visuals

post NY

HCAEP New York trip was once of the best trips (okay all art trips are nice). Firstly, there wasn’t any rush unlike the London paris trip we had in sec 3 where we crammed many museums in one day, although I suggest that certain museum’s timings are abit to short, and some abit too long. For example, for whitney and smaller museums, around 2 hours to 2 and a half hours would be sufficient while larger museums such as national history and MET should have around or more than 4 hours because there are just too many things to sketch!

Secondly, I knew everyone better after this trip and realized that this trip has changed some of us, one clear example would be Esmond. Prior to the trip, Esmond was firm in saying that abstract art isn’t effective art but after the trip, during the sharing, he was a total convert! My sentiments stay the same before and after the trip though, that I cannot really connect with abstract works, but I really do enjoy looking at how the works are create, for example the materials used, how and what the artist used to achieve such effects such as the works we see while gallery hoping in Chelsea (the flower in solidified wax/liquid foam and the glazed medium work). This has made me realize the importance of materials and the range of effects and materials I can actually try exploring. This trip has prompted me to try stepping out of my comfort zone and consider sculpturing for ILP)

Thirdly, there was sufficient shopping time! Though not really related to art, I was able to experience the America culture and being a tourist myself made me think about Duane Hanson’s work. Are we Asians being stereotyped because some of the people were not very helpful towards me while some are. When we wanted to ask for directions, some would ignore us and we kept asking tourists instead of local which made me wonder if they are really local or tourists and is there a way to differentiate them, like how Hanson did. If there is a way, does that mean that I have subconsciously stereotyped them?

Some works are really mind-boggling but art has allowed me to be open-minded and be accepting of various things. Before attending AEP, I used to have a preconceived ideal of what art is and if the works do not fit into the ‘ideals’ then it is not considered art. After the sec 3 trip, I saw many old master works, the typical kind of art you would expect in a grand museum and some modern ones which made me raise my eyebrow. After visiting SAM and 8Q I began to accept ‘art’ as it is. After the NY trip, there isn’t really a clear boundary where I can say what is art and what is not. Art is subjective but few have realized that. What we think may be nice to us may not actually be our opinions but rather influences from others, the environment and background knowledge we have. We have restricted ourselves in Singapore. There is a clear line between what’s art and what’s not, for example, vandalism, here in Singapore due to the culture and environment. However, there isn’t a clear line between these two in NY. Why the great difference? This will be a problem if the government intends on making Singapore into an art hub. Sure, we have interesting architectures and galleries and there’s the biennale and art festival. However, only under these circumstances would be refer to works as ‘pieces of art’. Outside these contexts, we don’t consider art to be art. (Well, I still think they are art but others don’t)

This made me think (on the last day during central park reflections) is there a limit as to what you can call art and what not? Hence, there isn’t a way to actually judge art because different things appeal to different people. I’m not really questioning art teachers because I know they have to carry out their job and have a guide for marking due to the education system. Furthermore, according to Mr Lim Kok Boon, what we are learning now isn’t art, but rather it is just art education. You don’t do art unless you are out on your own in the world, without any restrictions. Then again, when art becomes a commodity, is it still art, or has it morphed into a business to ensure one’s survival? So, back to the topic, how do people judge one’s work for a competition? Is there yet another guide line? If so, shouldn’t the guide line be shown to us for fair competition? If there isn’t, does this imply that it is based on the judge’s own aesthetic appeal? Is that why we have a panel of judges instead of one judge?

Furthermore, fashion has a trend, such that it goes in a circle and the trends can be recycled. Will art eventually be the same? We started off with idealistic human proportions and highly technical skills. Then art moved on to impressionist, capturing the effects of light before going on to more abstract movements such as cubism, abstract expressionism, hard edge, op art. Photorealism and hyperrealism made an appearance, akin to the highly technical paintings of the paste, though different. The focus on the details is back with a greater variety of mediums. Will we eventually come back to appreciate master works (not saying now we are not but I personally feel that the exposure to the variety of art has made we lost certain interest in master works)? Or will such works eventually lose their appeal and value with the rise of contemporary, controversial art such as ready mades? Does art constitute to the technical abilities and appeal or is it just the meaning behind a piece of work or is it just a reaction towards something? It may be because of technology, that what I see and what interests me are more of the controversial artworks and new mediums although I still appreciate master works. Now, to me, good art should include good technical control, meaning and appeal, although appeal is not that important.

However, this also contradicts how I always say ‘I create art because I want to and not for any particular reason’. I guess one should start off with a message or idea before doing art, and explore and discover while doing art, which will add more meaning or allow you to view things in a different light. To be, art is about enjoyment and self-discovery, in which both were experienced during the trip. I realized that I like sketching and discovered my own style of sketching. I can describe my style as fast, sketchy though controlled.  I personally think I sketch kind of fast. Although people say that you should take your time and that you need patience to do art, I think that art can be fast. I guess my character is reflected in my style: I like to do things fast and even though I am rather messy, there is some neatness to my disorder! It would be interesting to have the class share their sketches one day and to ask the class to identify who’s sketch belongs to who and perhaps how the sketches reflect our personality. It’ll be interesting!

All in all, I really enjoyed the trip and it made me think through my pre assumptions about art , what I am actually doing and what is going on around me. It also allowed self discovery and I understand everyone better. I guess this trip really bonded the class as a whole and it will one of those unforgettable trips!