This quarter I did not get out to see an entirely new exhibit, but I did get the chance to visit the VMFA and just walk around. The gallery I spent the most time in was the Mid to Late 20th century art. I went here because I felt like this was one of the more appropriate places for me to go in terms of the kind of art that I am currently making. This also happens to be one of my favorite galleries there! Since I already know what most if not all of the pieces look like, on this trip I focused on looking at the surfaces of the paintings. My watercolor paintings have no surface, but texture is something I'm looking forward to including in a piece of mine. I realized that I like varying levels of texture, not just one uniform texture unless the piece is completely flat or smooth. I think that texture really helps to add depth to a painting, which is also something I have been trying to achieve. I have been trying to think of what materials I should use to make my watercolor paintings more textured without making them look too heavy. I like the light and airy look they have now and I don't want to mess with that. This is an ongoing question, because most of the pieces in that gallery with texture used thick acrylic. Going to a gallery you've already been to before and focusing on something specific within the works is actually a very valuable and informing experience!
For this awareness post I'm going to mix it up and talk about an artist that I dislike! Recently I've been trying to find more local artists that have a sort of abstract/expressionist/non-objective body of work. Along this journey I ran across Inge Strack so I went to her website to check out her work. Immediately I disliked her paintings. This sounds harsh, but I think it can be a good think to know what kind of art I dislike so I can focus on making art that isn't like it. Personally, I think her work is very childish. It includes a lot of bright colors that I do not think look nice together and her compositions and subjects also seem childish to me. Her craftsmanship is incredible I simply dislike the overall vibe of her paintings. Also, I feel like her pieces have too much texture. Texture is great, but her entire paintings are covered with the same pattern of texture that makes it look like she painted on a surface that was already like that. She definitely put work into her art and if she has a passion for it then I applaud her for pursuing her dreams. I simply just don't like her work.
Coach Hall actually showed me Suzanna Fields as I started my first in-class project to give me some inspiration. I'm so glad he did because Fields' work is INCREDIBLE! I love her use of form and her sense of color. Form and color are two things I try and focus on perfecting, so her work is basically my goals. Probably the most interesting thing about her work and the first thing that more people notice is that she uses a different technique of painting compared to other artists. She mixes ink and acrylic paint to create an effect that makes me think of germs or fungus, but in a beautiful way. Coach suggested that I use rubbing alcohol and water color to achieve a similar effect and I have yet to try that out. A common problem I have with my abstract work is knowing when it is "finished" and what constitutes a finished piece. To me, Fields' pieces are all very well-crafted and look complete. This is the look I am trying to achieve!
The two articles I read for this connection post both had the same theme of censorship. The first article titled "Art In Russia: Under Attack" was specifically about the government's role in what art can and cannot be shown. The second article titled "The Art of Controversy" focused more on the public aspect of controversial art and what should and should not be censored.
Personally, I liked the second article better than the first one. The first one seemed to simply give examples of times in which art was censored. It did not go into much detail and it was almost just listed. The second article focused on a story and explained what happened and how it happened. It also discussed more than one side of the argument. Overall, the second article was a more refined and quality source of information. "The Art of Controversy" included mostly quotes from people which gave interesting perspectives on the situation. A lot of he art that was talked about in "Art In Russia" seemed as though it was being created simply because people were mad at government officials and wanted to do something crazy. For example, one "piece" was just a bunch of people publicly having sex. There did not appear to be much thought put into the work and its meaning was very loose. In my seminar group, we discussed in depth how the intent is the determining factor when it comes to deciding if something is art or not. If the person creating it wants it to be art, than it is even if it is "bad". Works like the one mentioned above may not necessarily seem like art but if the creators want them to be then they will be. The main argument in "The Art of Controversy" was that tax payers should not have to pay to fund offensive art shows that may be shown in public galleries. However, there is not really an easy way to do this. It was suggested by the mayor that it should get moved to a private gallery but people would still find it offensive no matter where it was shown. The main conclusion I came to after reading these articles is that art should only be considered offensive if it was created with malicious intent. Different things are going to offend different people no matter what. Everything can be considered offensive by someone. |
AuthorGrace Barron Archives
June 2018
Categories |