My first experiance of the Hayward Gallery came in September 2006, when I visited the exhibition, 'How to Improve the World: 60 Years of British Art, a show which I very much enjoyed. After being here, I wrote the following:
'Whilst viewing the exhibition, I found myself attracted to the pieces which had the highest stigma of fame in my opinion attached to them. The pieces by Tracey Emin, Sarah Lucas and Damien Hirst were immediate attractions, they are names I know, they have acheived a fame which I would like to establish. I didn't particularly like or understand Hirst's work, yet I spent a long time viewing it purely because of who he is. I think I am obsessed with fame.'
This is very true, and became even more apparent the next time I visited the Gallery, on a special events day for this show. The day was entitled 'Being There', which seems to be the most important notion in the current art world, if not in life in general. Being in the right place at the right time, speaking to the right people and making your face known is much more useful in become well known as an artist than putting time into work for it to become respected and famous for its own merits. But anyway, back to the show. The day was billed as an afternoon of live performance, featuring the artists Bob and Roberta Smith, Jessica Voorsanger, Aaron Williamson, Gavin Turk, Adam Dant, Stuart Brisley and Dean Brannagan. At the mention of Gavin Turk I became very exited. The idea of seeing him was very appealing. This made made me raise the question, am I more interested in the figure of the artist than of the work they do? However, I realised although I was looking forward to being around several practicing atists for the day, the only person I really wanted to see was Turk, because I was already familiar with his work and liked it very much. Perhaps I am not too fame obsessed.
A brief word about the work of one of the artists on this day, Jessica Voorsanger and her piece where several young girls could be hired to follow someone in the gallery around and approach them with autograph books, screaming their name in what was called a fan-o-gram. It is instant fame, recognition for no reason, not unlike the situation of the celebraties of today. This was organised this for my good friend Richard, much to his shock, and resulting in him never wanting to become a celebrity.
Side Note: Marcus, you are wrong, it is Antony Gormley on at the moment at the Hayward, not Andy Goldsworthy, what a patsy
Sunday, 25 March 2007
A Question of Media
Relating to the previous entry written concering the stylings of Contemporary magazine, and thinking about the artistic practice of Douglas Gordon, I am am going to pose the question, Is It Important To Have A Specific Medium?
Firstly, the idea of what a medium is neds to be clarified. According to Dictionary.com, the definition is:
1. a middle state or condition; mean.
2. something intermediate in nature or degree.
3. an intervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced.
4. the element that is the natural habitat of an organism.
5. surrounding objects, conditions, or influences; environment.
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.
7. one of the means or channels of general communication, information, or entertainment in society, as newspapers, radio, or television.
8. Biology. the substance in which specimens are displayed or preserved.
9. Also called culture medium. Bacteriology. a liquid or solidified nutrient material suitable for the cultivation of microorganisms.
10. a person through whom the spirits of the dead are alleged to be able to contact the living.
11. Fine Arts.
a. Painting. a liquid with which pigments are mixed.
b. the material or technique with which an artist works: the medium of watercolor.
12. a size of printing paper, 181/2 × 231/2 in. (47 × 60 cm) in England, 18 × 23 to 19 × 25 in. (46 × 58 to 48 × 64 cm) in America.
13. Chiefly British. a size of drawing or writing paper, 171/2 × 22 in. (44 × 56 cm).
14. Also called medium strip. Midland U.S. median strip.
15. in medium, Movies, Television. with the principal actors in the middle distance: The scene was shot in medium.
–adjective
16. about halfway between extremes, as of degree, amount, quality, position, or size: Cook over medium heat. He is of medium height.
The only point of real reference to this would be 11b, 'the material or technique with which an artist works'.
My initial thoughts on the question would be pose another one, being, 'should an artist be defined by the media you use?'. As a young artist, I often get asked, 'what do I do', of which the answer would be expected to be the name of a type of media. Even suggesting the answer of 'mixed media' leads to the conclusion that media is what I would first think of when starting a piece of work. The only general term I could muster to discribe my work would be conceptual art.
So then, could the term 'conceptual' be a type of medium? If a medium is a techique, for conceptualism could this be thinking? Perhaps I only believe that a medium is not imporatant as I do not fit in with the traditional ideas of medium. However if new ideas such as those trying to be put forward here are made known, the medium is once again made to be an important factor.
I think the point I am trying to get at here is that if a new medium is estalished which through this all types of set medium may be used to express it, the idea of having a specific medium may be ok. This seems rather contridictory, but if ownership of a medium is important, a new one needs to be created for those who put control into thought, which would be visualied through any stablished medium.
So as usual, I appear to have made a few random points without really answering the original quesion. Perhaps I should come back to this one.
Firstly, the idea of what a medium is neds to be clarified. According to Dictionary.com, the definition is:
1. a middle state or condition; mean.
2. something intermediate in nature or degree.
3. an intervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced.
4. the element that is the natural habitat of an organism.
5. surrounding objects, conditions, or influences; environment.
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.
7. one of the means or channels of general communication, information, or entertainment in society, as newspapers, radio, or television.
8. Biology. the substance in which specimens are displayed or preserved.
9. Also called culture medium. Bacteriology. a liquid or solidified nutrient material suitable for the cultivation of microorganisms.
10. a person through whom the spirits of the dead are alleged to be able to contact the living.
11. Fine Arts.
a. Painting. a liquid with which pigments are mixed.
b. the material or technique with which an artist works: the medium of watercolor.
12. a size of printing paper, 181/2 × 231/2 in. (47 × 60 cm) in England, 18 × 23 to 19 × 25 in. (46 × 58 to 48 × 64 cm) in America.
13. Chiefly British. a size of drawing or writing paper, 171/2 × 22 in. (44 × 56 cm).
14. Also called medium strip. Midland U.S. median strip.
15. in medium, Movies, Television. with the principal actors in the middle distance: The scene was shot in medium.
–adjective
16. about halfway between extremes, as of degree, amount, quality, position, or size: Cook over medium heat. He is of medium height.
The only point of real reference to this would be 11b, 'the material or technique with which an artist works'.
My initial thoughts on the question would be pose another one, being, 'should an artist be defined by the media you use?'. As a young artist, I often get asked, 'what do I do', of which the answer would be expected to be the name of a type of media. Even suggesting the answer of 'mixed media' leads to the conclusion that media is what I would first think of when starting a piece of work. The only general term I could muster to discribe my work would be conceptual art.
So then, could the term 'conceptual' be a type of medium? If a medium is a techique, for conceptualism could this be thinking? Perhaps I only believe that a medium is not imporatant as I do not fit in with the traditional ideas of medium. However if new ideas such as those trying to be put forward here are made known, the medium is once again made to be an important factor.
I think the point I am trying to get at here is that if a new medium is estalished which through this all types of set medium may be used to express it, the idea of having a specific medium may be ok. This seems rather contridictory, but if ownership of a medium is important, a new one needs to be created for those who put control into thought, which would be visualied through any stablished medium.
So as usual, I appear to have made a few random points without really answering the original quesion. Perhaps I should come back to this one.
Contemporary Magazine
Contemporary magazine incorporates lots of different media or disciplines within the artistic field. Its 'party line', taken from its website, is:
'We are a multi-faceted magazine, covering visual arts, news, books, trivia, architecture, design, fashion, film, music, new media, photography, dance, sport and much more'
Because of this, two arguments could be put forward about media (using this term as a collective for those above); is media the most important aspect of an artwork, which is why the journal trys to focus on as many as possible; or is it rather unimportant, is the magazine merely using the media as means of catergorisation, the ideas surrouding the work are the most important and the media is a constant that the magazine is able to use as a system to display the ideas of many different works.
Of course, this is one of those questions which could be argued to the end of time, and an answer never be reached, but I will try and give my thoughts on the matter here.
In this case, I believe the latter argument to be more likely. A magazine is a tool of communication, and for this to be done sucessfully, they message has to be given as clearly as possible. The magazine creates these catergories, and asigns the information brought to the forefront to them. It enabes the reader to reference the articles they are reading to a constant; if a theme is present, more concentration can be placed on specific content. I am not way suggesting that the magazine places no value on media, it is in fact embracing the different varietes and styles and using them as an outline for itself. It is just that the information that is displayed through the media is truely what they want to put across to the public.
'We are a multi-faceted magazine, covering visual arts, news, books, trivia, architecture, design, fashion, film, music, new media, photography, dance, sport and much more'
Because of this, two arguments could be put forward about media (using this term as a collective for those above); is media the most important aspect of an artwork, which is why the journal trys to focus on as many as possible; or is it rather unimportant, is the magazine merely using the media as means of catergorisation, the ideas surrouding the work are the most important and the media is a constant that the magazine is able to use as a system to display the ideas of many different works.
Of course, this is one of those questions which could be argued to the end of time, and an answer never be reached, but I will try and give my thoughts on the matter here.
In this case, I believe the latter argument to be more likely. A magazine is a tool of communication, and for this to be done sucessfully, they message has to be given as clearly as possible. The magazine creates these catergories, and asigns the information brought to the forefront to them. It enabes the reader to reference the articles they are reading to a constant; if a theme is present, more concentration can be placed on specific content. I am not way suggesting that the magazine places no value on media, it is in fact embracing the different varietes and styles and using them as an outline for itself. It is just that the information that is displayed through the media is truely what they want to put across to the public.
Harrisongs as a Private Company
Harrisongs Ltd. is a music publishing company, founded by George Harrison in 1965. At this time, the company was owned 80% by Harrison, and 20% by Brian Epstein, the manager of The Beatles until his death in 1967. From 1970, the company was owned outright by Harrison. That takes care of the factual history of the company, but does not explain the reasons why I or anyone else should be interested in this company. The music of the Beatles is very well known to most, and it is true financial issues behind the scenes probably had little to do with how well the four songwriters produced their music. All four members of the Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Harrison were assigned to Northern Songs Ltd who took responsibility for publishing their music. This would seem like a comfortable set up, the musicians able to get on and do what they do best, and once done, allowing someone else to deal with the beuracracy (i know). However both Harrison and Starr decided to break away from this comfort zone and form there own companies, Starr's entitled Startling Music. As a fan of George Harrison's music, my original interest lay with the vehicle behind his songs, but reading into the situation, i find the reasons to why it came about much more interesting, with respect to the so-called postions within the band, and how they were percieved by the adoring public. it seems to come down, as everythings seems to do, to a question of fame and money.
Douglas Gordon, here's what I know
It seems highly ridiculous for me to reiterate the biography of Douglas Gordon when a much clearer and fuller account can be found at the address:
www.gagosian.com/artists/douglas-gordon/
News of the artist's exhibitons can also be found here.
I was planning researching the themes of the work of Douglas Gordon to reiterate in my first blog, to give whoever choses to read this a clear picture of what he is about, so that can begin to appreciate him as much as I do. However, it occurs to me that if I was to do this, it somehow negates the reasons as to why I was attracted to him in the first place. It was a gut reaction, something that cannot easily be explained, but in some form or another I had some kind of understanding with his work and therefore himself and his thinking that went into the work. Looking back, now that I am familar with more of his work, I suppose my initial attraction stems from that I am familiar which the content that he uses within his work. I believe familiarity plays a big part in his practiced, and why the work is so well recieved.
The first piece of his I became aware of was 'Self Portarit as Kurt Cobain, as Andy Warhol, as Myra Hindley, as Marilyn Monroe'. I remember stumbling across the photograph in a book, and being quite amazed at just how much a blonde wig could alter someones look. It is such a simple photograph, Gordon seems to be in a bad mood; the story seems to go in my mind that a friend, possibly a girlfriend has put this wig on him in an attempt to make him smile, which has just infuriated him even more, but then he has perhaps catch a glance at himself in the mirror and asked to be phtographed. I often feel that titles are irrelavant in artwork, but in Gordon's case, particlarly in this piece they become key, the work does not work without it. It acts similarly to a joke; the story is told within the image, the pun given in the title. It is this kind of playfulness that I believe makes Gordon's work so appealing. It is something that people can understand and relate to, not too much indepth thinking is required. I'm not quite sure what that says about me.
There appears to be another key element of attration within the work, again working on the theme of familiarity; fame. In the piece, 'Self Portrait as...........', Gordon transforms himself from being his average, uninteresting self, by using one simple move to entwine himself with these legendary figures. Purely by doing this Gordon is seen in a more favourable light. Had this connection not been made, he would be seen as 'just a man in a wig', but in doing so the viewer brings the image of these people to the forefront to contrast with the image before them, picking out similarlties and pulling Gordon's fame up, closer to the status of the four characters. Gordon also uses the fame of Hollywood film within several of his pieces, most notably in '24 Hour Pyscho', the slowing down of Hitchcock's classic to take the duration of a full day. Most people will have seen this film, or will be aware of it, due to the famous shower scene. Gordon applys his system to the existing piece, connecting himself to it, but still holding it as his work. However, the public already have an inlet into the understanding of the piece due to the familiar content. Gordon is already half way there in expressing message in his work. What is this message? Many interpretations can be made, as they should be, but for me it is the idea of taking complete control of something that holds this much stautus and history to display it in an entirley new way. Gordon sees himself worthy of manipulating a film of this calibre, and so makes himself equal to the fame of it. By him doing this, its sets precedent for others to display themselves in this way. Anybody can famous.
The concept of familiarity runs through the ideas of several of the artists I have interest in, including Gavin Turk, Christian Marclay, Cindy Sherman and Gregory Crewsdon. I suppose familiarity is a relative term to interest however. What is known to me is not nessercarily known to others. But in the case of these artists, the images used relate to popular culture, something of which very few could be sheltered from. It seems to be part of the basic knowledge we all become instilled with, but no-one is quite sure how or why. Having said that, I am still incredibly grateful for it.
www.gagosian.com/artists/douglas-gordon/
News of the artist's exhibitons can also be found here.
I was planning researching the themes of the work of Douglas Gordon to reiterate in my first blog, to give whoever choses to read this a clear picture of what he is about, so that can begin to appreciate him as much as I do. However, it occurs to me that if I was to do this, it somehow negates the reasons as to why I was attracted to him in the first place. It was a gut reaction, something that cannot easily be explained, but in some form or another I had some kind of understanding with his work and therefore himself and his thinking that went into the work. Looking back, now that I am familar with more of his work, I suppose my initial attraction stems from that I am familiar which the content that he uses within his work. I believe familiarity plays a big part in his practiced, and why the work is so well recieved.
The first piece of his I became aware of was 'Self Portarit as Kurt Cobain, as Andy Warhol, as Myra Hindley, as Marilyn Monroe'. I remember stumbling across the photograph in a book, and being quite amazed at just how much a blonde wig could alter someones look. It is such a simple photograph, Gordon seems to be in a bad mood; the story seems to go in my mind that a friend, possibly a girlfriend has put this wig on him in an attempt to make him smile, which has just infuriated him even more, but then he has perhaps catch a glance at himself in the mirror and asked to be phtographed. I often feel that titles are irrelavant in artwork, but in Gordon's case, particlarly in this piece they become key, the work does not work without it. It acts similarly to a joke; the story is told within the image, the pun given in the title. It is this kind of playfulness that I believe makes Gordon's work so appealing. It is something that people can understand and relate to, not too much indepth thinking is required. I'm not quite sure what that says about me.
There appears to be another key element of attration within the work, again working on the theme of familiarity; fame. In the piece, 'Self Portrait as...........', Gordon transforms himself from being his average, uninteresting self, by using one simple move to entwine himself with these legendary figures. Purely by doing this Gordon is seen in a more favourable light. Had this connection not been made, he would be seen as 'just a man in a wig', but in doing so the viewer brings the image of these people to the forefront to contrast with the image before them, picking out similarlties and pulling Gordon's fame up, closer to the status of the four characters. Gordon also uses the fame of Hollywood film within several of his pieces, most notably in '24 Hour Pyscho', the slowing down of Hitchcock's classic to take the duration of a full day. Most people will have seen this film, or will be aware of it, due to the famous shower scene. Gordon applys his system to the existing piece, connecting himself to it, but still holding it as his work. However, the public already have an inlet into the understanding of the piece due to the familiar content. Gordon is already half way there in expressing message in his work. What is this message? Many interpretations can be made, as they should be, but for me it is the idea of taking complete control of something that holds this much stautus and history to display it in an entirley new way. Gordon sees himself worthy of manipulating a film of this calibre, and so makes himself equal to the fame of it. By him doing this, its sets precedent for others to display themselves in this way. Anybody can famous.
The concept of familiarity runs through the ideas of several of the artists I have interest in, including Gavin Turk, Christian Marclay, Cindy Sherman and Gregory Crewsdon. I suppose familiarity is a relative term to interest however. What is known to me is not nessercarily known to others. But in the case of these artists, the images used relate to popular culture, something of which very few could be sheltered from. It seems to be part of the basic knowledge we all become instilled with, but no-one is quite sure how or why. Having said that, I am still incredibly grateful for it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)