Curatorial Creativity Project

While a person’s gender may begin with the assignment of his/her sex based on his/her genital characteristics, the true identity of a person goes beyond biological aspect of gender. This virtual exhibition “Exploring Gender and Identity” features the artists who are not afraid of expressing the complex interrelationships between their identity, body language, and self-expression. They explore the relationships between gender and society. These modern American artists are not the first to do so. However, over the last forty years, they refused to categorize genders as only male and female. They explored questions of transgender, bisexuality, and many other new sexual entities born from the interaction of all mentioned above.

Artists presented in this exhibition, including Kruger, Harris, Greiman, argue that gender is not what truly defines a person. Some artists, such as Sabean ridicule modern stereotypes created by society in a comical way. Some artists, such as Smith, bring up strong messages about some really tough issues different genders have to experience nowadays. Some artists, such as Reimer, Warhol, and Harris, intentionally photograph portraits of themselves wearing ambiguous costumes to emphasize identity roles. Some artists, such as Abramovic and Ulay, try to represent the third entity born from the interaction of male and female energies. All together, these artists create a very powerful social resonance which in some ways helps people to answer questions such as “who am I?” and “where do I belong?”.

 

See the Curatorial Presentation in Browser

Download the Curatorial Presentation Here

Peter Morgan

(Almost) Good Enough to Eat

Exhibition schedule: Penn State Abington Art Gallery, 116 Woodland Building, October 23 – December 15, 2017.

 

Peter Morgan’s exhibition (Almost) Good Enough to Eat, which opened at the new Penn State Abington Art Gallery, was astonishingly delicious. I would not recommend anyone to visit it in a state of being hungry. Beautifully glazed jelly doughnuts, melted cheese atop nacho chips, sweet waffles stacked on top of each other will make a spectator crave for food (almost) immediately. The variety of colors and forms, unusual compositions involving wildlife, and imaginary tastes that people can sense right away, make this exhibition especially interesting and almost childlike attractive. However, after spending more time in the gallery and analyzing these pieces, Morgan’s exhibition seems to demonstrate quite a challenging intellect which creates “connection between often seemingly disparate topics” (from Peter Morgan’s Artist’s Statement).

The gallery has total of six ceramic sculptures. Five of them are standing on the same height pedestals, and one central hotdog piece Voyage of the H.M.S. Frankfurter stands on the higher shelve. All six pieces are put apart from each other, whereas at the same time one makes a whole. The sculptures depict funny composed wildlife (except for the hotdog piece) with a food incorporated as a landscape.

 

For me, the nature of this exhibition reflects Morgan’s vision and understanding of the world which adds a touch to a whole picture. The first experience provided by this exhibition is some kind of superficiality and childishness. Perhaps, from the first glance, Morgan’s intentions were to create something that people have never seen before. But after careful observation, a spectator may consider that the author questions existential aspects in a deeper level. Unlike Jeff Koons, the author is evoking humor successfully. Through the use of puns and analogies, Morgan combines incompatible things both in context and scale.

“My objects are often archetypal depictions focusing on our idealized understandings and desires of the subject, rather than their actuality. I think of my sculptures being collaged from an encyclopedia, a place where, in theory, all the information in the world is kept in a concise, ideal, and easy-to-read format. My pieces illustrate and investigate what we know and how we know it, through an exploration and celebration of cultural mythologies. Through my selection of topics, I create a sense of place and time through which the viewer may enter the work, physically and/or psychologically.”  (www.artsmagazine.info)

 

In the work called The Hypothetical Prehistoric Giant Wolverine Battling a Polar Bear Over a Deal Beluga Whale, on top of a Glazed Huckleberry Jelly Doughnut, for instance, Morgan depicts Arctic wildlife standing on the beautiful colorful ceramic doughnut. Even though the name of the work directly describes what is going on, I feel that this piece could warn people about the global warming and other ecological interactions of the Arctic Ocean on a huge scale. Perhaps, it reminds of a human being on the top of the food chain or simply of celebration a carnivorous lifestyle and how culture drove human evolution in general.

To sum up, the exhibition (Almost) Good Enough to Eat by Peter Morgan, provides once-in-a-lifetime experience to see the dolphin jumping out of macaroni and cheese, cargo ship carrying a giant hotdog, and other easy-to-look-at-sculptures. In general, the exhibition implies the author’s intention to represent the illustration of cultural mythology. Morgan’s skilled craftsmanship, playfulness, and intricate intellectual clues create a beautiful absurd, which I truly enjoyed to observe.

 

WORK CITED

“(Almost) Good Enough to Eat”. Woodland Gallery. Penn State Abington College. 1600 Woodland Rd, Abington, PA 19001. 23 Oct. – 15 Dec. 2017.

Morgan, Peter. “Here Is My Show Here.” Peter Morgan, 2017, www.petergmorgan.com/here-is-my-show-here/.

Wampler, Angela. “‘Color Me Bad’ — Peter Morgan.” A! Magazine for the Arts, 29 Feb. 2012, www.artsmagazine.info/articles.php?view=detail&id=2012022621063035196.

Project: Essay 2

I believe the more you do something, the less frightening it becomes if you fail because you start to realize that the process is more important than the outcome.

-Anna Arsiriy

Being an older student, I lately came to the conclusion that there is an existential moment in my life when I must decide what I will be doing with my life. I used to tell my husband that “I am in my mid 20s and I still don’t know who I want to be when I grow up”. Even though I was joking, I constantly felt that I have to love what I do and do what I love. As simple as that.

Let me start from the very beginning. I was born and raised in Kazan, Russia. There were two turning points in my life’s path. First one was during my adolescence period. Since I was six, I’ve been professionally playing piano, so after elementary school my parents and music teachers decided that my future has no other option but to be connected with a pianist career. It’s ironic when you are a kid, the more you succeed in something, the more your parents “predefine” your future for you. Long story short, being in a very restricted environment with no choices left, I came to a breaking point and said “no” to music career.

I refused going to a Conservatory, and instead graduated high school with honors and became a student at Kazan National Research Technical University. In June 2011, I was qualified as a Bachelor of Engineering and Technology. I moved to the United States when I was 21 right after I graduated – this was a second major turning point. I came to the U.S. by myself with zero in my pocket, very poor English speaking skills, and no one there by my side.

Even though I successfully accomplished my degree in Russia, I always knew that Engineering does not line my bag of interests. Unfortunately, there are not so many schools in Russia that actually study Art as an independent major. Now, when I live and study in the U.S., the country of thousands of opportunities and tons of creativeness, I’ve been constantly pushing myself out of my comfort zone. This fall of 2017, I transferred to PSU from Bucks County Community College where I got my basic knowledge of 2D and 3D design fundamentals. Even though it is my second degree, I feel that I have never had so much passion to study as I do now!

After graduation from Penn State, I am planning to proceed my professional career as an artist in new Media, including Graphic and Web design, as well as relatively new field in Interactive Interior Design. I don’t like writing much about what my art is about, let alone giving directions/clues to a spectator because my art is open to any interpretations. My work (and my life in general) is not based on theory and moral, but rather on my own inner impulses which tell me where to go and why. Even though it may sound pretty generalized, I will keep working, creating, and achieving my goal as long as love and art are walking by my side.

On November 12, I visited the Museum of Modern Art in New York City which had a variety of fascinating exhibition of American contemporary artists. I concentrated my attention on the performance/installation called Reanimation 2010/2012/2013 by Joan Jonas, which was located in the Museum’s fourth-floor collection galleries. I intentionally called this exhibition as a performance or installation since it incorporated huge custom screens with four running videos, two wooden theater boxes with video, multiple ink and china marker drawings, two benches, and intricate crystal sculpture.

Jonas has often explored the possibilities of video and performance combination, thus her work largely occupies space. As a viewer, I had a sense of walking into this dark magical space experiencing some kind of a three-dimensional fantasy. “Its interwoven elements draw on the nonlinear qualities of Japanese Noh theater and on Icelandic white Halldor Laxness’s 1968 novel Under the Glacier, in which a young man is sent to investigate paranormal activity surrounding a glacier” (from the text on the wall). In fact, all videos of glaciers were captured by Jonas herself while she was investigating the glacial melt of Arctic Circle in Iceland. On the screens, images of severe snowy conditions, mountains, animals, and fish raises the message of the impact of human activities and invincible ecological processes on the Earth.

This multimedia installation was outstanding to me because as in many contemporary (after Post-modernism period) performances Jonas provided a sensory experience through videos, audios, drawings, and sculpture. To sum up, illustrating a glacial melt on one screen, listening to piano playing and capturing enigmatic sense of this performance, the essential message on the other screen shows that “Time is the one thing we can all agree to call supernatural”.

WORK CITED

“Reanimation 2010/2012/2013”. Collection Galleries, Floor 4. Museum of Modern Art. 11 W 53rd St, New York, NY 10019. 12 Nov. 2017.

Scott, Andrea K. “Joan Jonas’s Mythopoetic Vision.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 18 June 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/29/joan-jonas-mythopoetic-vision.

“Joan Jonas | Performance Drawing from Reanimation, Tate Live 2013, Tate Modern (2013) | Artsy.” Artsy – Discover, Research, and Collect the World’s Best Art Online, 2017, www.artsy.net/artwork/joan-jonas-performance-drawing-from-reanimation-tate-live-2013-tate-modern#!

Module 5

Postmodernism has been around for a long period of time. Starting in the 1960’s, it is one of the few theories that has been with artists for around a half century. People say Postmodernism is dead now, whereas I think that each theory/movement/style is a reaction to a previous one. In contemporary terms, Pomo evolved into an “updated version” instead of completely “dying”, just like any other previous movement. At the same time, we would definitely not define Pomo as a contemporary condition because of the immense changes happened in the last half-century!

The events which started happening at the dawn of the 20^th century caused a shift, or I would even say a crucial “update”. In his article The Death of Postmodernism And Beyond, Alan Kirby says that “…somewhere in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the emergence of new technologies re-structured, violently and forever, the nature of the author, the reader and the text, and the relationships between them” (philosophynow.org). Moreover, the rate of change has accelerated exponentially. Not only the invention of the Internet and new technologies, but also events such as 9/11, war of civilization, “dot-com bubble” in the U.S., globalization, etc. caused a possibility of a new (perhaps “officially unnamed yet”) state we live in.

I don’t believe we need Post-postmodernism. If Postmodernism is a rejection of Modernism, does it mean that Post-postmodernism is a return to Modernism (two negatives resolving to a positive)? Certainly, it is not the case which makes me think why should we call our times Post-postmodernism and associate it with Modernism in general? Perhaps, our descendants would create another “names” in not too distant future, and hopefully they would not call themselves as “post-post-…-postmodernists”.

I enjoyed reading the article of Daniel Green called Pre and Post Post-Modern: Art in a Globalized World, which states that “much art after postmodernism attempts to create an experience, and typically one not purely visual” (thinkingofnew.blogspot.com). I completely agree with this statement since I have noticed myself that the majority of art nowadays attempts to create an experience rather than simply “showing” a piece. The perception and evaluation of visual art has changed tremendously since emerging of the Internet. Even though direct visual experience is not comparable with digital, still everyone today has a chance to go online and “visit” any exhibition without leaving his/her room. Too many things became publicly available which caused a shift in aesthetic appreciation.

As an example, the exhibition called AllTURNatives: Form + Spirit 2017 I visited back in September (see Gallery #1 Photo Essay as of 09/21/17) featured a work of seven contemporary artists, who were able to create a fun experience for a viewer. Their work provided visual, audible, tactile, and other sensory experiences which encouraged visitors to explore the importance of direct interaction with a piece.  

Daniel Fishkin, the inventor of the Daxophone, was one of those seven featured artists.  His famous sound installation Tinnitus Suites investigates the aesthetics of hearing damage, which cannot be described just visually.

(dfiction.com)

This picture does not really explain anything to a viewer. Similar to Green’s conversation about Phillipsz’ Lowlands, Fishkin’s Tinnitus Suites “ is an experience which can be represented but not reproduced”.

 

(vimeo.com)

To sum up, postmodernism is an important theory in art. Whether post-postmodernism is needed or not, our time is the time of change. The culture and technology, as well as art in a modern world, have ever changing trends that cannot and must not be predicted. Pomo comes with the “death of meaning”, “death of art”, skepticism, irony, distrust of the grand narrative, and so on. As a result, “the death of the death of art” has washed over the past and created its own universe, perhaps officially unnamed as of today.

 

WORK CITED:

Kirby, Alan. “The Death of Postmodernism And Beyond.” Philosophy Now: a Magazine of Ideas, Alan Kirby, 2006, philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond.

Green, Daniel. “On The Contemporary.” Pre and Post Post-Modern: Art in a Globalized World, Daniel Green, 12 Sept. 2011, thinkingofnew.blogspot.com/2011/09/pre-and-post-post-modern-art-in.html.

Fishkin, Daniel. “Composing the Tinnitus Suites (2014).” D. Fiction, D. Fiction, 2017, dfiction.com/composing-the-tinnitus-suites-2014/.

Fishkin, Daniel, director. Composing the Tinnitus Suites: 2014 (Excerpts). 28 Mar. 2014, vimeo.com/90383414.

 

Module 4

 

Cindy Sherman, Untitled Film Still #21, 1978, Gelatin Silver Print

 

In creation of the Untitled Film Stills, Cindy Sherman is definitely sincere in regards to the fact that her work does not relate to theory. She claims that she does not think of theory when she creates something. She gets so concentrated and dedicated to the project she works on that she forgets about everything surrounding her, eliminates things that can distract her, such as paperwork and emails, and lets herself into the world of her personal expression and inspiration. I think that it is fine for the artist not to consider any theory while creating a piece. Certainly, in her Untitled Film Still #21 (1978) Sherman intends to express her concerns about the culture and mass media through the role of the small-town girl craving to get to know the Big City life. Perhaps, she intends to express some other ideas as well – we do not know that for sure. What we know is that sometimes Sherman herself is not aware of some interpretations that have existed out there and surrounded her work, so she (qtd. in Barrett) says,

There were times I would read something and I wouldn’t understand what the hell they were talking about or where they got that idea; there were times when I’d say, ‘Oh, yeah, that’s right, though I wasn’t thinking of it when I was doing it. I work without really pondering what I am doing (Barrett 187).

Untitled Film Stills are among the first artifacts to be called postmodern. But it’s pretty common when artist’s intentions do not go side by side with scholarly debates. Sherman is well aware that her Untitled Film Stills often relate to feminist theory. She says, “I don’t want to have to explain myself. The work is what it is and hopefully it’s seen as feminist work, or feminist-advised work, but I’m not going to go around espousing theoretical bullshit about feminist stuff” (Barrett 188). Her statements do not necessarily mean that she’s not well educated in art theory and that she simply lacks the knowledge of it. Sherman does not care what theory ‘they’ relate her work to because her work is driven by her inner impulse and inspiration rather than theoretical knowledge.

I believe that her Sex Pictures series probably reflect some aspect of theory. These pictures are not sexy (or even erotic). They do not feature Sherman herself in them even though she posed for the majority of her earlier work. They depict plastic dolls arranged in shocking and often violent compositions. These series make people think, and think deeply. I don’t feel that theory begins to lead Sherman’s work, but she is definitely aware of the fact that theory will be applied to it.

I believe that an artist does not have to be consciously guided by theory. Otherwise, art would become more like a science where every event/element/condition can be expressed through the formula or equation. There is no formula in art, and as a result such thing as “art for art’s sake” exists. In fact, there were many artists in art history who were not educated as a professional artist and did not have any idea about theory at all (for example, Henry Rousseau). Understanding theory, and especially intricate postmodern theories, is not what makes a person an artist.

 

WORK CITED:

Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press. 2012

Sherman, Cindy. “Untitled Film Still #21, 1978.” Moma.org, © 2017 Cindy Sherman, www.moma.org/collection/works/56618.

Exploring Gender and Identity

In today’s society, many people ask themselves whether they fit into the standards and norms that have been created. On one hand, the standards of sexuality, gender, and identity, make people question “Who am I?”, “Where do I belong?”, “Am I a true man or woman?”, “What is sexual for a man or woman?”, etc. On the other hand, the stereotypes created by todays’ society have a great impact that make people fearful of their self-expression. While a person’s gender may begin with the assignment of his/her sex based on his/her genital characteristics, the true identity of a person goes beyond biological aspect of gender. This virtual exhibition “Exploring Gender and Identity” features the artists who are not afraid of expressing the complex interrelationships between their identity, body language, and self-expression. Not only they touch the question of masculine vs feminine, male vs female, and gender binarity (cisgender vs transgender), but also explore the relationships with the standards of our society through their art.

Proposed List of Works (already narrowed down list):

Barbara Kruger – Gender is Irrelevant

Rion Sabean – Men Ups

Lyle Ashton Harris – Billie #1

Marina Abramovic; Ulay – Relation in Time

Lyle Reimer (@lylexox)– Unnamed

April Greiman – Does It Make Sense?

Kiki Smith – Tale

Andy Warhol –  Self-Portrait in Drag

 

Module 3

Andy Goldsworthy is a phenomenal photographer and environmental artist whose work truly amazed me. In my opinion, Andy Goldsworthy rejects Greenbergian Formalism. Clement Greenberg “advocates for art that rejects subject matter, pictorial illusions of three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional surface, atmospheric light, and any other devices artists might use in creating a picture of something”, thus he claims that we have to “ignore everything but the work’s form” (Barrett 126). But it’s quite contradictory statement because looking at a picture or painting without considering the subject matter, light, space, value, and other crucial factors (without which the work cannot exist) does not make any sense for me. Unless, in Greenberg’s terms, we should look at the rectangular/square form of a canvas or a photograph ignoring everything depicted on it, and be satisfied with just that.

Besides, I think Goldsworthy does not fall under Formalist theory at all. As a spectator, I can say that Goldsworthy’s work more often is about an emotion rather than just a form. Besides, in a documentary “Rivers and Tides” he points that “Art for me is a form of nourishment”, and then he says “If I don’t do anything for a while I don’t feel it’s my work” (Rivers and Tides: Andy Goldsworthy Working with Time). Making an art for Goldsworthy is not only about making a form. One of the goals of his work is to reflect the important connection between the people and nature. When his work collapses, it gives him a chance to get to know the material better which makes a beautiful balance between him and the nature. Goldsworthy makes an impressive number of attempts before achieving his goal, and this kind of connection with nature cannot be expressed through the form only. When his work exists just for a little while, it’s an emotion that the nature (and perhaps, the universe) consumes when “taking” his work. When Goldsworthy makes an igloo out of sticks found at the beach, and then it gets “consumed” by the tidal wave, he explains that the work has been given to the sea as a gift, and then “the sea has taken the work and made it much more valuable” (Rivers and Tides: Andy Goldsworthy Working with Time). Like Tibetan monks, he believes that nothing is ever lost in the universe, and this is his expression.

Pretending that Goldsworthy is a formalist, I would say that Kantian-Hegelian pre-Modern viewpoint would be a better match. G.W.F. Hegel states that the primary value of art is “to add to our understanding of the world and ourselves in it” (Barrett 122). Goldsworthy tries to understand his position and his role in the world by making choices of materials he uses and things he creates. At the same time, Immanuel Kant believes that “aesthetic is bound up with expression and ideas” (Barrett 121), which allows Goldsworthy to create the work and put his ideas and emotions in it. When creating his Garden of Stones with small trees places inside of the stones, he puts a historical idea of Holocaust which “symbolizes the tenacity of life, honoring both those who died in the Holocaust and those who survived” (cornellbotanicgardens.org). Therefore, his work is more than a form, and more than a formal expression. It has an idea. No further explanation needed.

WORK CITED:

Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press. 2012

Rivers and Tides: Andy Goldsworhty Working with Time. Dir. Thomas Riedelsheimer. Docurama, 2001. Film.

“Goldsworthy’s Holocaust Memorial” Cornellbotanicgardens.org, http://www.cornellbotanicgardens.org/our-gardens/arboretum/goldsworthy

Project: Essay 1

One of the most general questions for an artist to hear is probably the question “What inspires you the most?”. The article on artvancouver.net claims that “the amount of influences that can affect the nature and creativity of an artist’s work is countless, and to pinpoint a true inspiration is difficult, to say the least” (artvancouver.net). In this essay, I will not talk about what inspires me as an artist.  In fact, I want to emphasize the difference between influence and inspiration. This essay, however, is dedicated to the question of influence, and how it connects with the issue of creativity and originality in art.

The inspiration and influence for me are two different concepts. On one hand, inspiration does not always come from particular people or beautifully designed objects. For some people, inspiration comes from within, whereas some people look around them. For me, inspiration may come from an absolute randomness of organic things, including wood patterns, watercolor splatters, ocean waves, sun glares, wallpaper patterns, water spills, and so on. On the other hand, influence is a tricky question because some people assume that there is no such thing as influence in art.  Agnes Martin, for example, stated that:

 I don’t believe in influence myself. I don’t believe that anybody is influenced by anybody at any  time. I think that we all live by inspiration, whether we pay attention to it or not. I suggest to the artists that you take every opportunity of being alone. (Barrett 136)

In other words, in order to be creative, an artist should not be influenced by anybody since art should be quite subjective and not dependent on anyone.

In my opinion, influence does take place in an art world. It does not take anyone’s creativity away. Often, someone’s art influences an artist unconsciously. We see things around us and we are inspired by them. But works of other artists, even if we are just looking at them without trying to imitate them, influence us in many ways. We consume new visual elements, learn new techniques, get acquainted with new styles and genres, make decision by judging and interpreting work, and thus we cognize the art world around us, which can’t be done through inspiration. Therefore, influence plays a big role in my personal realization of what I am and where I want to be as an artist.

My art tree is presented through the pyramid, which is a diagram-like metaphor meant to represent megalithic structure built as a royal tomb in Giza, ancient Egypt. That structure had a square base and sloping slides that meet precisely in one point at the top. Artists at the square base are the foundation of my knowledge. Artists located at four sliding slopes represent artists I became familiar with later in life (except for Van Gogh and Edward Munch). And these slides of artists converge into one point where I located myself as a result of their influence.

Square base in my diagram is the foundation of drawing/painting knowledge I was influenced by as a beginner artist. Four gigantic titans of my pyramid are the four basic art styles, such as Renaissance (primarily Italian), Naïve Art, Art Nouveau, and Surrealism. The artists presented at the base of my pyramid lived in different time periods, but all of them became unquestionable masters of their time. I am thankful to Renaissance painters and sculptors for the essential knowledge of perspective, basic mediums, painting techniques and many other things. For instance, I learned what chiaroscuro is through the paintings of Caravaggio. Now, I still like using dramatic chiaroscuro in some of my paintings. Art Nouveau and Naïve Art taught me that the paintings should not necessarily show a moral lesson or tell a story. I started looking at things in order to get inspiration out of them, rather than directly drawing them. And finally, once I became familiar with surrealists such as Dali and Picasso, I realized that our own interpretation of things is often way more valuable than working from a full or even partial observation.

The next important level of my pyramid is represented through the artists located at the four sloping slides. Branches of art such as Abstract Art, Expressionism, followed by Illustration and Graphic design influenced me the most during the last couple of years of my life. Some of the fundamental expressionist artists such as Van Gogh or Munch showed me a passionate desire to depict the fierce intensity of life in terms of wild brush techniques and unusual subject matters. Lindsay Rapp is a modern day female artist whom I became familiar with during the First Friday of September 2017 in Old City where she exhibited her marine-themed work. Even though for some people her work might seem too naïve, I instantly fell in love with a “genuine mother of pearl and layered painted mylar”, as she calls herself (lindsayrappgallery.com). What touched me the most is the harmony of the media she uses with the magical world of her interpretation – whether it’s an abstract painting, a mermaid, or a still life.

Vasily Kandinsky and Lyubov Popova opened something in me that was beyond my comprehension before. Things that seemed just as meaningless random set of lines, shapes, and colors all of a sudden became an idea. To draw something that did not have any literal subject matter was at least a brave decision for me. However, it opens up another important function of interrelationship with a spectator who can interpret the work the way he/she feels (see Intent vs Content) without looking for hidden clues.

And finally, all graphic design and illustration artists presented in my diagram are the modern day artists, whom I follow in Instagram or their personal blogs. I like following the life of artists who live in the same world and use the same tools I do. Besides, it certainly makes me broaden my spectrum of interest and skills. Some of them are more famous than the others. But all of them are the dynamic representation of today’s digital art culture, where I certainly find myself as an artist.

 

WORK CITED:

Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press. 2012

“What Inspires You?” Artvancouver.net, http://artvancouver.net/what-inspires-you-q-a-w-art-vancouver-artists/

“About the Artwork.” Lindsayrappgallery.com, https://lindsayrappgallery.com/pages/about-lindsay-rapp

 

Module 2

When I look at any work of art, I am trying to raise a few questions before trying to make a judgement of this work: what this work might be about, what this work tries to tell me, and whether the artist is full of the best intentions towards himself and the whole world while making this work. As an artist myself, I try to find good intentions in the work, even if it frightens me at first. In fact, the feelings of disgust or hostility are experienced by most people in a much stronger level than the feelings of joy and happiness. I remind myself that the presence of these appearing feelings could be too the intention of the artist, not necessarily a bad one.

But what happens when the spectator creates entirely unexpected content for a work? Marcel Duchamp once said:

“The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act.”

In other words, Duchamp’s vision of art is based upon the direct dialogue between the artwork and the viewer. Obviously, a spectator may interpret the work not the way the artist intended. Also, taste of a spectator plays a big role because taste gives a feeling, and not a sense of aesthetic emotion. When a spectator reacts to a work unexpectedly, perhaps the artist him/herself looks at his/her work from a different point of view. An artist can put a ton of meaning into the work, but a spectator brings another ton, which gives this work even extra meaning. I believe that a spectator communicates his/her own experience through interpretation of the work, whereas this might be a valuable knowledge for the artist, and vice versa.

Other question is whether the artist should inform the spectator of his/her intention beforehand or not. I truly believe that he/she is not obliged by doing so. The first purpose of the artist is to create a work but not in order to explain what he/she means. He/she might add visual or textual clues by providing extra details or writing an artist statement. But the work itself does not need an explanation of the artist’s intent. Otherwise, we would have to read a great deal of material on each artist before even considering to visit a gallery or museum. I feel that if the art work affected a spectator in some way, it should be his/her aspiration to make a research on the artist and investigate more about him/her.

Beyond doubt, knowledge of an artist’s intent is extremely helpful and valuable while making a judgement about his/her work. For example, when I saw the giant spider in front of National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa a few years ago, I did not know it was made by Louise Bourgeois. I carefully observed the giant statue without knowing what it actually represented. The space created by the spider’s legs made me want to go inside of this space – was it an intuition reflecting the sense of protection the spider creates, wasn’t it? Anyways, now I learned about Louise Bourgeois’ autobiography, and I also learned that this spider was a symbol of Louise Bourgeois’ mother, who was loved by her as much as imprisoned in the memories of the artist’s problematic childhood (Barrett 87). The spider represents immense protection that was always by Louise’s side before the loss of her mother. This knowledge not only helps me to make a clear judgement of this work, but also makes me crave for more knowledge of her work and makes me highly appreciate it.

WORK CITED:
Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press. 2012

Arsiriy, A., 2015. Spider. [photographs] (Anna Arsiriy’s own private collection).