Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
RESOURCES
THINGS WE LIKE
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(58)
-
▼
February
(25)
- © 2009 Best's Studio Inc DBA The Ansel Adams Galle...
- SHANNON SLAUGHTER
- JENNY METZ
- GLENCORA GUDGER
- CATHY BRANDT
- BARTOSZ ZIENDA
- ELLIE GUTOWSKI
- EMILY DAVIS
- RENESSA COPELAND
- RACHEL MENDY
- RACHEL RECKLING
- JORDAN GRANT
- ROWAN COPLEY
- MEGAN KELLY
- MONICA FRANTZ
- SARAH KRAMER
- SARAH KRAMER
- Robert Frank on NPR's All Things Considered
- Soul Rebel: An Intimate Portrait of Bob Marley
- FOUND & BOUND Self-assessments
- ART EVENT Response Papers
- Many of you are familiar with Richard Avedon's Por...
- The Ethics of Photography
- No title
- PLEASE POST FIRST SEMESTER_LONG PROPOSALS HERE
-
▼
February
(25)
I have to say that I was a little disappointed in the panel discussion. When I first heard about it, I was thrilled. I thought it was a fabulous idea and a very unique experience. It would be unlike anything else I have seen at this school. Unfortunately, while it did yield some very intriguing insight into the show, I feel it was very rushed and disorganized.
ReplyDeleteI was expecting each panelist to take center stage a little more. I guess I overlooked the word, "discussion." I wanted each person to speak more in depth about their discipline, the show specifically, and even their own personal interpretation of the show. I completely understand that a discussion could have been a very intriguing means of conducting this event, but since there was really not much audience interaction anyway, I think the "discussion" would have been more effective as a series of gallery talks or lectures. There was just not enough time for a real discussion to take place. There were too many panelists and disciplines and far too little time to address all the issues that were of interest to me. I spent so much time just trying to keep up with all the jumping around and interpret what the panelists were talking about that I couldn't even begin to formulate questions for them.
I love this concept. I would like for it to happen again for future shows, but I think it should be done differently. I certainly do not think there should be any fewer disciplines involved, but I do think each representative should present their material in a more direct fashion. I feel as though some representatives were much more thorough than others. There needs to be a little more consistency so that as an audience we are getting enough information to really compare and contrast the different responses of the respective disciplines.
While George Ciscle's project with the students was a rigorous endeavor and surely a success, I was most interested in Ciscle's discussion of Fred Wilson. The artifacts he highlighted spoke for themselves, but his arrangement of them was truly gut-wrenching. His purpose was clear, but it did not seem as though it was beat into the ground. It was a very effective means of both reflecting two vastly different cultures living side-by-side, and taking a blow at the horrible tendency of the museum to reflect one facet of history and label it as though it is all-encompassing.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if artists had their way with artifacts more often--as long as it was very carefully researched--"museums" would be far more interesting and insightful. Viewers would be more engaged and museums would function to put forth ideas to be considered rather than presenting chronological or categorical moments in time. Then again, I'm really not a museum-goer.
I'll admit, when listening to Richard Nicholson's lecture I found myself so wrapped up in his powerpoint presentation that I ended up thinking more about the formal qualities of presenting and of the images he chose than I did about his words. I loved the pauses. It was so dramatic. They were moments of reflection. Usually when speakers have text on the screen they read from it, talk over it, or some combination of the two. Not Nicholson. In an act reminiscent of a movie or documentary, when a quote or phrase came on the screen he let there be silence so the audience could read and even have a short moment to reflect. It was a very beautiful and effective strategy, though in the case of audience members like me, it may have been detrimentally so. It kept me in a perpetual state of spaciness.
ReplyDeleteI did think it was a wonderful technique that many people, despite how simple it is, do not employ. It was worth discussing for that reason alone. His excerpts from books like The Things They Carried (a book which really leaves you stirred and feeling almost empty inside) were very powerful as well.
His whole presentation I felt really contributed to his theme of the war story. His statements, his selected excerpts, and his rather slow, documentary-style presentation all reflected a desire to tell of war as it is. It is important to put forth images of war which portray the disgusting, disorienting, and displacing experience it is for those directly involved. It is not something to be glorified and moralized, yet it is something which should be documented and remembered.
There are many ways of doing this, as Nicholson demonstrated. The works that struck me the most from Nicholson's talk were the textile casts of people's backs, the toy soldier series, and the calligraphy. The textile casts were very cold, disturbing, and isolating. They represent the massiveness and waste of war by presenting us with a group of backs to which we cannot associate faces and individuals.
The toy soldier series is quite different in tone. It is a much more satiric take on the issue of war. It stirs up our memories of being children playing with toy soldiers and says "that's what war is." It is "just a game" and soldiers are just "moved around." Soldiers are not individuals, they are manipulated by others.
The calligraphy work was also very interesting. While it is abstract and created in a very haphazard manner, it is also rather figurative. The viewer can easily blend the blotches and strings of ink together into a scene of battle. There is a sense of tension and pushing and pulling inherent in the work.
I think over all, the most important thing I took away from Nicholson's talk is that a presentation can and should reinforce the topic on which you are presenting. Content is not the only information you gather from a presentation. Tone of voice, pace of speech, layout of the powerpoint, and other such factors also contribute to the message you express to your audience. Nicholson did a wonderful job utilizing all of these elements.
Monica Frantz
ReplyDeleteRichard Nickolson’s lecture “How to Tell a War Story: European and American Perspectives” was encouraging and engaging. He explored the link between art and war—two pursuits that are often found at opposite ends of the spectrum today. Nickolson was a member of a team of artists employed by the military to document the Vietnam War. Artists find inspiration in war, protest war through art, create monuments to war, and, in his case, are supported by war.
The perspective of many artists who are asked to create monuments to wars and battles particularly intrigued me. The commissioning party often rejects the creation. After the Kent State shootings, the statue was returned to the artist. The artwork done by Nickolson and his fellow artists remains in vaults underground. It is a disservice to the people of a nation to hide away the work of these artists, which includes images portraying the humanity of the civilians and the atrocities of war.
I was also interested to hear of the debate between Matthew Brady and his assistant during the Civil War. Brady often chose to craft his composition, moving the deceased to create a more artistic image. His assistant believed that scenes of war did not require manipulation—it was enough to portray exactly what was found. This question of how strongly the artist should handle their work is important to consider when one considers the influence of art in public opinion of war.
Nickolson did not address propaganda in his lecture, or the differences between American and European art. He only touched briefly upon the present situation in Iraq. He raised important issues to consider when art and war intersect. As I viewed the image of Guernica by Picasso, I was reminded of its power to communicate the cruelty and pain of war; Picasso uses art to reflect upon this atrocity and, in doing so, depicts the pure evil of war.
Nicholson's discussion of his work:
ReplyDeleteIt was great to finally see some of Nicholson's work, and get a glimpse of his early life. I am always very interested in how people's past experiences seem to influence their art. Knowing now that he was born in DC, his father worked for the government, and one of his first memories was of watching the inaugural parade really sheds some light on his work (at least for me). In my opinion, his upbringing in the nation's capital really shows through in his work, as he is very much concerned with expressing the truth of war and how architectural structures define a place.
This said, I am very glad Sue raised the question about the figure because that is the only reason I really understand his fascination with architecture. Selfishly, I was glad to hear that his reasoning for not using figures was not because he overtly rejects them, but rather because he wanted to do something he felt wasn't already being done extensively. Because I can't stand drawing straight lines, I tend not to give architecture much thought. Therefore, I found rather interesting Nicholson's point that architecture and specific structures can really take us to a particular place, and even time, more quickly than a figure can. While that is not always true, of course, it was certainly a valid point I had never considered before.
His mention of abstraction as an attempt to get at the essence of something was important for me as well. I have found that I am using the word essence quite a bit in discussion of my work, but I certainly do not consider my work abstract. I will have to figure out exactly what I mean by the word essence and make this clear to my audience, since obviously the term is rather vague.
Perhaps the most important topic he discussed, however, is scale. When he began to talk about his purposeful use of a rather small scale, I was reminded of a similar value I used to possess but had lost sight of. I always refused to work large. While it was partially because working large was inconvenient, it was also because I did not want to fall into that mindset of big-equals-good. I like small art. I think small art can be just as powerful as large art. I don't like that big art gets an easy response, and I really don't like to think that people like my work primarily because of its scale. I started making my work larger in response to my audience and, I will admit, I like it. The large scale is fitting for the work and has a purpose other than just being large, but I completely agree with Nicholson that art can be monumental and small.
Rickard Emery-Nickolson’s lecture was titled Self-Portrait where he discussed all his works from when he was in graduate school to when he was drafted to now as a traveling artist. He started off talking about childhood memories and how in 1951 Charles Scheeler and Williams Carlos Williams were very important inspirationally. However his dad was the first one to give him an art lesson when he was building dollhouses. Started in drafting school and then in graduate school did a far amount of acrylic paintings such as the ‘Patuxent’ and the ‘Asiatic’ how ever his senior project was oil paintings on canvas with the main focus on a bucket or a set of buckets.
ReplyDeleteHe was then drafted in June 18, 1969 in the army and was placed in Vietnam with an combat artist team (#1). His job was to document military and civilian life in anyway and place. He got out of the service in 1971, but all of his drawings and sketchbooks that he did over those three years where kept by the army, which was the deal when he was drafted. When he first got back he expressed that it was difficult for him to get back into the swing of things and start painting again however he tried and the first year painted about 10-12 paintings drawn in Bloomington.
When he started to become familiar with being a civilian again he started teaching as well as a series of drawings on the shaker theme. He would draw them in his sketchbook and then redo the drawings as paintings in his studio at home. He then started working with ceramics, creating building like objects. While also incorporating then ceramics and a painting so he would not forget about either aspect that he liked.
Over all he expressed how his style changed over the years and what impacted the changes such as being drafted. It was extremely fascinating to get a glimpse into the overall pattern of an artists work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI attended the All Student Art show and was impressed by the variety in the subject matter of student work. Although I would have liked to see more people represented (several people had multiple submissions), I thought that the work selected as very interesting. I particularly liked the photography of Kris Fulk (our TA!), which gave her audience a unique perspective on "superwoman" - the composition was very thoughtful and aesthetically, I really enjoyed her work. Hers were among the photographs exhibited that I liked the best. There was also Kate Pollasch's sculpture, which I couldn't stop coming back to and trying to reexamine throughout my time at the art show. It may have been beneficial for the Gallery to post a brief artists' statement by each of the works, but I almost enjoyed the mystery of her sculpture as much as the piece itself.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite works, though, was Ally Moore's collage representing pop culture's ideals of feminine beauty. Although women in America are constantly reinvesting themselves in these ideals, I think Ally did a great job showing us just how inescapable these expectations for women are. We are saturated with images of beauty that are difficult to attain and encourage unhealthy perspectives in young females, concerning their physical appearance. I think her composition did a good job conveying this.
It was also exciting to see Shannon Slaughter's flash video represented among the work!
After leaving the gallery, I found myself very appreciative of the fact that St. Mary's offers this opportunity to all of its students. Having the chance to display your work publicly, as well as seeing the work of other students, is a valuable experience for the artists as well as the gallery-goers. Not many people necessarily get the chance to view art at all, even in the context of a museum; the simple act of milling around a gallery with faculty and peers is a good one. Art should be discussed, viewed, and appreciated socially, and that's exactly what is being done at an art show like this. I was glad to see students from many different academic departments getting together at an AAH-sponsored event.
I was excited to see that the AAH Department was co-sponsoring the Women Studies Colloquium, and looked forward to hearing Dr. Elizabeth Wayland Barber discuss textiles as "Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years". My understanding of textiles now is limited mainly to fashion, in the context of innovative styles that are being produced by clothing designers (as well as more "textiles" as influenced by pop culture; see television shows such as "Project Runway" or "America's Next Top Model"). Seeing a historical perspective on textiles was brand new for me, and extremely interesting.
ReplyDeleteDr. Barber began her presentation by pointing out that, throughout history, women have been in charge of several household occupations, including childrearing, cooking, and (of course) the production of textiles. She acknowledges this in order to stress the considerable burden that women shouldered in order to maintain control over all these areas of work. This Ïact made the textiles that Dr. Barber showd us all the more fascinating - sophisticated patterns, innovative stitching, and creativity were all apparent in these ancient examples, which surprised me very much.
What surprised me the most, however, was the way that women were in business for themselves in the ancient Middle East, when textiles were a main source of currency. Dr. Barber argues that this explains the equality that women in these regions enjoyed. Although skilled labor was required of women in other regions as well, the economic necessity of these productions were not on the same level as, for example, ancient Egypt, and so Dr. Barber posits that this partially explains why equality was not given the same recognition. It emphasizes the power of economics in both contributing to and righting social inequalities, but it also underscores the ways in which women were capable of producing socially significant works that commanded respect.
My favorite part of Dr. Barber's lecture was her closing, in which she hypothesizes that the famous Venus statue (with the missing arms) was likely a statue of Venus spinning thread. She showed us an artist's rendition of this possible scenario, and it was truly changed my perspective of the statue. I spoke to Dr. Barber after the lecture, and we talked about how sexualized the statue is in popular consciousness - however, putting this work in the context of a socially powerful occupation such as textile production puts a completely different spin on history.
Although the lecture was interdisciplinary, the connections to Art and Art History are clear. There was honestly never a dull moment in the lecture and I was thrilled to have attended this event. I hope the AAH Department brings more scholars to campus who can discuss art in an interdisciplinary context, so that art and art history can be more accessible to non-AAH majors.