the artist, artwork and the audience

its been a while~ didn't do well for my exams sigh.

anyway we were given an intro to h3 some time ago and my post today would revolve around the artist, the audience and the artwork. i guess different people have different definitions of what an artwork is, who can be considered an artist. i'm very sure my response will change from now on as i know very little about the art world. my knowledge on artists and their artwork is very, very limited. as i explore and learn more, i can say for sure that my definitions will eventually change.

but anyway, here are my thoughts at this moment.

my definition of artist is rather strict and many of you may not agree with it but its my own personal thoughts.  an artist must be someone who partakes in the making of his artwork. meaning he has to be physically involved in his work. and to call an artwork his, he has to come up with the idea of the work himself. okay this all sounds really confusing but let me try and give an example to clarify things. lets say marc quinn, most of his sculptures aren't done by him. he came up with the idea, so the artworks such as "plane" and "chemical life support" can be said to be HIS artworks. however i wouldn't call him the artist in this case because he doesn't create the sculpture himself. at most he'll pop by to check out his work and make sure everything is right but he doesn't make the mold, etc. maybe he does the mini clay armature... okay so does it make him the artist? since he made the initial clay armature itself?? my definitions are so hazy that I'm sure they'll change.. someone who helps another person create his/her work is not an artist because although he is physically involved in the creation of the artwork, the artwork is not his. and back to my definition: an artist must be someone who is physically involved IN HIS ARTWORK. yeah this is a rather strict definition and it'll be tough to categorize 'artists'. however i realize yet another loophole, and that is my definition may change yet again depending on 'leisure artists' and 'commercial artists'

the artwork. the artwork, as mentioned above, is the work created by someone. it can only be called eg. XXX's artwork if XXX came up with the idea/concept. if not it can only be called an artwork but not XXX's artwork. then again, what constitutes an artwork? i mean how do you brand it a work of art? when is a work a work of art and when is it not? what is art? if its created by the artist (link to the above para on what is the def of an artist) then its called an artwork? what if its not created by the artist? XXX comes up with the idea, but he doesn't make the work. instead AAA makes the work. so both XXX and AAA are not artists (according to my definition) but the work is placed in an art gallery. therefore is the work an artwork?? or just a work? is there even a difference between an artwork and a work of art? my definitions now are rather confusing so please don't mind me. it'll be interesting to ask yourself what do you consider an artwork, who do you consider an artist and the audience.

for audience, there's 3 kinds of audience. one is the general public. ANYONE who sees the work is immediately called an audience. whether he or she knows about the artist/background of the artist or work/ meaning behind the work. they are allowed to form their own interpretation and understanding of the work. the other kind is the intended audience. audience of that specific time/period whereby the artwork (I'm using the term loosely here) and the audience resonate with each other. e.g. duane hanson's tourist II may be intended for the people of that time whereby the dressing suits that period of time and the work is able to blend in with its surroundings. the last group of audience is the people of the artwork. the critiques, the art buyers/traders/collectors. they will have their own thoughts an ideas which may be different from others. fauvist works such as those by matisse were actually rejected by critiques of that time, saying the works resembles those of a beast. but look now, fauvism has become a well known style.

i also feel that to be an artist, one must not be too sensitive. there are many people in this world and there are many interpretations of one single work. all the various interpretations may not have been your initial interpretation/what you want others to think. however you must accept the other interpretations as they may be more insightful that your very own impression. or, you can see it in another way. your skills aren't up to par such that your technical control, composition and etc does not help in bringing out your message, such that people can derive other meaning from your work. then if you wanna be angry, you can only blame yourself. there is no contract/ obligation that others must follow your meaning. in fact, i personally feel that the audience should at least try to understand the work and derive your own meaning before listening to guides on what the artwork is like. because you will be swayed and immediately think 'ohhhh so this is what the artist meant' and your own creativity and imagination is killed. it'll be more interesting to go 'hmm i think its ...' then 'ohhhhhhhhh so its like that. but its cool that i thought of it differently/ yup yup that was what i thought too/ i knew it!' it makes art exploration much more meaningful.

also, lemme say a little on what i think the function of art is. the function of art is to EVOKE AND PROVOKE. to me, an artwork is not really effective/ interesting to me when all it does is to paint what people see. unless you're talking about skills like photorealist. their skills are so good that i can stand and stare at the painting for hours thinking of the methods the artist use to create his work. art should make you think. think about the material, the technique, the process, the message, the meaning, the hidden meanings. sometimes i would step into the shoes of the artist and think, is there anything i'll change about this work to bring about this particular meaning and why? i like artists who use new mediums and i'll think of how the work is being done. i also like artist who uses traditional medium to create interesting hidden messages. weird and unique artworks for example, merging of different animals/humans? instead of painting a scenery. i think weird works are more interesting. however, a work that is too abstract would not be able to catch my attention because its too 'far'. i cannot really 'interact' or 'click' with the works. (okay I'm losing all my words here somehow i can't think of the correct words now. maybe too tired :/) art cannot merely capture what we see because now we have cameras. art has to evoke thoughts from the audiences/provoke them, allowing them to think.

okay thats it. I'm gonna sleep. will edit this another time. bye~

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!

lets get healthy

i love this commercial. i like how they show many people doing a continuous action, i dont know how to explain. isit called time lapse photography? but i like this idea, its fun and gets its meaning across well. the song's cute and catchy too, one of my favourite commercials

what a cute mv!  the way they dance, the way words aren't use. its seriously my first time seeing a 'dancing' mv and not some mv where there is a story line and the singers act it out, or some sexy dance or some group dance. okay im contradicting myself cause this is a group dance but the way they dance is different, just watch and i think you'll understand what i mean.

this is what i call narrating using dance.

jon rappleye

Fantastic Planet

acrylic and spray enamel on paper

42.375"x72" 

2008

A Litany in Time of Plague 
acrylic and spray enamel on paper
22.25"x30"

2008

ECO ART

aurora robson makes art from recycled materials

Robson’s work uses recycled materials to such an extent that she now enjoys receiving junk mail because it gives her new material to create her work. “The language and costly graphic devices and fancy printing used in junk mail gives it a persuasive, positive and personal flavor, making it great fodder for my work. My practice is ultimately about recognizing and embracing new possibilities and encouraging others to do the same,” she writes in her artist’s statement. Some of her more memorable pieces involve plastic bottles carved, cut and twisted into romantic, unrecognizable forms. Like the best artists working with recycled materials, Robson makes the trash she works with a thing of beauty and mystery.

animal hats

while researching for my coursework,
i came across this artist called nagi noda
this is his website : http://www.naginoda.com/

he's an interesting artist and i love his collection on animal hair
                     

i love the details of the animals
i think its a rather interesting concept, rather than creating normal sculptures like those made of different kind of stones, nagi used hair, and made it into a hat
i dont know how he did it but i would love to learn how to create detailed sculptures using hair, a material that is soft :/
but unfortunately, nagi noda passed away on sept 7 2008 at the tender age of 35, after surgical complications from injuries sustained in a traffic accident.

coloured creatures

these are some of the oil paintings from Marion Rose's Western & Wildlife Art portfolio.

Artist Statement

Color surprises, bold texture and generous paint have always drawn collectors to my work, and now the paintings are bigger than ever before. The abstract spirit of every subject is coming through more clearly with spontaneous gestures that involve my whole body. It's like a dance before the canvas, and the surface is coming alive!

This new direction is proving to be influential to my smaller work as well. It's fresher, with more dramatic compositions and a more immediate expression of essence

marion's paintings are super colourful! (i like!!!) she doesnt really stick to the actual colour of the aimals, instead she uses bright and highly pigmented oil paints. brushworks seem very carefree, which is nice (to me) actually, i love her brushwork haha
cause, as some of you know, i cant do the invisible brushwork thing, it kills me. this is due to several reasons but the main reason is probably because i lack patience. so should i use oil, its natural for me to paint like that, like the blue flower painting we did. the only exception was the pop art nanyang painting. i was 'forced' to paint neatly!!!! cause the theme requires neat and precise brushwork. but if given a choice, i'll want to paint in this manner.
but i think i MAY go back to the neat brushwork because such free brush strokes does not suit my current idea, but who knows, new compositions may pop out from my brain and maybe i'll be able to paint like that! (it'll probably take me a shorter time to paint in this way as compared to the neat way)
the colours she used complement each other and it makes the painting more interesting and more lively (i tried the watercolour version on my sec 3 coursework and my owl turned out like a parrot, but i'm happy with the effect~ though i didnt really plan the colours, its sort of, just 'try-try' or 'anyhow-put-the-colours' kind of thing? i dont know if she plans her colours out or what but i doubt so, cause it'll take real hard work and patience to plan it )
to see more of her paintings :
http://marionrose.com/

i've thought of doing my painting like that, but i have more than 1 animals, and if its too colourful, im sure it'll hurt the eyes

on a side note, i find her colours maybe a tad tooooo bright, cause my eyes kinda hurt a little after seeing it for so long -____-

inspirations

Hamish Mackie is a british wildlife sculpture. his works are made of bronze/cement.

his works are detailed in an undetailed manner. and his works are not of a smooth surface, its extremely textured. it looks as if he just slap some cement/clay onto his work and gradually form the shape of the animal. the animals are proportionate and detailed. it captures the movements of the animals. its like caught in action. this is what i like about his works. though their extremely, deadly still, there is still movement present in the work. i seem like im contradicting myself, but i dont really know how to explain it further, so just look at his works, i think you'll get what im trying to say

this work is graceful. elegant. smooth. interesting. see how the legs of the antelope is joined to the ground/the bark. and its a smooth flow/action of leaping

majestic. strong. firm

fast. playful

playful. full of actions!

action action!

i want my coursework to be based on animals
but i have yet to think of a medium  and the theme
i'm thinking of either sculpture( never tried before), or oil (but i have very very little tryouts with oil, so im not confident), or maybe watercolour (but my watercolour is not impactful)
any suggestions?