Monday, 5 May 2014
Postmodernism and Music
http://www.academia.edu/3058366/Postmodernism_and_Music
A link to a more academic approach on music and postmodernism by a lecturer who researches into music, culture and idealogy. This text goes into detail about the differentation between modernist music and the postmodern. It also looks at social and cultural effects on music.
Sunday, 4 May 2014
In relation to Tom's post about Andy Warhol...
Hi Tom, I looked at that link you sent on Andy Warhol and I found it became a lot clearer to me based on the loss of origin. The fact that some people argue against postmodernism especially when an artist like Andy Warhol is reproducing a piece of art that has already been done before. The way Andy Warhol is an example of how postmodernist art could just be a form of repetition, everything that has already been done before?
Here is the paragraph I liked out of the article:
"Andy Warhol's work uses well-known images, famous faces and masterpieces from the past, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona Lisa. Warhol recreated this painting, calling it 'Thirty are better than one'. The overuse of the Mona Lisa image decreases the link between the original masterpiece. Mona Lisa has already been created originally by Da Vinci, Andy Warhol loved and admired this masterpiece which Da Vinci created and therefore he wanted to enhance it more, but not taking credit for the original image. However some people argue that this work isnt orginal as he isnt creating a new piece, but recreating a masterpiece which was created by someone else. However on the other hand, some may disagree by saying that he is creating a new piece of art work out of an original."
http://tccpomo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/andy-warhol.html
– Adam Reid
Here is the paragraph I liked out of the article:
"Andy Warhol's work uses well-known images, famous faces and masterpieces from the past, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona Lisa. Warhol recreated this painting, calling it 'Thirty are better than one'. The overuse of the Mona Lisa image decreases the link between the original masterpiece. Mona Lisa has already been created originally by Da Vinci, Andy Warhol loved and admired this masterpiece which Da Vinci created and therefore he wanted to enhance it more, but not taking credit for the original image. However some people argue that this work isnt orginal as he isnt creating a new piece, but recreating a masterpiece which was created by someone else. However on the other hand, some may disagree by saying that he is creating a new piece of art work out of an original."
http://tccpomo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/andy-warhol.html
– Adam Reid
POSTMODERNISM
This guy is quite funny but also explains and breaks down the theory of postmodernism. It helps for me anyway to keep reminding myself what it actually is and also gives me ideas when I look for postmodern art and design.
Saturday, 3 May 2014
Memphis Postmodern Group
MEMPHIS
MEMPHIS was a Milan-based collective of young furniture and product designers led by the veteran Ettore Sottsass. After its 1981 debut, Memphis dominated the early 1980s design scene with its post-modernist style.
Carlton Cabinet 1981
Design: Ettore Sottsass
Beverly desk, 1981
Design: Ettore Sottsass
Nefertiti ceramic piece, 1981
Design: Matteo Thun
In 1981, Ettore Sottsass and a group of Italian designers and architects founded the "Memphis Group" as a reaction to "the personal, slick, humourless design" of modernism. The group disbanded in 1988.
I think these design pieces are incredibly vibrant, eccentric and have an kind of ornamental look to them. Even though a lot of the art doesn't make sense and the abstract forms of the sculptures are quite abstract, it shows that the Memphis group were trying to create a new experience for an audience and to also take a swipe at modernism seen to them as "boring".
– Adam Reid
David Carson and Postmodernism
A link to a blog with sources discussing, David Carson and how his work is very much Postmodern.
http://shapeswithourhands.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/post-modernism-and-david-carson/
http://shapeswithourhands.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/post-modernism-and-david-carson/
“the most influential graphic designer of out time” surfrider foundation, july 09,
he is said to have “the most important work coming out of america” american center for design
and to have “changed the public face of graphic design” – newsweek.
Incredibly famous article Carson used in his famous magazine Ray Gun. He claims the interview was so boring and no one would ever read it, so he changed the entire article into windings a symbol based typeface, which rendered the article un-readable.
- Tom Kiernan
Post modernism in Graphic Design
Post Modernism was First coined to criticize the "glass box" structure of International Design, within architecture. This later led to fashion, Graphic Design and many other mediums, the term "Postmodernism" simply meaning things that subvert or amplify established codes.
Wolfgang Weingart
Weingarts influence teaching at the Basel school of Design, influenced the look of Postmodernism so much that many students and other designers used his "Stair-stepping motif", which became synonymous with International and Postmodernism.
Example of Wolfgang Weignart's "stair-stepping"
Source: http://gds.parkland.edu/gds/!lectures/history/1975/postmodern.html
Tom
Wolfgang Weingart
Weingarts influence teaching at the Basel school of Design, influenced the look of Postmodernism so much that many students and other designers used his "Stair-stepping motif", which became synonymous with International and Postmodernism.
Example of Wolfgang Weignart's "stair-stepping"
Source: http://gds.parkland.edu/gds/!lectures/history/1975/postmodern.html
Tom
Andy Warhol - Pop Art
I have a found a very extensive if a little brief overview on Post modernist artist Andy Warhol with some references which could be useful.
The link:
http://tccpomo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/andy-warhol.html
The link:
http://tccpomo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/andy-warhol.html
Tom Kiernan
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
The Loss Of Origin... more info
I think this is an interesting idea from the Postmodernism book by Kevin Hart on how postmodernism is driven by anti-essentialism. The idea that things are to be questioned in everything from art to culture and more...
Anti-essentialism
"Not long after you have started to talk to a postmodernist, especially if it is someone influenced by post-structuralism, you will find that person arguing for anti-essentialism. There are various forms of it, depending on what 'essentialism' is taken to mean. One of the most widespread forms amounts to the contention that there is no natural or universe essence to being human: everything to do with our state has been historically formed and culturally conditioned. The positioned has appealed to liberals, especially femininists and socialists, as well as post-humanists.
... some anti-essentialists chew over the old question 'What is it to be human?' and either criticise humanist answers to it or try to give better answers themselves."
Hart,K. (2004). The Loss of Origin. In: Postmodernism: A Beginner's Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. p26.
GLEE / X Factor / The Voice
'Glee' is an American TV series set in a high school where a dysfunctional group of teenagers end up together in the glee club because of their love of singing/performing. They are seen as the losers in the school and social outcasts.
The series has become a mass media phenomenon - TV, CDs, iTunes, Glee tour etc, and their mash ups and covers of many songs have become so popular that their fan base/ mainly the younger generation have come to only know Glee's versions and not the original. Furthermore, if they have heard the original, they are actually preferring the new version and therefore this is a destabilisation of the origin/ the original songs.
Don't Stop Believing
Glee Cover 2009
Journey (Original) 1981
The Glee story also links to the postmodern idea of the ordinary person becoming a celebrity, through talent shows and is seen as an artificial and manufactured talent and rise to fame - no longer real or authentic. For instance, shows such as the X Factor and The Voice, where people go on to perform and from the moment they are on TV they acquire a huge fan base supporting them to win - aided by mass media advertising such as stories on social networks, in magazines, and updates on national news programmes. The fans/ audience have also become an active part in these competitions and are no longer just a passive audience, they participate in voting and play a part in the making of the winner of the competition. These competitions are seen as lacking in originality, because the contestants that go on, perform in the style of what they have seen in other famous music artists, or for example, a group of boys arriving on the X Factor claiming to be a boyband have styled themselves in the stereotypical way seen in huge bands across the world, and perform according to what they know works and will gain them success.
One Direction and Union J - both formed on the X Factor
(Lecture notes from 1st April 2014 - The Spectacular Invasion - Longstaff, G)
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
What is Modernism/Postmodernism?
Here is a brief video on Modernism and Postmodernism of what it actually means just so it's clear for everybody!
First of all, John Keenan in this video describes what modernism is:
"... modernism can be seen as belief in progress, through science, through research, through discovery - we are going to find out a better way of living..."
At around 4:20 in the video, he explains the ideas behind postmodernism:
"... postmodernism has the rejection of modernism... it suggest that this idea behind that was in modernism, that things were fixed, that things made sense, of rational thought mattered, all those ideas which were only ideas - and you could argue false ideas? Those ideas... society began to reject... is there more to life than that which we can just prove?..."
So... I guess you could say the 1980's onwards has seen this rise in postmodernism down to the fact that people were getting sick of things being so perfect and things always making sense. People wanted to start questioning society more such as the art movement which as you may know by now I am focusing on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ehh1b6kNWA
– Adam Reid
Monday, 28 April 2014
The Irrelevance of Great Postmodern Art
Regarding the first question, there’s little academic agreement about art’s function. Surely, at a minimum, though, great art should be the result of some skill or talent. Modernists valuedoriginality as a sign of individual genius unrestrained by dogmatic institutions. At best, though, newness is a necessary condition of great art, since there are scribbles, noises, and hackworks that have never before been seen, heard, or read. Also, the cult of originality takes for granted a teleological, progressivist view of history according to which what’s in the past is necessarily inferior to what will come. I prefer Spengler’s more naturalistic, cyclical theory of culture, according to which all civilizations come and go, passing through stages of vivacity and decline. Art should also hold up a mirror to the society in which it’s produced and to the spirit of its time. But this too doesn’t suffice for great art, since anything can be interpreted as indicating the state of current culture or of human nature. Perhaps art should also point the way to a solution to social ills. According to Paglia, for example, secular art should fulfill a spiritual need that can no longer be fulfilled by theistic religion. Even if artists have no clue about how to improve their culture, Paglia implies that viewing great art will advance culture by improving the quality of its citizens.
This isn’t a complete theory of art, by any means, but we can take the combination of those criteria as a rough guide and ask whether any current,postmodern art is great in those respects. Much postmodern art seems arbitrary and indeed fraudulent as opposed to demonstrating much skill. Some such art, however, in the attempt to push the envelope, is perpetrated on a vast scale, incorporating tons of steel or gallons of paint, showing off the artist’s skill, at least, in socializing or in otherwise raising the funds to pursue such large-scale projects. And much postmodern art does indeed prove that originality doesn’t suffice for greatness, since many postmodern paintings, for example, consist of just such novel forms of scribbling.
The pointlessness or pretentiousness of this art does reflect the apathy and jadedness of postmodern society, but this raises the further question of whether a corrupt society can produce objectively, universally great art. If a culture is rotten and its art reflects that degenerateness by being equally rotten, the art must surely be as poor, in a sense, as the culture that spawns it. But perhaps art can be so rotten, as in the case of any Michael Bay movie, that the depths to which the work sinks are as awesome as the heights of the most elevated art. Perhaps art can be so disposable that it stands as an odious warning of the end of human vice. In that respect, even the worst of postmodern art can be permanently useful, albeit only ironically and paradoxically since the “greatness” of this art would consist in the work’s encouragement to do much better. As for cultivating the viewer’s character, much postmodern art seems rather to reinforce the conventional cynicism and relativism; certainly, most postmodern artists would merely parrot obsolete liberal memes by way of recommending how Western societies might be salvaged.
However, the technological revolution complicates the evaluation of current Western art. The fact is that virtually every conceivable genre of art is now being produced and indeed made freely available on the internet. If you go to theLast radio website, for example, you’ll find lists of musicians occupying micro niches within niches. There’s electronic music, of course, but then there’s ambient music and then drone and then dark ambient and drone doom and then drone metal; then there’s funeral doom, drone doom metal, sludge, post-metal, stoner metal, sludgecore, sludge doom, and so on and so forth for all other music genres. Something similar is so with respect to painting, creative writing, and even acting. The internet has indeed allowed anyone to publish his or her own art. There are, for example, an astonishing number of blogs on every conceivable topic, including something as outlandish as existential cosmicism and the undead god. There’s more art created now than anyone can imagine and so as a matter of sheer probability you’d think that at least a fraction of this outpouring of art must be great.
Even were there now such hidden gems, though, the new ways in which this art is distributed raise the further question: Is all great art necessarily recognized as such? The works of many great painters, for example, became famous only after the painters died, having languished for years in obscurity, ignored or belittled by the art establishment--and that was before the advent of the internet and the information glut that afflicts consumers. There can be too much of a good thing; indeed, you can turn what was once a boon--when it was hard to come by or consumed in moderation--into a poison by consuming too much of it. An apple a day may be healthy, but twenty apples every day is not. Perhaps, then, technology has made art so abundant that we’ve become bored with it: not only have we peeked at the man behind the curtain, but we know everything there is to know about him; we have his cell phone number and he’s at our beck and call. When you can find not just free music, but any conceivable kind of music--and just by tapping a few keys--music may lose its charm. They say that the more you pay for something the more value you ascribe to what you buy, to justify the price, and thus the better you feel about paying so much for it. The corollary is that what can be so easily attained will seem all the more disposable and thus not worth having. (The stereotype of the loose woman works in the same way: when a woman is easily seduced, the man loses respect for her since he assumes she’s worthless as a trophy and likely won’t be faithful to him.)
This follows the pattern of Murphy’s Law: the harder something is to achieve, the more it’s worth having and the fewer the people who achieve it, whereas the fewer the troubles encountered in pursuing something, the less worthy the thing is and thus the more the suckers who settle on something so unimportant. The point is that prior to the democratization of art distribution by the printing press, television, and the internet, when art was truly a delicacy for the elite, art was prized if only as a status symbol, like a flat belly in the midst of so many MacDonald’s “restaurants.” Art in a postmodern society has no such high status, because it’s consumed along with the air we breathe. Thus, a democracy is usually the opposite of a meritocracy. Two heads are better than one only if one of the heads isn’t a dunderhead that will spoil things for the pair. The more heads you put into the mix, the more dunderheads you introduce and thus the lower the standard that must be suffered for group cohesion. You’d think that the dunderheads would be outweighed by the geniuses whose input would also be increased, but this assumes that the dunderheads equal the geniuses in number and influence. In those societies that are beset by poor public education systems and by waves and waves of media misinformation emanating from the likes of Fox News and talk radio, the dunderheads might well drown out the elites, which will shift the average and lower the standards of art, consumer products, politics, and everything else that depends on public demand.
To sum up, I suspect that there is great art now being produced in the West. This art is the product of great skill and originality and it deals with important topics. The problem with postmodern art may lie not with the artists, then, but with the consumers: we postmodernists are spoiled and we take our godlike knowledge and power for granted. The internet is the fabled horn of plenty, and just as the spirits in the Christian heaven would be insufferable, condescending pantywaists, so too our vices are exacerbated by the environment we help create. We steal much of what we find on the internet because we want the best deal possible, and that in turn is because we don’t make enough money to be carefree with our purchases; we don’t earn a living wage, because we settle for politicians who protect society’s naturally oligarchic structure, and we settle because the candidates’ technocratic handlers exploit our biological biases and so easily manipulate us. Then we enter a self-loathing phase as we realize we’re abusing a doomed business model in which content creators offer the fruits of their labours for free on the internet just on the off-chance that their work will go viral. Moreover, like decadent aristocrats we’re surrounded by such opulence that we become corrupted. We lose sight of the value of what’s in front of us because we equate its value with the ease with which we can obtain it (just by clicking away at the mouse for a few seconds); thus, we commit a form of the genetic fallacy. And so both the artists and the consumers suffer: the latter impoverish the former, and the former punish the latter with haystacks of mediocre art in which are buried perhaps some pins of great artworks.
The upshot, then, is that the quality of art is no longer decisive. Postmodernists are jaded because we’ve seen too much: too much art, too many religions, too many political scandals, too many celebrities, too many scientific discoveries, and on and on and on. The problem isn’t that we obviously have more history behind us than any previous generation; rather, we have much more information about that history, thanks to technological advances which have democratized the flow of information in general and not just the distribution of art. Our greater access to information has empowered and thus corrupted us. (Just imagine what a debauched tyrant God would be.) Wikipedia all by itself fulfills the adage that a little learning is dangerous: anyone on the internet now can learn a little about anything under the sun, and so we’re boastful and rude in our electronic mockeries of social interactions. Moreover, we’re inundated with media-generated images, news stories, jingles, and sales pitches, and so we’re glutted; we’re sick of our cultural follies. We’ve become desensitized to both the best and the worst of what we can accomplish. Somewhere in the cultural maelstrom may likely be found artworks that nourish the soul, but who has the patience to sift the swarms of inferior works or even the incentive to believe that nourishing anything is worthwhile or that there’s such a thing as a soul in the first place? The problem isn’t so much that art is dead, but that the postmodern art consumer is dead inside.
Here is a extract from an internet article about a viewpoint based on postmodernism. I thought it was interesting when the author mentioned how,
"Much postmodern art seems arbitrary and indeed fraudulent as opposed to demonstrating much skill."
It may be that postmodernism art in some people's opinion is just a form of abstract art with not much skill involved compared to the modernist idea of originality and perfection. It seems to suggest postmodern art is to some people just a regurgitation of trying to create something new that has already been achieved before. But that is the great thing about postmodernism, there is no right answer.
– Adam Reid
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Keith Haring
KEITH HARING
Characteristic of the era are two artists whose work incorporates the aesthetics of subcultures and popular culture: Keith Haring and Jeff Koons. Haring succeeded in combining elements of graffiti art, comics, computer sign language, children's drawing and ancient painting to form a highly poetic languages of signs that is comprehensible to people of many cultures. In the early 1990s, Jeff Koons attracted attention by virtue of the provocative banality of his subjects. Although he often used high-quality material in his works, their surface design alludes to the world of cheap ornaments and kitsch, as in the example of his life-sized, partially gold-plated porcelain figure of Michael Jackson with his chimpanzee Bubbles.
http://www.hatjecantz.de/postmodernism-5051-1.html
Keith Haring was an American artist and social activist responding to New York City’s street culture of the 1980s. His work is about birth, death, sex and war – very fitting for the period in which he lived and worked. Keith Haring was openly gay at a time when most non-heterosexuals kept their sexual proclivities behind closed doors. Part of Haring’s importance as an artist was how his art raised awareness of AIDS. Many of his works were featured in the Red Hot Organization’s efforts to raise money for AIDS research and AIDS awareness. Keith Haring himself died of AIDS in 1990 at age 32.
Haring had an almost cartoon like style to his artwork and his use of bold colour and lines gave his art a uniqueness that can be instantly recognisable. His art around the postmodern era showed expression especially as Haring was gay and so many of his paintings showed these signs of his personality.
– Adam Reid
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
What is The Meaning of "Avant-Garde"?
In fine art, the term "avant-garde" (from the French for 'vanguard') is traditionally used to describe any artist, group or style, which is considered to be significantly ahead of the majority in its technique, subject matter, or application. This is a very vague definition, not least because there is no clear consensus as to WHO decides whether an artist is ahead of his time, or WHAT is meant by being ahead. To put it another way, being avant-garde involves exploring new artistic methods, or experimenting with new techniques, in order to produce better art. The emphasis here is on design, rather than accident, since it seems doubtful that a painter or sculptor can be accidentally avant-garde. But what constitutes 'better' art? Does it mean, for instance, painting that is more aesthetically pleasing? Or more meaningful? Or more vividly coloured? The questions go on and on!
– Adam Reid
Monday, 21 April 2014
POSTMODERNISM
Of all movements in art and design history, postmodernism is perhaps the most controversial. This era defies definition; an unstable mix of the theatrical and theoretical, postmodernism was a visually thrilling multifaceted style that ranged from the colourful to the ruinous, the ludicrous to the luxurious.
Postmodernism shattered established ideas about style. It brought a radical freedom to art and design through gestures that were often funny, sometimes confrontational and occasionally absurd. Most of all, over the course of two decades, from about 1970 to 1990, postmodernism brought a new self-awareness about style itself.
Postmodernism was a drastic departure from modernism’s utopian visions, which had been based on clarity and simplicity. The modernists wanted to open a window onto a new world; postmodernism’s key principles were complexity and contradiction. If modernist objects suggested utopia, progress and machine-like perfection, then the postmodern object seemed to come from a dystopian and far-from-perfect future. Designers salvaged and distressed materials to produce an aesthetic of urban apocalypse.
As the 1980s approached, postmodernism went into high gear. What had begun as a radical fringe movement became the dominant look of the ‘designer decade’. Vivid colour, theatricality and exaggeration: everything was a style statement. Whether surfaces were glossy, faked or deliberately distressed, they reflected the desire to combine subversive statements with commercial appeal. The most important delivery systems for this new phase in postmodernism were magazines and music. The work of Italian designers – especially the groups Studio Alchymia and Memphis – travelled round the world through publications like Domus. Meanwhile, the energy of post-punk subculture was broadcast far and wide through music videos and cutting-edge graphics. This was the moment of the New Wave: a few thrilling years when image was everything.
As the ‘designer decade’ wore on and the world economy boomed, postmodernism became the preferred style of consumerism and corporate culture. Ultimately this was the undoing of the movement. Postmodernism collapsed under the weight of its own success, and the self-regard that came with it. The excitement and complexity of postmodernism were enormously influential in the 1980s. In the permissive, fluid and hyper-commodified situation of 21st-century design, we are still feeling its effects.
Friday, 18 April 2014
MODERN AND POSTMODERN ART?
Ask an Expert: What is the Difference Between Modern and Postmodern Art?
A curator from the Hirshhorn Museum explains how art historians define the two classifications
All trends become clearer with time. Looking at art even 15 years out, “you can see the patterns a little better,” says Melissa Ho, assistant curator at the Hirshhorn Museum. “There are larger, deeper trends that have to do with how we are living in the world and how we are experiencing it.”
FROM THIS STORY
So what exactly is modern art? The question, she says, is less answerable than endlessly discussable.
Technically, says Ho, modern art is “the cultural expression of the historical moment of modernity.” But how to unpack that statement is contested. One way of defining modern art, or anything really, is describing what it is not. Traditional academic painting and sculpture dominated the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. “It was about perfect, seamless technique and using that perfect, seamless technique to execute very well-established subject matter,” says Ho. There was a hierarchy of genres, from history paintings to portraiture to still lifes and landscapes, and very strict notions of beauty. “Part of the triumph of modernism is overturning academic values,” she says.
In somewhat of a backlash to traditional academic art, modern art is about personal expression. Though it was not always the case historically, explains Ho, “now, it seems almost natural that the way you think of works of art are as an expression of an individual vision.” Modernism spans a huge variety of artists and kinds of art. But the values behind the pieces are much the same. “With modern art, there is this new emphasis put on the value of being original and doing something innovative,” says Ho.
Edouard Manet and the Impressionists were considered modern, in part, because they were depicting scenes of modern life. The Industrial Revolution brought droves of people to the cities, and new forms of leisure sprung up in urban life. Inside the Hirshhorn’s galleries, Ho points out Thomas Hart Benton’s People of Chilmark, a painting of a mass of tangled men and women, slightly reminiscent of a classical Michelangelo or Théodore Géricault’s famous Raft of the Medusa, except that it is a contemporary beach scene, inspired by the Massachusetts town where Benton summered. Ringside Seats, a painting of a boxing match by George Bellows, hangs nearby, as do three paintings by Edward Hopper, one titled First Row Orchestra of theatergoers waiting for the curtains to be drawn.
In Renaissance art, a high premium was put on imitating nature. “Then, once that was chipped away at, abstraction is allowed to flourish,” says Ho. Works like Benton’s and Hopper’s are a combination of observation and invention. Cubists, in the early 1900s, started playing with space and shape in a way that warped the traditional pictorial view.
Art historians often use the word “autonomous” to describe modern art. “The vernacular would be ‘art for art’s sake,’” explains Ho. “It doesn’t have to exist for any kind of utility value other than its own existential reason for being.” So, assessing modern art is a different beast. Rather than asking, as one might with a history painting, about narrative—Who is the main character? And what is the action?—assessing a painting, say, by Piet Mondrian, becomes more about composition. “It is about the compositional tension,” says Ho, “the formal balance between color and line and volume on one hand, but also just the extreme purity of and rigor of it.”
According to Ho, some say that modernism reaches its peak with Abstract Expressionism in America during the World War II era. Each artist of the movement tried to express his individual genius and style, particularly through touch. “So you get Jackson Pollock with his dripping and throwing paint,” says Ho. “You get Mark Rothko with his very luminous, thinly painted fields of color.” And, unlike the invisible brushwork in heavily glazed academic paintings, the strokes in paintings by Willem de Kooning are loose and sometimes thick. “You really can feel how it was made,” says Ho.
Shortly after World War II, however, the ideas driving art again began to change. Postmodernism pulls away from the modern focus on originality, and the work is deliberately impersonal. “You see a lot of work that uses mechanical or quasi-mechanical means or deskilled means,” says Ho. Andy Warhol, for example, uses silk screen, in essence removing his direct touch, and chooses subjects that play off of the idea of mass production. While modern artists such as Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman made color choices that were meant to connect with the viewer emotionally, postmodern artists like Robert Rauschenberg introduce chance to the process. Rauschenburg, says Ho, was known to buy paint in unmarked cans at the hardware store.
“Postmodernism is associated with the deconstruction of the idea, ‘I am the artistic genius, and you need me,’ ” says Ho. Artists such as Sol LeWitt and Lawrence Weiner, with works in the Hirshhorn, shirk authorship even more. Weiner’s piece titled “A RUBBER BALL THROWN ON THE SEA, Cat. No. 146,” for example, is displayed at the museum in large, blue, sans-serif lettering. But Weiner was open to the seven words being reproduced in any color, size or font. “We could have taken a marker and written it on the wall,” says Ho. In other words, Weiner considered his role as artist to be more about conception than production. Likewise, some of LeWitt’s drawings from the late 1960s are basically drawings by instruction. He provides instructions but anyone, in theory, can execute them. “In this post-war generation, there is this trend, in a way, toward democratizing art,” says Ho. “Like the Sol LeWitt drawing, it is this opinion that anybody can make art.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ask-an-expert-what-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-postmodern-art-87883230/?no-ist
– Adam Reid
Wednesday, 16 April 2014
Chuck Close: A Portrait in Progress
CHUCK CLOSE
This artist is very interesting because he uses grids to help paint his paintings. If you read the written article below it explains how his artistic style changed when he suffered a medical tragedy. From 1988 after his tragedy, Close began painting in a more abstract style and we could begin to see an almost modern take on abstract art vs abstract realism.
Chuck Close Big Self-Portrait, 1968 acrylic on canvas 107 1/2 x 83 1/2 in. WAC | Chuck Close Kiki, 1993 acrylic on canvas 107 1/2 x 83 1/2 in. WAC |
About the Art Chuck Close is associated with the style of painting called Photorealism or Superrealism. In this style, artists in the early 1970s created a link between representational systems of painting and photography. Photorealism developed as a reaction to the detachment of Minimalism and conceptual art, which did not depict representational images. Photorealists frequently used a grid technique to enlarge a photograph and reduce each square to formal elements of design. Each grid was its own little work of art. Many of the Photorealists used the airbrush technique. Big Self-Portrait, in black and white, was the first of Close's mural-sized works painted from photographs. This painting took four months to complete. To make this work, Close took several photographs of himself in which his head and neck filled the frame. From these he selected one of the images and made two 11 x 14-inch enlargements. On one of the photographs he drew a grid, then lettered and numbered each square. Using both the gridded and ungridded photographs, he carefully transferred the photographic image square by square onto a large canvas measuring 107 1/2 x 83 1/2 inches. He used acrylic paint and an airbrush to include every detail. When Close was making his painting he was concerned with the visual elements--shapes, textures, volume, shadows, and highlights--of the photograph itself. He also was interested in how a photograph shows some parts of the image in focus, or sharp, and some out-of-focus, or blurry. In this portrait the tip of the cigarette and the hair on the back of his head were both out-of-focus in the photograph so he painted them that way inBig Self-Portrait. Artists frequently change their style of work and Close experienced a tragedy that subsequently influenced his painting style. In 1988, he had a spinal blood clot, which left him a quadriplegic, unable to move either his legs or his arms. With a paint brush clamped between his teeth, he developed a new way to paint. His portraits, the photos, and canvases were gridded off by assistants and then he used his mouth brush to paint, using the techniques of grisaille and pointillism within the grids. This is similar to technique used by the Impressionists and Pointillists. The result was still a canvas of mini-paintings, which when viewed from a distance are seen as a single or unified image. | |
Close's new technique is apparent in the second portrait on this page entitled Kiki (right). This painting was made in 1993, 25 years afterBig Self-Portrait . Kiki also took three to four months for the artist to complete. http://www.artsconnected.org/artsnetmn/identity/close.html – Adam Reid |
Chuck Close, Kiki (detail)
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)