Back To the Roots

What is striking about the 2009 Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition was the common thread of the organic, the natural, and the expression of a concept neither obvious nor easy to grasp. It was perhaps the last characteristic that lent so much to the feeling of ambiguity for the viewer. This is not to say the uncertainty experienced was unpleasant; on the contrary, it led the observer into an environment of awe and mystery that was difficult not to appreciate.

The most striking artists were Heather Losey McGeachy and Lauren McCleary. McGeachy’s pieces were wholly unique in both their technique and content. Her images were created in a style that resembled watercolor in their broad washes of color and vibrancy, though the feeling of reality blurring with the intangible is certainly felt within the landscapes. A perfect example would be “Lions Arch” where a woman surveys her surroundings in futuristic attire. In a way her pieces present themselves as sketches with a life breathed into them through color and composition. The presentation of the paintings themselves was also effective, as it created a depth that is unique to a two-dimensional image. The manner the paintings hung away from the wall allowed for shadow to play a role in their arrangement.

McCleary’s pieces were similarly intriguing with their indistinct messages and “points,” so to speak. Her installation “The Ins and Outs” was magnificent with its use of wind, light, shadow, and imagery. While the pieces did not readily come together as a whole, each aspect gave itself to a broader experience. Each work was a journey with discoveries to be made. Whether identifying all the elephants or realizing the next up above was made of the bodies of horses, every aspect was in and of itself intriguing to analyze.

Even though these women were the most remarkable, the other artists presented held an oddly similar feel to their pieces. Dustin Price created works of outstanding beauty and composition, though quite organic and neutral in color. Brad Dinsmore delved more into the abstract and ambiguous, his pieces rarely evoking any clear or coherent ideas. Even childlike in nature, Dinsmore’s work probably loses his audience because of their distracting compositions and vague purposes. An example of this were the “Epistemology Notebooks” where each page held a line or scribble in various colors. Above all, his work was difficult to identify with because of its scattered nature. While his statements allude to a purpose of questioning knowledge, one is moved to ask what knowledge was put into his work. With words misspelled and the technique delving into the appearance of grade school utensils having been used, it is difficult for the message to be clear through the clutter.

Nevertheless, even with these few objections to technique it was interesting to see the ever-present atmosphere of questionable environments. In a world of constant change and a present time-period of wide confusion and uncertainty, their pieces were essentially a snap-shot of the morale of much of America and even the world today. Their pieces, though obscure in meaning, were all asking the viewer to journey into them, analyze the pieces, and come up with an individual interpretation. Though some artists were more successful at this than others, all of them created art requiring a personal thought processes and conclusions. This in itself is reminiscent of the human condition in the twenty-first century.

Some have argued that the artwork was bland and emotionless, but a more accurate interpretation of these feelings would be that those viewers were not doing their job as an observer to find the meaning. Nothing fine artists create is purposeless, and with the training these individuals have gone through they would not possibly act so amateurishly as to produce a piece without value. Perhaps the artist Peter Zokosky described it best when he spoke of the state of confusion being an important state in which the individual can essentially open his/her mind to all the possibilities and interpretations. The artist should indeed be his/her own client. If the world only respected images of pleasurable, obvious qualities the walls of homes and museums everywhere would be plagued with Kinkades. These graduating students have acted on their own concepts and wants. To have such a freedom of expression is to have the tools to create artwork looked again and again for the viewer to discover new interpretations and appreciations in each session. Techniques undoubtedly need to be revised for some, but the surreal versions of reality are intriguing and promising.

More On Pollock

Because I know nothing about Madonna and very little of Spiderman, I will discuss Pollock in relation to Freudian and Foucaultian ideals. Surprisingly enough, I found Pollock to fit quite well with the fundamentals of Freud. As for Foucault, Pollock’s work would probably be considered the purest form of art.

Freud’s writings are largely centered around the belief that one’s true self lies in his/her subconscious. Day-dreams and art are connected, and the significance of art depends on its relationship with the unconscious process. To me Pollock’s pieces are the epitome of this theory. His pieces are strictly the emotions and feelings of the moment he painted; it truly is as though Pollock was “dream[ing] in broad daylight.” Many artists become caught up in the planning and structure of a piece, but Pollock simply picked up a jar of paint and worked out his thoughts onto the canvas.

Pollock’s pieces would also likely appeal to Foucault in that they challenged convention. While I don’t believe this was a deliberate strike against the traditional art world, I do think Pollock worked in a way that he felt expressed himself most effectively. As an artist myself, I understand how constricted my creativity is by societal limitations of the “norm.” It is difficult for many to break convention. Pollock immersed himself in his work and the movement of his pieces. While he had knowledge of technique and method, he created his own approach to the expression of himself. In essence, Pollock lived in Foucault’s intermediary region.

I wouldn’t consider Pollock a favorite artist of mine, but I do have great respect for his work. Freud and Foucault described theories that scored the allure of Pollock and the reason he was so successful.

Script vs. Performance

After staring at this page for the last 20 minutes, I guess what my feelings toward all this boil down to is that The Heidi Chronicles was a plot I enjoyed more as a script than a play. Reading it myself, I had a far stronger view of Heidi in my mind; though nervous and a spectator, for me she was a grounded and honest woman struggling to find what she truly wanted out of her life. As a feminist she held on to her views and pursued her career with great passion. However, throughout her journey she inevitably grew apart from the friends she was once so close to. I didn’t interpret this as any of the characters’ fault but rather a natural course in the human experience. By the end of the play I was left contented to see Heidi adopt a child of her own to satisfy her loneliness. I did not see the adoption as her “caving in,” but rather her finally taking a moment to take a break from her work and relax with someone new and uncomplicated. In a way, I saw the end of the play as the beginning of Heidi’s fulfilled life.

With this in mind, I was confused by the end of the WSU presentation. While the other characters mirrored my imaginings, Heidi’s was completely different than expected. In the acted play she seemed frightened, insecure, and absolutely confused. I understood the purpose behind portraying her this way, but it left the end of the play feeling unfinished. To me she was supposed to finally be fulfilled in the end of the play, having accomplished all her goals and accepting that she needed company in her life to be truly happy. The feminist movement was all about equal rights, but it also placed woman in a position of needing to feel independent and absolutely strong in her convictions. This is a lot of pressure to put onto anyone, and the adoption was her realization that she did not have to go through her life all alone. More importantly, her work was not all she had to offer.

The WSU rendition was satisfactory but in the end it did not meet my expectations. I saw the play as a positive statement for woman not to settle for anything less than what they deserve and after Thursday night felt like the future of the characters was quite bleak.

PDA: Public Display of Art

The following is my make-up assignment, but I though some of you might find it interesting to read anyways :]

While searching through March 12, 2009 issue of The New York Times, I happened upon an article titled “Boston Vandalism Charges Stir Debate on Art’s Place.” With my attention sufficiently captured I read on about Shepard Fairey, an artist who is perhaps best known for his Obama posters and silkscreens. Fairey has been arrested on numerous occasions for posting his pieces on public and private areas, and it appears as though the end is not yet in sight as the charges against him continue to mount.

Fairey claimed the police were “gratuitous[ly] piling on,” and stated that he was being punished for using public space for purposes other than commercial advertising. In many respects Fairey has a point. He has pled not guilty to one misdemeanor and thirteen felony charges, and it seems as though the police are pursuing nineteen more counts of vandalism. In such trying times as these, it is odd that so much time and energy is spent on an artist pasting posters across a city. One would think there would be far more important cases to pursue than these, which leads me to question whether or not this has become more of a publicity stunt for the police. On the other hand, it would not be so far fetched to assume that Fairey planned this as a publicity stunt for himself. After multiple alleged offenses, he still seems unwilling to halt this practice.

For me to say police have more important cases to work on is not to say that the practice of vandalism should be allowed without consequence. As someone who has grown up in a “bad” part of town and had my fence defaced many times, I can appreciate people wanting their environment to stay clean and untarnished. I simply question the amount of time they are spending on an individual they have no evidence against. There is also the incidence of Fairey’s arrest as his cab pulled up to his retrospective at the Institute of Contemporary Art last month. Such a public display of police involvement gives the impression that the police force is actively seeking attention to make an example out of Fairey.

With respect to Fairey’s art itself, many appreciate the message he is sending but a great deal of people see his postings as just another form of graffiti. In the article one woman was quoted as saying she felt Fairey was a “rampaging punk.” Personally I believe this depiction is off the mark, as the artwork holds political/social messages and not profanity, pornography, etc. There is not a sense of vulgarity in the pieces, and it is not as though Fairey is running around a city slashing tires or bashing in store windows.

This is a difficult case to reach a decision on, since there are so many principles involved. Socially the word “graffiti” holds a negative connotation, but in the art world it is a respected form of creation. One could argue that Fairey is supplying the people with free art to display for the community. On the other hand, not everyone will be pleased to have stickers and posters on items like traffic signs.

All in all, I believe this is a case with no “right” answer. The beauty of Fairey’s art involves its public display in everyday settings. If his pieces were only shown in a museum they would not receive anywhere near the exposure they do now. A conviction would only serve to create tension in the art world, and possibly convince a few kids not to spraypaint public areas. In the end, I do not feel an artist expressing his philosophy in this way should be punished. People are far too often wrapped up in their own selfish dramas, and to walk out into the world and be faced with something that sparks an important conversation is all too rare.

Pollock

For me Pollock represents everything in art I am incapable of. I approach a piece with every intention of capturing the scene photo realistically, and when I do attempt the abstract I am at a loss. My work is deliberate, intentional, and structured. Watching the videos of Pollock working blows my mind, because I envy the freedom he feels and the motion he can put into his pieces so spontaneously.

The only aspect of his work I take issue with is the fact that his pieces sell for tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. However, my opinion spans the entire art world, not just Pollock’s pieces. It’s simply that I become uncomfortable when an original is worth such an extreme amount of money because it usually devalues any replicas created for the “common person” to place in their home. In my mind, art should be appreciated for what it is and not by the popularity and rarity of what it becomes.

As for a theorist to apply to the work of Pollock, I thought it would be interesting to contemplate how Tolstoy would view the art with respect to his three criteria of individuality, clearness of the feeling transmitted, and the sincerity of the artist. I think many would agree that Pollock was most certainly individual in the creation of his pieces. Each one holds an energy and wholeness that is unique to his work. Nevertheless, I don’t know if Tolstoy would agree that everyone receives the same feeling from a specific piece, as I myself do not believe this would be so. As for the clearness of the feeling transmitted, this too is questionable at best. I doubt anyone could look upon a Pollock piece and identify perfectly with the emotion Pollock was experiencing at the time of its creation. There is simply too much to take in, and much of his art’s power lies in the “controlled chaos” of it.

The one point I think Tolstoy would wholly support would be in regards to Pollock’s sincerity. I do not believe anyone can question that he worked to create whatever he wished to; it never appeared to me as though he worked in a way to please the recipient. In fact, he attached a great deal of value to his pieces and sold them for no less than what he felt it was worth. Pollock painted to satisfy his need to express himself, not strictly to create pieces he believed others would enjoy.

Nietzsche vs. Tolstoy

After much contemplation, I believe that there is actually quite a difference between the concepts of Nietzsche and Tolstoy. Each seem to be speaking of the same concept but take it in different directions in their discussions of art.

I will begin with Nietzsche, since his was the most difficult for me to work through. His concept of the “collapse of principium individuationis" describes the inability to discern between reality and appearance, thus falling into the Dionysian side of life. Here, there is an association with drunkenness and a loss of the individual. In other words, it is a state of apparent literal intoxication and one becomes a member of a communal experience. To Nietzsche, intoxication refers to the concept of Dionysus and a sort of chaotic ecstasy.

On the other hand, Tolstoy’s idea of intoxication is far more structured. To him, infection serves as the portal for emotional transmission. The degree of a piece’s infectiousness depends on the individuality, clearness of the feeling transmitted, and sincerity of the artist. In this case the recipient is connecting with the artist through the piece of art. There doesn’t seem to be a loss of the individual, but rather an emotional connection between two people. The artist plays an important role in “intoxicating” the individual with his/her message, but it doesn’t seem to be in a chaotic all-consuming manner.

I guess what I’m saying is that to Nietzsche, the collapse of principium individuationis is an unstructured, chaotic group experience while Tolstoy’s concept of intoxication is simply the transfer of emotion(s). In a way they are both speaking of a similar dynamic, but each speaks of it to a different degree. However, both philosophers seem to agree that these concepts are valuable and best convey the message of art when they are at their greatest intensity.

Faking It

While watching this show I became a bit disheartened at how art was treated like a business venture. Instead of simply giving the man the tools in which to create his pieces, he was also given a makeover and taught how to properly speak about art. In this way, it was as though no one would take his pieces seriously unless he appeared to be a fresh new artist. This in itself is saddening, as it completely discriminates against many of the artists out there without the money to dress in such a fashion (or to those who simply do not wish to). Giving him a vocabulary and a new look certainly heightened his chances of being taken seriously, but it is frustrating that personal appearance would play such a strong role.

It was also interesting to me that the art critic recognized his amateur style. In my opinion, his pieces had greater depth than many of those created by artists whose pieces sell for millions. So much is subjective in the art world that it is difficult to sort through what is truly valuable. This was further exemplified by the meeting held to discuss his pieces. While a couple people felt his pieces were deep and full of meaning, others felt that it was only the history behind the works that made this so.

All in all, I truly don’t know if he will be successful in becoming a reputable artist. To be honest, I will be fairly disappointed if he is. So many artists hold a passion for their creations and do not make it, and for someone to come into the scene, fake his way through, and be successful would seem unjust. So much in the art world is subjective, and his success would only prove the fickle nature of critics.