Thursday Theory
Article:to be read next week
- which mediums are ‘relevant’ or not?
- contemporary or not?
- Old fashioned = irrelevant?
- Contemporary/’modern’= relevant?
- Painting – is it dead?
Videos:
- National geographic – Isaac Newton – experiments with light and its relationship to colour
- Monet ‘Art that shook the world’
Notes:
Monet was influenced by the industrial revolution. He was fascinated by things like trains and painted many impressions of them, but was criticized for doing so because the subject matter was too ugly for ‘high art’. Most landscape artists at the time painted pretty rural settings.
Impressionism – the most influential art movement of the century
The first Impressionist Exhibition – 1874?
Impressionists called ‘vandals in the temple of high art’
Links seen between impressionism and early photography – photos were called ‘impressions’. Impressionism imitated the so called ‘mistakes of photography’ eg. Blurring
Monet influenced by Japanese printmakers
Invention of paint in tubes
Invention of Cobalt blue – cheap, ultramarine from lapis lazuli – expensive
Links between Monet and Pollock, and Willem de kooning.
‘Art does grow out of art’
Question – what informs me and my work?
It might include art? What else?
Separation between concept and aesthetic
Reference to more contemporary phenomena?
Artists/Art/other things?
What informed Monet’s Work
The idea of leisure – was a new concept at the time
Trains – industrial revolution – it caused many diseases because it was a new phenomena (people couldn’t cope with the landscape being blurred). It changed our perception –disconnecting senses (when youre in a train you cant smell the landscape or hear the outside noises). He didn’t just respond to the industrial revolution but became part of it – he rode on trains and used paint tubes etc.
Invention of photography – long exposure time – notion of speed and what it does to an image
Painting comes to terms with its ‘materiality’ – since the beginning of modernism – the use of paint as paint – you not only look IN a painting for recognizable imagery etc, but also look AT it – its use of colour, gesture, brushstokes etc.
Painting relating to its own history
Light/nature – was the subject of his investigation.
Comments/thoughts
So much for having a break from thinking!I found this lecture really really interesting, its probably the most informative one ive ever been to so I cant help it if it makes me think.. It really related to what I’ve been researching lately – eg into the whole idea of light and colour and impressionism/post impressionism and their use of colour/gesture to express what they view around them. What confused me in the article however, was that the author asked us to question art mediums about their relevancy. I don’t think any art mediums are irrelevant, its not the medium, its what you use it for. In my opinion all digital media and performance art fit the best into the category of ‘modern art’, perhaps because it’s the most up to date with the technology around us. But I think that while that kind of ‘art’ is interesting, it lacks something. You cant hold it, you cant touch it, you cant hang it on your wall either…you cant move it from house to house with you for all of your life.. Its more temporary art for today’s temporary society. You watch a film and you’re done with it. You enter an installation and its gone a week later. You watch a performance – do you ever watch these things more than once? I don’t think so. They are temporary because technology is temporary…it will keep improving, people will continue to invent more things. And one day ‘modern art’ as it is now, will be questioned as ‘irrelevant’. But in my opinion its not.
Painting has apparently been considered dead for ages. I don’t agree. Painting may not have as much flexibility as to what you can create with it, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant – there are ways of integrating paint into other media anyway. It also gave the idea that only ‘modern art’ is relevant, that all ‘old fashioned’ art is irrelevant. I certainly don’t agree with that, though it may not speak to us on the same level that doesn’t make it irrelevant. All art was modern in its time, and if it wasn’t for what had gone before, and the breakthroughs and discoveries made in art in history, art wouldn’t be where it is today. I think we can learn a lot from ‘old fashioned’ art. Obviously I didn’t read the whole article, but that’s the feeling I got from it. It will be interesting to read it and see what this guys going on about. Some things to look into are Isaac Newton, Monet and other impressionists, The industrial revolution?
Also need to start thinking about what ‘informs’ my work. I find this difficult because we have only started the year, and I haven’t produced much actual work. But I think that is good to do so, I have done enough thinking in the past month to know in general what informs or inspires my work, so it will be interesting to talk to the lecturer about it in a few weeks. Hopefully by then I will have a little more to show.
One more thing, it talked about the freedom of impressionism in markmaking. I think this is interesting in relation to my work. For example what printmaking mediums can be used to make more free marks – perhaps monotype, screenprinting maybe?, woodcut maybe?possibly even incorporating paint into my prints. And in contrast mediums that are more controlled/precise/stable – photoetchings/drypoint? It would be interesting to create some works that combine more expressive printmaking to relate to the idea of birds flying in the sky(freedom), and more controlled processes to represent earth/humans(our attempts to find freedom don’t compare to that of the birds). In combining that with colour symbolism I think it could be quite effective?
- which mediums are ‘relevant’ or not?
- contemporary or not?
- Old fashioned = irrelevant?
- Contemporary/’modern’= relevant?
- Painting – is it dead?
Videos:
- National geographic – Isaac Newton – experiments with light and its relationship to colour
- Monet ‘Art that shook the world’
Notes:
Monet was influenced by the industrial revolution. He was fascinated by things like trains and painted many impressions of them, but was criticized for doing so because the subject matter was too ugly for ‘high art’. Most landscape artists at the time painted pretty rural settings.
Impressionism – the most influential art movement of the century
The first Impressionist Exhibition – 1874?
Impressionists called ‘vandals in the temple of high art’
Links seen between impressionism and early photography – photos were called ‘impressions’. Impressionism imitated the so called ‘mistakes of photography’ eg. Blurring
Monet influenced by Japanese printmakers
Invention of paint in tubes
Invention of Cobalt blue – cheap, ultramarine from lapis lazuli – expensive
Links between Monet and Pollock, and Willem de kooning.
‘Art does grow out of art’
Question – what informs me and my work?
It might include art? What else?
Separation between concept and aesthetic
Reference to more contemporary phenomena?
Artists/Art/other things?
What informed Monet’s Work
The idea of leisure – was a new concept at the time
Trains – industrial revolution – it caused many diseases because it was a new phenomena (people couldn’t cope with the landscape being blurred). It changed our perception –disconnecting senses (when youre in a train you cant smell the landscape or hear the outside noises). He didn’t just respond to the industrial revolution but became part of it – he rode on trains and used paint tubes etc.
Invention of photography – long exposure time – notion of speed and what it does to an image
Painting comes to terms with its ‘materiality’ – since the beginning of modernism – the use of paint as paint – you not only look IN a painting for recognizable imagery etc, but also look AT it – its use of colour, gesture, brushstokes etc.
Painting relating to its own history
Light/nature – was the subject of his investigation.
Comments/thoughts
So much for having a break from thinking!I found this lecture really really interesting, its probably the most informative one ive ever been to so I cant help it if it makes me think.. It really related to what I’ve been researching lately – eg into the whole idea of light and colour and impressionism/post impressionism and their use of colour/gesture to express what they view around them. What confused me in the article however, was that the author asked us to question art mediums about their relevancy. I don’t think any art mediums are irrelevant, its not the medium, its what you use it for. In my opinion all digital media and performance art fit the best into the category of ‘modern art’, perhaps because it’s the most up to date with the technology around us. But I think that while that kind of ‘art’ is interesting, it lacks something. You cant hold it, you cant touch it, you cant hang it on your wall either…you cant move it from house to house with you for all of your life.. Its more temporary art for today’s temporary society. You watch a film and you’re done with it. You enter an installation and its gone a week later. You watch a performance – do you ever watch these things more than once? I don’t think so. They are temporary because technology is temporary…it will keep improving, people will continue to invent more things. And one day ‘modern art’ as it is now, will be questioned as ‘irrelevant’. But in my opinion its not.
Painting has apparently been considered dead for ages. I don’t agree. Painting may not have as much flexibility as to what you can create with it, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant – there are ways of integrating paint into other media anyway. It also gave the idea that only ‘modern art’ is relevant, that all ‘old fashioned’ art is irrelevant. I certainly don’t agree with that, though it may not speak to us on the same level that doesn’t make it irrelevant. All art was modern in its time, and if it wasn’t for what had gone before, and the breakthroughs and discoveries made in art in history, art wouldn’t be where it is today. I think we can learn a lot from ‘old fashioned’ art. Obviously I didn’t read the whole article, but that’s the feeling I got from it. It will be interesting to read it and see what this guys going on about. Some things to look into are Isaac Newton, Monet and other impressionists, The industrial revolution?
Also need to start thinking about what ‘informs’ my work. I find this difficult because we have only started the year, and I haven’t produced much actual work. But I think that is good to do so, I have done enough thinking in the past month to know in general what informs or inspires my work, so it will be interesting to talk to the lecturer about it in a few weeks. Hopefully by then I will have a little more to show.
One more thing, it talked about the freedom of impressionism in markmaking. I think this is interesting in relation to my work. For example what printmaking mediums can be used to make more free marks – perhaps monotype, screenprinting maybe?, woodcut maybe?possibly even incorporating paint into my prints. And in contrast mediums that are more controlled/precise/stable – photoetchings/drypoint? It would be interesting to create some works that combine more expressive printmaking to relate to the idea of birds flying in the sky(freedom), and more controlled processes to represent earth/humans(our attempts to find freedom don’t compare to that of the birds). In combining that with colour symbolism I think it could be quite effective?
posted by simone marie at 1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home