Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Douglas Gordon at the Hayward Gallery
The exhibition, 'Douglas Gordon what have I done' was held at the Hayward Gallery between 1st November 2002 and 5th January. I have only quite recently discovered that this exhibition took place, and on doing so was quite upset that I did not attend it. However, for the exhibition, a publication was produced titled with the same words as the show, which I stumbled across in the library not too long ago.
To Be Continued
To Be Continued
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Discussion with RB Grange
Last night I had a very interesting discusion with RB Grange about systems and rules. We were speaking about the way our work incorporates these themes, and the way we think about them. We are both quite obsessed with them, but in quite different ways. RB seems to be involved with stripping back the information he receives from around him to its basic rules and principles, where as I am more concerned with fitting myself into already established systems, particularly those created for popular culture. An example of such structure is the film script, an existing story, but it is made up through direction and instruction, it is very clear. Films depict life but the randomness is removed, so our own lives are able to fit into it.
This idea strongly reminds me of the Douglas Gordon work, 'Timeline'. Gordon used significant imagery from within his lifetime to create a picture in accordance to the events that occured during the time period.
Once more research on 'Timeline' has been done, and futher discussions with RB Grange have been held, I will continue this post.
To see more thoughts from RB, visit his blog at www.rbgrange.blogspot.com
This idea strongly reminds me of the Douglas Gordon work, 'Timeline'. Gordon used significant imagery from within his lifetime to create a picture in accordance to the events that occured during the time period.
Once more research on 'Timeline' has been done, and futher discussions with RB Grange have been held, I will continue this post.
To see more thoughts from RB, visit his blog at www.rbgrange.blogspot.com
Sunday, 13 May 2007
Suprise Correspondance: Robert Attanasio
Yesterday I was very plesantly suprised to receive an email from a little known American artist named Robert Attanasio. I met this artist unexpectantly at an exhibition of his called The Autopsy-Turvy Report held at Jim Kempner Fine Art in New York in January of last year. My friend Ruth and I stumbled across the exhibition whislt doing a tour of the independent galeries in Chelsea. The work consisted of lots of small pieces of work which seemed to represent the random train of thought he was having at the time. The work was quite political, very much in reference to 9/11, and his opinions of the ideas of the government. In a particuar favourite piece, Attanasio used a photography of the collapsing World Trade Centre as a CD cover. The disaster had become a selling point for the public to latch on too, in veiwing the horror of what the people went through they would in turn by into the true message wanted to be put across; the ideas of the government and what they wanted to do about the situation.
So anyway, as Ruth and I were discussing the work, a man sat in the corner eating his lunch began to join in with our conversation. After a few words, he revealed that he was in fact the artist, and he journeyed to this gallery to eat his lunch each day from that gallery where he was working located a few blocks away. He told us a story of an ongoing piece of work; on his walk to the gallery each day he collected a found object which caught his interest and placed it on the gallery floor. That day he had found a brick which had a mark on it which looked rather like a peace sign. After a short but interesting discussion with him, he asked if we would like to put our email address's down on his mailing list, which we both did, as we have done for many galleries we have visited, never really expecting to hear from the again.
However, yesterday I was very exited to open an email, not from the gallery but from Robert Attanasio himself. He was sending information of a new show he is taking part in in London. The link he gave to me is shown below;
http://www.campbellworks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/galleryexhibitionspresent.htm
I unfortunatly was not able to go to the private view of the show, but as previously mentioned, this is just about about the 'being seen' and the alcohol anyway. I am very much looking forward to going to see the show and will report on said event afterwards.
Although I am pleased to be invited to a new show, my main excitment is still that I was contacted by a practising artist, who has been involved in succesful shows, and I now have the means to get in touch with him with anything I may be doing in the future. Perhaps it is just the 'being seen' that I care about. But as I have already tryed to put across, it is really just what everyone cares about.
However, I do urge every read of my humble little blog to visit this show, or if it is after the time when it is showing, to learn more about Robert Attanasio.
So anyway, as Ruth and I were discussing the work, a man sat in the corner eating his lunch began to join in with our conversation. After a few words, he revealed that he was in fact the artist, and he journeyed to this gallery to eat his lunch each day from that gallery where he was working located a few blocks away. He told us a story of an ongoing piece of work; on his walk to the gallery each day he collected a found object which caught his interest and placed it on the gallery floor. That day he had found a brick which had a mark on it which looked rather like a peace sign. After a short but interesting discussion with him, he asked if we would like to put our email address's down on his mailing list, which we both did, as we have done for many galleries we have visited, never really expecting to hear from the again.
However, yesterday I was very exited to open an email, not from the gallery but from Robert Attanasio himself. He was sending information of a new show he is taking part in in London. The link he gave to me is shown below;
http://www.campbellworks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/galleryexhibitionspresent.htm
I unfortunatly was not able to go to the private view of the show, but as previously mentioned, this is just about about the 'being seen' and the alcohol anyway. I am very much looking forward to going to see the show and will report on said event afterwards.
Although I am pleased to be invited to a new show, my main excitment is still that I was contacted by a practising artist, who has been involved in succesful shows, and I now have the means to get in touch with him with anything I may be doing in the future. Perhaps it is just the 'being seen' that I care about. But as I have already tryed to put across, it is really just what everyone cares about.
However, I do urge every read of my humble little blog to visit this show, or if it is after the time when it is showing, to learn more about Robert Attanasio.
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Contemporary Article: Fame TV
I found this article as it was placed just after the one about Gavin Turk, but it caught my interest as I was very eager to learn what Fame TV is all about. Phrases such as 'are you kidding me?' initially come to mind, the pictures displayed show television screens with more advertising and messages upon them than actual images. Interactive television, the next annoying step on from reality television. I have seen programmes such as this before, gameshows where everyone can be involved (for a charge of course), usually shown in the middle of the night for people who actually have nothing better to do.
But in contrast to my disbelief, the article is quite completmentary about the channel. Fame TV is not a gameshow, but is still interactive, as the audience chose what to see from videos and messages uploaded from others watching. The pubic vote for what they want by texting into the channel, thus passing judgement on everyone taking part. This leads me back to ideas written in a earlier piece, entitled Art History Discussion, Friday 20th April. If we strive to acheive fame, do we have to put ourselves at the mercy of the general public? I would say the answer is yes, fame is a condition manufactured by society, in order to be succesful within it, one must comply to the wishes of the masses. The article suggests that perhaps it is a good thing that the 'every man' is judging who or what is seen on the channel, rather than someone supposably qualified for the position. It means everyone has an equal initial opportunity, and sucess is purely a popularity contest. This does seem like such an enticing prospect.
As the channel does broadcast all suitable material, there is a chance for all to receive their 15 minutes of fame, regardless of what occurs afterwards. Psychology lecturer Gerard Keegan, quoted in the article remarks:
'Maybe Andy Warhol was correct, everyone should have their 15 minutes of fame. As human beings we like to feel valued, which fuels self-esteem. We feel better about ourselves, we feel better within ourselves. Fame TV is an obvious conduit for this.'
So perhaps it is not all bad. I suppose merit lies with a creation for free expresion. It is not dissimilar to the world of youtube or myspace. Or even blogging for that matter. A forum where anything can be said, and anyone can read it. What am I doing?! Personally, I am not a fan of allowing the inner most secrets of my life to be broadcast to the nation, which is why this blog will remain as research and opinions. If something about me can be discovered from this, that's fine. They are your words, not mine.
And finally, I would just like to comment on the 'And finally' of this article. The phrase, 'Smells like 'post-modern' spirit (with apologies to Nirvana).'. First of all, it brings the question that keeps springing up in my mind once more to the forefront, what is postmodern? It seems to be a word that everyone uses, because it has become somehow 'cool', but no-one is quite sure what it means. My good friend Dictionary.com quotes it as:
1. noting or pertaining to architecture of the late 20th century, appearing in the 1960s, that consciously uses complex forms, fantasy, and allusions to historic styles, in contrast to the austere forms and emphasis on utility of standard modern architecture.
2. extremely modern; cutting-edge: postmodern kids who grew up on MTV.
So refering to point 2, free speech and the interest in it is just the brand new cool. I can see the appeal in knowing you have defined something you care about to the world, but why would others be interested in it? The writer of this article, Sergio Burns, says he found and became interested in Fame TV as there was nothing else on to watch. I can't imagine anything placed on here would be that much more interesting though. Perhaps I am being unfair. If I created something for one of these shows, I wouldn't appreciate it as being seen as less worthy than anything else on the television. But then, I probably wouldn't create something for the benifit of Fame TV.
So back to Nirvana, I find it quite amusing that this article should be linked with a band such as this. A band even after their demise, still at the height of fame and likely to stay their forever more. A band who are worthy of fame, acheived through talent and appreciation for what they do. A band who are not still with us, due to the pressure of fame that had been put upon them. It seems in starting out, a project like Fame TV would have been their worse nighhtmare, acting against all that they were striving for. The apologies to the band are most definitly needed. He'll be turning in his grave.
The article, 'Fame? Are We Going To Live Forever?' can be found in issue 90 of Contempoary magazine, from 2007.
But in contrast to my disbelief, the article is quite completmentary about the channel. Fame TV is not a gameshow, but is still interactive, as the audience chose what to see from videos and messages uploaded from others watching. The pubic vote for what they want by texting into the channel, thus passing judgement on everyone taking part. This leads me back to ideas written in a earlier piece, entitled Art History Discussion, Friday 20th April. If we strive to acheive fame, do we have to put ourselves at the mercy of the general public? I would say the answer is yes, fame is a condition manufactured by society, in order to be succesful within it, one must comply to the wishes of the masses. The article suggests that perhaps it is a good thing that the 'every man' is judging who or what is seen on the channel, rather than someone supposably qualified for the position. It means everyone has an equal initial opportunity, and sucess is purely a popularity contest. This does seem like such an enticing prospect.
As the channel does broadcast all suitable material, there is a chance for all to receive their 15 minutes of fame, regardless of what occurs afterwards. Psychology lecturer Gerard Keegan, quoted in the article remarks:
'Maybe Andy Warhol was correct, everyone should have their 15 minutes of fame. As human beings we like to feel valued, which fuels self-esteem. We feel better about ourselves, we feel better within ourselves. Fame TV is an obvious conduit for this.'
So perhaps it is not all bad. I suppose merit lies with a creation for free expresion. It is not dissimilar to the world of youtube or myspace. Or even blogging for that matter. A forum where anything can be said, and anyone can read it. What am I doing?! Personally, I am not a fan of allowing the inner most secrets of my life to be broadcast to the nation, which is why this blog will remain as research and opinions. If something about me can be discovered from this, that's fine. They are your words, not mine.
And finally, I would just like to comment on the 'And finally' of this article. The phrase, 'Smells like 'post-modern' spirit (with apologies to Nirvana).'. First of all, it brings the question that keeps springing up in my mind once more to the forefront, what is postmodern? It seems to be a word that everyone uses, because it has become somehow 'cool', but no-one is quite sure what it means. My good friend Dictionary.com quotes it as:
1. noting or pertaining to architecture of the late 20th century, appearing in the 1960s, that consciously uses complex forms, fantasy, and allusions to historic styles, in contrast to the austere forms and emphasis on utility of standard modern architecture.
2. extremely modern; cutting-edge: postmodern kids who grew up on MTV.
So refering to point 2, free speech and the interest in it is just the brand new cool. I can see the appeal in knowing you have defined something you care about to the world, but why would others be interested in it? The writer of this article, Sergio Burns, says he found and became interested in Fame TV as there was nothing else on to watch. I can't imagine anything placed on here would be that much more interesting though. Perhaps I am being unfair. If I created something for one of these shows, I wouldn't appreciate it as being seen as less worthy than anything else on the television. But then, I probably wouldn't create something for the benifit of Fame TV.
So back to Nirvana, I find it quite amusing that this article should be linked with a band such as this. A band even after their demise, still at the height of fame and likely to stay their forever more. A band who are worthy of fame, acheived through talent and appreciation for what they do. A band who are not still with us, due to the pressure of fame that had been put upon them. It seems in starting out, a project like Fame TV would have been their worse nighhtmare, acting against all that they were striving for. The apologies to the band are most definitly needed. He'll be turning in his grave.
The article, 'Fame? Are We Going To Live Forever?' can be found in issue 90 of Contempoary magazine, from 2007.
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
Contemporary magazine article: Douglas Gordon
To combine my choice of journal with my choice of artist, I found an article from Contemporary magazine issue 71 from 2005, simply entitled Douglas Gordon. The piece would have attracted me to read it purely because it is about Gordon, but the image of Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver on the first place certainly helped.
From initial read of the article, interesting points that have been raised so far are;
'Time has always been the subject of Gordon's projections'
'Repetition is as much the subject of as temporality in these works but so too is dissimulation'
Note to self, must watch Taxi Driver
A few hours later............
Just watched Taxi Driver, well the important part of Taxi Driver, De Niros 'you talking to me?' monologue, the dialogue that every one knows, but many, (including me) does not know where it comes from. Gordon uses this 71 second section for his piece 'through a looking glass' He extends this section through repetition, futher instilling the already iconic line within our minds. The work is shown across two screens, so it appears that De Niro is having a conversation with himself.
Refering this to the statements above, I suppose time is a key feature of Gordon's work. It is used in the capacity of a constant, a structure that Gordon it playing with. This dialogue is a section of time taken from the fixed time that the entire film lasts for. Time is then altered to create the effect Gordon is after. The same is true of the piece '24 Hour Psycho', also mentoned in the article; Gordon lengthens the Hitchcocks classic so that it plays over a 24 Hour period. Time is also used in a different fashion however, through comidic timing. The idea that DeNiro is speaking the words 'you talking to me?' to himself is ludicrous, Gordon visualises the mirror he is speaking into in the original film for the benifit of the audience, which removes the idea of a rehersal were the final performance may have terrifying consequences. Instead, the characters performance is right now, and so without the preperation, appears laughable.
Looking at the second comment I felt interesting enough to record, the words that jump out are repitition, temporality and dissimulation. The use of repitition has been noted and quite frankly is quite obvious. Temporality links to the use of time, how Gordon's pieces are succesful through alteration in this area of the original narrative. Dissemblance is an intriguing concept however, being discribed in the article as 'introducing a new structure that includes the original film but also exceeds it'. I do not believe that the writer, Philip Monk, thinks that Gordon's 'skits' if you will, are better than the original feature film, but maybe that they focus on one aspect of the film or character and exploit it, something that the film length could not acheive, solely due to its nature.
The truth is, people will continue to be attracted to the work of Douglas Gordon as its content is already familiar to the them, but perhaps through his clever atention to detail, they may learn something new, not only through the guise of film, but the relation of this to themselves. Isn't that what everyone is trying to do anyway?
From initial read of the article, interesting points that have been raised so far are;
'Time has always been the subject of Gordon's projections'
'Repetition is as much the subject of as temporality in these works but so too is dissimulation'
Note to self, must watch Taxi Driver
A few hours later............
Just watched Taxi Driver, well the important part of Taxi Driver, De Niros 'you talking to me?' monologue, the dialogue that every one knows, but many, (including me) does not know where it comes from. Gordon uses this 71 second section for his piece 'through a looking glass' He extends this section through repetition, futher instilling the already iconic line within our minds. The work is shown across two screens, so it appears that De Niro is having a conversation with himself.
Refering this to the statements above, I suppose time is a key feature of Gordon's work. It is used in the capacity of a constant, a structure that Gordon it playing with. This dialogue is a section of time taken from the fixed time that the entire film lasts for. Time is then altered to create the effect Gordon is after. The same is true of the piece '24 Hour Psycho', also mentoned in the article; Gordon lengthens the Hitchcocks classic so that it plays over a 24 Hour period. Time is also used in a different fashion however, through comidic timing. The idea that DeNiro is speaking the words 'you talking to me?' to himself is ludicrous, Gordon visualises the mirror he is speaking into in the original film for the benifit of the audience, which removes the idea of a rehersal were the final performance may have terrifying consequences. Instead, the characters performance is right now, and so without the preperation, appears laughable.
Looking at the second comment I felt interesting enough to record, the words that jump out are repitition, temporality and dissimulation. The use of repitition has been noted and quite frankly is quite obvious. Temporality links to the use of time, how Gordon's pieces are succesful through alteration in this area of the original narrative. Dissemblance is an intriguing concept however, being discribed in the article as 'introducing a new structure that includes the original film but also exceeds it'. I do not believe that the writer, Philip Monk, thinks that Gordon's 'skits' if you will, are better than the original feature film, but maybe that they focus on one aspect of the film or character and exploit it, something that the film length could not acheive, solely due to its nature.
The truth is, people will continue to be attracted to the work of Douglas Gordon as its content is already familiar to the them, but perhaps through his clever atention to detail, they may learn something new, not only through the guise of film, but the relation of this to themselves. Isn't that what everyone is trying to do anyway?
Contemporary magazine article: Gavin Turk
Its about him. It is you know.
Its also about cliches, and the way Turk uses them within his work. The article is taken from a very recent issue, number 90, and was bought due to the cover image being 'Pink Beuys (cracked Pain)', Turk's 2005 work, one of my personal favourites.
First, let us look at the idea of what a cliche is, and for this task I will turn to my trusty friend, Dictionary.com:
1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse, as sadder but wiser, or strong as an ox.
2. (in art, literature, drama, etc.) a trite or hackneyed plot, character development, use of color, musical expression, etc.
3. anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse.
4. British Printing.
a. a stereotype or electrotype plate.
b. a reproduction made in a like manner.
–adjective
5. trite; hackneyed; stereotyped; clichéd.
The piece, simply entitled Gavin Turk (Contemporary seem to adopt this style for their featured artists), begins and ends with two phrases which juxtaposd together, I feel become very interesting. Together they read:
'It can be hard to think about cliches, it's so obvious, it's genius.'
Not sure where I am going with this writing at the moment, will come back to reveiw it again at a later date.
Its also about cliches, and the way Turk uses them within his work. The article is taken from a very recent issue, number 90, and was bought due to the cover image being 'Pink Beuys (cracked Pain)', Turk's 2005 work, one of my personal favourites.
First, let us look at the idea of what a cliche is, and for this task I will turn to my trusty friend, Dictionary.com:
1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse, as sadder but wiser, or strong as an ox.
2. (in art, literature, drama, etc.) a trite or hackneyed plot, character development, use of color, musical expression, etc.
3. anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse.
4. British Printing.
a. a stereotype or electrotype plate.
b. a reproduction made in a like manner.
–adjective
5. trite; hackneyed; stereotyped; clichéd.
The piece, simply entitled Gavin Turk (Contemporary seem to adopt this style for their featured artists), begins and ends with two phrases which juxtaposd together, I feel become very interesting. Together they read:
'It can be hard to think about cliches, it's so obvious, it's genius.'
Not sure where I am going with this writing at the moment, will come back to reveiw it again at a later date.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)