Black and White

I have searched for artworks similar to mine to see how the artist made it successfully. Both these two play with the idea of black and white, with clean straight edges. They look so simple yet powerful, dominating the space. I think because the work is essentially framing the space inside it emphasises it and brings the idea of a void or nothingness to the viewer, in particular the structure with a man lying inside it. This piece also uses the idea of light and dark. Because the metal is the same colour as the shadow, it adds another dimension to it- bringing 2D qualities into a 3D piece. This simple and striking quality is something im going to consider in my piece. Looking at these images makes me feel more comfortable in what im doing now.

Change?

So there's about a week left until i have to hand in my work and set up for an exhibition. The problem im having is that i wont be able to get my piece finished the way i want it on time. I have hugely underestimated the time it takes to prepare a metal frame from scratch and there is a lot more work to it that i had thought. So at the moment, all i have is a metal frame without the internal poles. This was starting to worry me, but it might be successful as it is. This made me think, by changing a piece of work, how much are you altering its meaning and purpose? I think slight alterations can make a big difference so what does this mean for my piece now? Well my proposal now is to have this frame resting on a wall at an angle with 4 scanners mounted on the wall (unfortunately they wont be working). I got these ideas from my last crit where people were concerned about how much time i have left. To begin with i was against the ideas but now see that they make sense and are my only real option. The original idea of the work was to evoke a sense of intrusion and discomfort, but with this revised plan, it wont achieve these qualities. I think that by showing it as a 'work in progress', it is quite vulnerable. I quite like this idea that something that's meant to be menacing is vulnerable but this will be lost on the audience.

Ziff Gallery

There seems to be an odd paradox in this room between traditional and contemporary ideas. The Ziff Gallery is part of the Leeds city art gallery, where the walls are adorned with classical paintings by artists such as Frank Holl and Adesteen Normann. However in the middle is a childrens reading and drawing area, complete with cushions and carpet. Now this is most probably just an area set up for children so they dont get bored as their parents walk around. But thinking about it, it seems to have qualities of relational art. To think kids are drawing squiggely lines and smiley faces in a room full masterpieces is pretty funny. Although i suppose in reality its like saying look- you could achieve this if u really want to. Something else ive discovered on an online 3D 'tour' of the space. It shows a previous piece that occupied the same space as the kids reading area.

http://www.thevirtualtours.co.uk/conference_culture/ziffgallery.htm

There is a classical sculpture which compliments the paintings surronding it. But on the floor around it are, coinsidentaly, lots of magazines. They appear to be celebrity magazines such as Heat. This exhibits another juxterposition of ideas within the same room. I think this recurring theme is very interesting. Is this a message from contemporary artists about how society has drasticaly changed from the classical era of art or are the curators just taking the piss?

More barriers...

Reading thorough my blog about and the part about barriers, I reminded myself about the exhibition thats currently in the Leeds city art gallery. A group of artists have come together to display their work on social barriers, the class society, wealth and everything else that affects who we are in society. As you walk into the first room, you can't help but notice the huge 4 panel painting. 'Worldmapper' by both Sheffield and Michigan universities, depict the size of nations economies in the years 0001, 1500, 1990 and 2015 by enlarging nations with bigger economies and minimizing ones with smaller economies. Its a very interesting way of presenting this data. There is a web site where there are loads of different subjects showed in this way (http://www.worldmapper.org). This is an image showing where most preventable deaths occur. In the gallery, there are several different representations of this idea, such as the richest areas of the uk, pointed out using rosettes. I think the idea of this portfolio of work is to that show that no matter how wealthy we may be, what social class we are in or how healthy we are, we are still just a number- a statistic.

Rory McBeths piece, 'Re-enactment #2' is made of physical barriers; my initial thought being that it was a play on barriers in galleries. To an extent it is, but his piece runs deeper. He tries to visualize the question, 'Why is there a 'them' (them being celebrity or those of higher status and power) and an 'us''. The sheer number of barriers that are used in the piece build a vast gap between 'us' and 'them'. It almost makes you want to just give up. Most of the pieces in the exhibition had nothing protecting them, but one piece did. Markus Vaters 'Mirror Reading', is a collection of new magazines that he has created which are intended to 'reflect the 21st century demographic'. The are magazines called 'Thanks', 'Apocolypse' and my favourite 'Everybody' which claims to have 10 billion pages, one page for each person who has ever lived. His idea was to fill gaps that magazine companies seem to miss out. I like 'everybody' because it brings 'us' closer to 'them' as now we are in the magazine too. I also like the fact that the covers for the magazines are just purposfully rubbishly drawn and yet are kept in a protective case which makes them seem important and so should be idolized. I think this is a reflection of all that celebrity culture.

Final Piece

For my recent project i have been working with the idea of intrusion and surveillance. My initial idea was to make something that observes its audience and i have stuck with this, but developed it slightly. The piece will basically be a metal frame with seemingly random lines. The best way to describe it would be to compare it to a De Stijl piece where the black lines resemble the metal. To begin with i had no reason for choosing to have the structure like this but afterwards, i think aesthetically, it looks far better than it would than if it was in an orderly grid.

Mounted onto the frame will be 5 flatbed scanners that will be constantly scanning its audience. The bright light and movement makes the audience feel as if they are being watched, but of course, the scanners wont actually be able to see anything. I have found a way to take photos using a scanner but it would mean that the light and movement would be obscured by a large box. The results are quite interesting and ghost like. Although this quality could be achieved on photo shop, i like this idea...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNEyIt0yqUU&feature=channel_page

The resulting relationship between this piece and its audience is one of intrigue and the feeling of being uncomfortable. I think its an interesting idea that both are looking at each other. The scanners are almost mimicking the audience who scan art for an interpretation. I will put up photos of maquette and the finished piece soon...

Site

The site of a piece of art has to be carefully considered when an artist produces work. The most obvious place for artwork is a gallery. But what does this mean? Does being displayed in a gallery change the meaning of the work? Theoretically i think it does. A gallery is a prestigious space in which the audience feels the work on display is special. If this same work was out on the street, it would be looked upon in a different way. Contemporary galleries try to overcome this by transforming the space into a blank canvas- white walls, clean edges and well lit. This dosnt change the fact it is still a gallery space. A good example of this is in a french gallery where a series of pieces made its audience begin to cry for no apparent reason. This is because a myth had been created about it that people cry and so future visitors felt they were expected to cry. Much like the fact people feel they are expected to like a piece of work just because its in a gallery.

Public Art

Public art is art that is site specific to the public domain. The benifits of this medium is that it can communicate with everybody regardless of their interests and background. People who wouldnt normally visit an art gallery are forced to have an interaction with it. However, i find this form of art quite soulless. I have seen so many pieces of public art that have been put up in a new shopping plaza or redevelopment of an area. The planners seem to think that by putting one of these pieces of art in (usually a clean, shiney metal sculpture), the area or building will have prestige. It reminds me of a rich businessman buying a piece of art just because its art to look cultured when he most probably has no idea what the piece is about. Saying this though, there are of course decent examples public art out there. But why do these artist have a fixation with using metal sculptures? I have no idea. They should really try something else. I said earlier on that people have to communicate with the work, beacuase its there, in your face. But i dont think i really interact with it. Because i dont see any reason behind it, i just look at it- and the communication stops at aesthitcs. I think a good example of a piece where the audience is enticed to interact with it is 'Cloud Gate' (also known as the bean) by Anish Kapoor. This is a hugely popular piece in Chicago, and people can help to go up to it and see their distorted reflection. The artist has really thought about the piece as it reflects the area its in both sences of the word. A similar piece in Clarence Dock, Leeds also intrigues the audience which leads them to investigate. The interesting use of the material suggests the reflective qualities of the water behind, and the curious child is mimicing the audience. I think it is important not just to think about the audience but the surroundings of a piece of site spefic work.

Tilted Arc

This is Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc' that was commissioned for the federal plaza in New York. At a height of 4 meters and 40 meters long, it cuts right through the heart of the plaza. I think the idea behind the piece is that of social and economic divides within society, and the federal plaza was a perfect location to display it. The sheer scale of it makes it very intrusive and quite menacing to people who come into contact with it. It reminds me of the monolith in the film '2001: A Space Odyssey' which appears at intermittent points in the film. The characters in the film interact with it in an apprehensive yet curious way. I think people must have reacted the same way to the arc. However, the public relationship with it soon soured as many saw it as an eyesore and an inconvenience as they had to walk around it. It also attracted graffiti before it was eventually dismantled. I think graffiti is an important symbol to the piece. It is a way of personalizing the space in which we live, taking ownership and making it our own. Its interesting to think about this and the initial concept behind the piece. Eventually, the arc was dismantled due to huge public uproar.

Why the barriers?

I went to some local galleries the other day to look at some new work that has been put up. A lot of the work was behind these wire barriers you see everywhere. I think its fair enough to have fragile work behind them so it dosent get damaged but i feel ike i cant interact with other work that you can touch. For instance, the Leeds city art gallery, there is a sculpture in the form of a shed like structure thats covered with fur. that seems to encorage its audience to touch it and interact with it. But i feel quite apprihensive about doing so. Even if the gallery does permit the people to do so, i find that the atmosphere within the space dosent give of that impression. The cameras that survey every room and the secruity guards traipsing around can be unsettling and maybe even supresses some peoples enjoyment of the work on display. Its like when a policeman walks past you and you feel guilty for no reason, the survalience affects what your thinking. I think, although security is necisary, i think it should be managed in a different way. I dont know how.

I am currently making a presentation about relational aesthetics which i think fits in with the idea of audience interaction. Not so much interaction between the audience and the art but interaction between the audience inside of the art. This contemporary art practise relates to issues and problems that artists see in todays society. It came about with the age of consumerism and digital networks. Both of these comodify the interaction between people. I think the quote from Nicolas Bourriauds book 'Relational Aesthetics explains this well...

'You are looking for shared warmth, and the comforting feeling of well being for two? So try our coffee'

This is a simple example of the interaction of people being comodified. Going for a coffee to meet friends is hardly giving into comodification of relationships, but its the fact that it happens everywhere, at all times that worries contemporary artists. They see it as their job to stop this from happening, by inviting people into their work. With this, audience interaction is essential to the work- without it, it would cease to exist

Art and Site- Audience Interaction

The way an audience interacts with a piece of work is the key to its success.


'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'
The age old question raised by philosepher George Berkeley. He said that 'objects ceased to exist' if there was nobody around to see them. This is especially true of art. If there is no audience for a piece of work, is it still art? When an artist produces work, this is one of the most important aspects they must think about.

Relational aesthetics deals with this idea perfectly, and is a good place to start to observe the audiences relation to art. It is a form that makes people the focus. A famous example would be 'Test Site' which was installed in the tate modern. It consisted of a series of slides which visitors to the gallery could use and enjoy. For me, the interesting thing about this is many people didnt have a clue what it was about but still went on it anyway. They unwittingly became one with the piece which dealt with social interaction. Looking back on it, it feels strange knowing i was inside a piece of art. Audiences are usually ailenated from work by rope and security guards.