on my ipod. There wasn’t very people around, it was quite quiet and I was doing anything else at the time. I cannot really say why the piece had such a profound effect on my, only that it seemed I had no control over myself, and I started crying in the studio. This is something against all of my rational instincts, to publicly display true emotion on a reason no-one else could relate too for it was very much my personal experience.
My apologies for being vague in this description, but as previously stated, I find this a very bemusing task. My phenomenological experience was taken from an object containing great structure, which was interpreted by my senses in this moment. In trying to write of this moment, I am re-categorising the event into a system of the English language, which is known to myself in any case. I am re-establishing a system through text that can never truly be done, and in trying to do so is undermining the original concept. This reasoning is also true of trying to recreate the emotion of this situation. I have since listened to this piece and tried to establish the same feeling as this moment. Due to my awareness of what I wanted it achieve however, I was unable to do so, I was putting pressure on the experience, it ceased to be a natural response.
I now find myself feeling slightly foolish in selecting the object of this writing before researching the concept. The same experience occurred when trying to recapture the moment of the song Together, I pressured myself into letting the Gordon piece to overcome my senses, rather than exposing myself to works and allowing the process to naturally occur. Although Gordon’s work means a lot to me, as I was approaching it with intent and reasoning, I was holding myself back from full involvement within it, preventing it from fully capturing my senses.
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Drawing
Is drawing the origin of all of the arts? A question put forward at a lecture given by Jean Luc French. Sorry, I don't remember his real name. Its not Picard though. Does drawing act as a map from which all other road come from? I'm not really sure how to answer this myself. I guess it depends on how general we are using the term of drawing. I wouldn't like to think that everything needs to begin from a visual translation. I suppose however, perhaps traditionally drawing is where everything began. For painting and sculpture, plans where made through drawing. Is everything else merely an extention, a translation of this humble beginning? Does this mean that drawing still has prevalence to all art works, or have we evolved enough for it to no longer matter?
Thoughts please.
Thoughts please.
Monday, 15 October 2007
Outlines
Thoughts which have occured after first reading through of 'Cezannes Doubt'. Merleau-Ponty explains through his essay that 'To trace just a single outline sacrifices depth - that is, the dimension in which the thing is presemted not as spread out before us but as an inexhausible reality full of reserves.' Cezanne does not use outlines within his work, rather his us of colour and brushstrokes allows forms to blend. My immediate thought as an opposite to this process is the Julian Opie works of the band Blur. I am just realising the severe irony of this title. Cezannes work is described as having a more correct view of the world, he depicts objects not 2-dimensionally, but records with the depth he views through movement. And yet, if I were to see a Cezanne piece and an Opie piece sat side by side in a gallery, it indeed would be the opie which caught my attention. Does this mean I am choosing t reject the world around me in favour of a simplified, understandable viewpoint? Obviously, there are other factors at work within my attraction, it is not just form, but content, particulatly in the given example which may seem more appealing. But the issues of fame would be put as equal, I could probably argue that Cezanne holds more than either Opie or Damon Albarn (it is his particular portrait of which I am thinking).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)