Here is the interview with Sanford Biggers that I told you about in class. The thing to pay attention to is his use of widely varying media for self-expression. He may choose to use these media separately, or through a combination of media. And, although there are certainly themes and concepts that remain consistent throughout his work, I don't see any identifiable "style" that follows from one series to the next.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Object-ified
This is an old video I did in a Digital Cinema class a few years ago. It experiments with the idea of making a self-portrait through objects rather than through images of my body.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Concepts In Self-Portraiture
Ok, so in the description of the Self Portraiture assignment in your syllabus, you'll find the following statement: "The chief objective of these images is to communicate a 'dialogue' between your 'self' and the audience." So, how can you, through images, create a conversation between some part of you (or, at least, the "you" that you are right now) and an audience? I can't tell you specifically how to do that, but we can look at examples in which other artists have managed this.
Let's begin with a somewhat morbid, but extremely apropos example:
Caravaggio
David With The Head Of Goliath
1609
I assure you, there is a self-portrait here. At this point in his life, Caravaggio was in exile. His greatest patron had always been the Catholic Church, but he lived a tumultuous life that often got him in trouble. His high-placed patrons had always been able to protect and pardon him, but when, in 1606, he killed--possibly unintentionally--a man with whom he had quarreled, they could protect him no more. He was an outlaw. So he fled to Naples, outside Roman jurisdiction and protected by the Colonnas family. He continued to work in exile, traveling from city to city outside Roman jurisdiction, but never with the same level of prestige and infamy that he'd had in Rome. So, many please for forgiveness were made by Caravaggio and by others on his behalf, until finally a pardon was extended to him. He painted this image of David with Goliath's head around that time and sent it to the papacy as a gift just before he left Naples for Rome to receive the pardon. Tragically, he died along the way and never received that pardon.
So, let's look again at the painting. Caravaggio doesn't paint himself as David, triumphant underdog defeating a formidable foe. Instead, he paints his self-portrait as the head of Goliath. So, this becomes a very direct example of a self-portrait creating a dialogue between "self" and "audience": Caravaggio seems to be saying, "I am a sinner. I have wronged you and others. My actions are worthy of death. THIS is what I deserve, but I beg you for mercy." In this case, the artist had a very specific audience in mind, which is why this is such a great example to use as an illustration.
--
Now, let's take another look at Cindy Sherman. You'll recall that when we talked about her last semester, we looked at work like this:
Cindy Sherman
Untitled Film Still #21
1978
Remember that Cindy Sherman has made her entire career in photography an exploration of self-portraiture exclusively. In the images like the one above, remember that she wanted to speak about the archetypal, 2-dimensional, and even stereotypical roles of women throughout much of the history of film. By placing herself in these roles, Sherman seems to be attempting to reclaim these stereotypes and confronting us, DARING us to try to say that she is 2-dimensional.
But Cindy Sherman didn't stop making work 30 years ago. Let's take a look at what she's been up to in the last few years:
Cindy Sherman
Untitled #408
2002
Cindy Sherman
Untitled (Woman In Sun Dress)
2004
Cindy Sherman
Untitled
2008
What do you think is the conversation she's having with us now? She certainly seems to be adopting stereotypes again, though not film stereotypes. What do you think?
--
The overwhelming majority of the work by artist Bruce Nauman is designed to make us laugh at the self-importance that seems to be in human nature. By looking at his self-portrait here, don't we get the sense of a man with that very attitude toward life?
Bruce Nauman
Self-Portrait As A Fountain
1966-67, 1970
--
Here is a self portrait by painter Zak Smith:
Zak Smith
Most Accurate Self-Portrait To Date
2004
So, how does Smith communicate his "self" to us in this image? Well, he has chosen to surround himself in all the "stuff" that he finds important and that he feels defines who he is: paintings, drawings, and notes taped to the wall, the tools he uses to paint, fast food containers, etc. And he completely embeds his self-portrait in the environment so that one almost seems to emerge from the other. Then, he calls our attention to two other important aspects with the use of color: his mohawk, and the graphic T-shirt. Looking at this, we get a sense of how Zak Smith thought of himself in 2004.
--
This is a series of self-portraits I did in 2007. The series was titled Stand Straight:
I have scoliosis, which essentially means a curvature of the spine. In my case, my right side grew faster than my left side and, as a result, my spine is curved and my body is out-of-alignment. In this series, I wanted to create a dialogue with the audience that would demonstrate the deformity and pain caused by the curvature as well as the humiliation endured over the years as a result of others demanding that I "stand straight". So, I painted a line down the center of my chest and back that follows the curvature of my spine and spent the entire session in front of the camera making attempts to get that line completely straight. The series actually has 25 images to coincide with the 25 degree curvature of my spine.
--
But, remember the quote I gave you in the syllabus: “If what is called a self-portrait depends on the fact that it is called “self-portrait,” an act of naming should allow or entitle me to call just about anything a self-portrait, not only any drawing (“portrait” or not) but anything that happens to me, anything by which I can be affected or let myself be affected.” —Jacques Derrida
So, is it possible to create a self-portrait without using an actual image of your body? Below is an example of the work of artist Sanford Biggers:
Sanford Biggers
Mandala Of The B-Bodhisattva II
2000
Sanford Biggers
Stills from the video Battle Of The Burrows
2000
Sanford Biggers grew up in Harlem and became very involved in the early hip-hop movement. This was extremely influential on his life and shaped who he has become. Additionally, as a young man, Biggers travelled to asia and studied many of the ancient religions and philosophies there. He became just as effected by these studies as he had been by early hip-hop. In 2000, in reaction to what he perceived to be the "death" of hip-hop (for Biggers, early hip-hop was all about empowering African Americans, and now it has become a platform for sell-outs who harken back to degrading minstrel shows), Biggers created this dance floor which I see as a self portrait. He created a hip-hop dance floor patterned after Tibetan mandala designs, co-mingling his two most integral influences into one entity. In the video, which you can see HERE, he invited people to participate in a hip-hop style dance-off on the floor.
--
And here, below, is an image that I consider to be a self-portrait....but I'll leave the discussion of WHY that is the case until next time we meet in class.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Thoughts On The Artistic Process, Artist's Statements, Etc.
Click HERE for a blog post by photographer Paul Butzi, who, in the very first line of the post, writes, "I hate artist's statements." He proceeds to make a humorous argument against the concept of an artist's statement. He makes good arguments. And, although I could make some arguments about why artist's statements are helpful tools, I can't say that his argument is wrong, per se, or even flawed in any way. You may sympathize when you read what he has to say.
Below is a video in which painter Lucio Pozzi talks about an exhibit of what he calls "Mini Paintings". When you consider that most of his work is large enough to take up an entire gallery wall, calling these paintings "mini" seems like an extreme understatement. These paintings are a side-project he has done for decades that is a huge contrast from the rest of his work. Most of the video doesn't speak to any of the concerns brought up in class, but eventually he begins to talk about how when he works with these mini paintings, they act as a way for him to relax a bit, and that he insists on "not knowing what I'm doing" while he works on them. He has rules that remain consistent for all of these works, but after that he just goes for it, doing whatever feels natural without planning. He ends the video with a statement along the lines of, "It is a good feeling to spend some time working on these rather than getting up in the morning and saying, 'Ok, now I have to make another Lucio Pozzi.'" I think, perhaps, he may be speaking to similar frustrations to those voiced in class. In other words, what I think Pozzi is saying here is, "The work that I am known for is an exploration of concepts that I have to think about, question, and plan for. That is rewarding, but exhausting. It is nice to occassionally break away from that and work on something that is just as rewarding in the end, but requires far less planning and thinking." This is a decades-long established, successful, and historically important artist saying the same things that you, as students, are saying.
And now we have April Gornik. Yes, another painter. But, listen to her trying to put into words the things she thought about while making the work in the particular exhibition that she was displaying. She uses some flowery language, and it is easy sometimes to get lost in everything she is trying to communicate. I have shown this video to Art Appreciation classes, of which about 2/3 of the students have no art background at all. Often, the comments that I get afterward are along the lines of "Why did she talk so much about those paintings? I was enjoying just looking at the work. Then she started talking too much. The work didn't need all that explanation. It's all right there anyway. She made it all too technical. etc." See what you think...
Here's my point. The concerns you guys have in class are not new. They are as old as the establishment of "fine art" itself. The age-old question is: "Why can't it just be enough that the work is done?" I get it. These are valid concerns. So valid, that, as you can see above, well-established artists struggle to address them as well. In answer to your questions about why we are working in a method that seems to be chronologically backward from how you've worked previously, I present two considerations:
1. Thinking about what you want to say and planning exactly how you are going to say it BEFORE actually attempting to do the work gives you direction and puts you better in touch with yourself, your interests, and what it is that you want to tell the world. Let's put it in terms of professions other than art: Do you want the mechanic working on your car's engine to just dive in and start experimenting with everything without first spending a little time thinking about what the problem might possibly be and developing a plan? If a scientist wants to conduct an experiment, he has to first decide what question he wants to answer (how does gravity work? what is the atomic weight of hydrogen? is nicotine addictive? etc.). Then he has to develop a plan for an experiment that will get him results that will answer his specific question. We often like to place art on a pedestal separated from other professions because it is so uniquely (and humanly) expressive and has no right or wrong answers. But, art is not so unique of an endeavor that it shouldn't require at least a little early planning and legwork to be GOOD art.
2. The profession of art requires proposals and artist's statements, often times LONG before the work is finished. Even in fashion photography, wedding photography, or advertising, you will be asked by your client to give a full description of what you plan to do, how you plan to do it, and what you want the audience to experience when looking at your images. It is difficult to do that without having practiced. So, perhaps in whatever professional capacity you plan to use photography, your client may not expect you proceed with your work in exactly the same manner in which I am asking you to proceed. BUT, my hope is that, by getting some practice in defining, refining, and perfecting your conceptual approach NOW you will be all the more ready when your professional situation demands it.
WHEW! Ok, so, I hope this helps put some of your concerns to rest. Other than this, I can only say that this is how we're going to do things in this class. If you have disagreements with the process, then make your own decisions on how you will work when you leave this class. My job here and now is to get all three of you to think HARD about why you do what you do and to facilitate your discovery of methods of communicating your particular "why" to your audience.
Make sense?
For Allison: Narrative Environment Images
Christopher Crawford has a wonderful series of photographs titled "Forgotten Indiana". Before you just completely give up on your church door idea, give his work a look. The vast majority of them are, indeed, examples of narrative environment. There are no people in any of these images, but the story of what happened in each environment is in the details. He also gives a literal narrative that he has written to accompany each photo when you click on it, but these aren't really even necessary. The narrative that we, as audience, construct in our minds based on the details we see in the photograph is the real point. Some of these images are very specifically of doors. See if there's anything here that helps you validate your church door idea.
There's also Joe Miller's series of "Places" photographs, which have some relationship to what you're talking about, I think. Check them out HERE.
So, before you give up completely, look at what others have done with similar concepts. THEN make up your mind.
For Sara-Lane: Some Fashion/Art Photographers
HERE is a gallery of images by Candice Wouters. As you can see, Wouters seems to be very interested in fashion and making "beautiful" pictures. Her work has, if not an "old" look, at least a "retro" look. This comes from her use of color, lighting, and the faded-out nature of some of the prints. The have a 60s, 70s, and in some cases early 80s appearance. But, pay attention to what she's doing here. She's not JUST making "awesome-looking" images (which they certainly are). She's got a purpose for them, and it's not particularly what you called "some deep meaning". She is trying to subvert the conventions of "fashion photography" by applying them to (in most cases) self portraiture. She's using a high-fashion stylistic approach for her own purposes. Is she trying to get us to think about how women have been portrayed in the mass media images to which these refer? Is she trying to give us a powerful woman in the type of imagery in which women have historically been merely sex objects? Whatever she may be trying to convey, she has us thinking. And it's because of conceptual choices that she made and the interactions, within each image, between the subject (figure) and her environment. In the case of the work your planning, what is the relationship between subject and environment going to make us think about? What are these images going to do?
Also, check out these links to photos by August Bradley:
Notice how what he's interested in is taking old Baroque and High Renaissance portraiture conventions and combining them with the conventions of contemporary high-fashion photography. Now, he does some major digital manipulation of these images to give them the appearance of something that exists somewhere between photography and painting/illustration. Still, I think there are things to observe and learn from in his work. It is the creation of something that feels almost too perfect to be real, while simultaneously too realistic to be a complete fabrication that is Bradley's main focus. He wants us to notice the reference to older master paintings while forcing it to coexist with high-fashion.
Maybe neither of these artists speak to exactly what you want your particular series to do. I just want you to notice that each of them has a specific purpose behind his or her images. So, what do you want your work to do? Or, at the very least, how, specifically, are they going to communicate the things that you are interested in when it comes to fashion and the antique?
For Caroline: Documentary Photographs Of Events
Here are a couple of galleries of documentary photographs of events by photographer Nicole Kuntz:
Notice that what seems to interest Nicole Kuntz in these particular series is not only capturing and recording the things that happened at these events, but the subculture of the people attending and participating in the events. She also uses a flash followed by a long exposer in order to get motion blur effects to depict and communicate the frantic and frenzied energy of the moment.
Claire Martin takes amazing documentary photographs focusing on mundane or "everyday" life, but she seeks out human beings who make for unique and maybe even unusual subjects. So, although she may intend a completely objective motive, it is her juxtaposition of ordinary/mundane/everyday events with extraordinary/unique/grotesque people that clue us into what Claire finds interesting.
So, in answer to your questions in class, I suggest this: looking at these photographs, very documentary and experimental in style, do you think that each photographer went into the situations she was photographing without some idea of what it was she was looking for and some idea of how she was going to accomplish what she wanted to communicate? Kuntz seems to have made very specific decisions about where to stand and her aperture and shutter speed settings to capture the feeling of that place. Those, I will gamble, were choices made beforehand with specific concepts in mind. The consistent manner in which Martin presents her images of the unusual participating in the mundane tells me that she very intentionally made conceptual decisions ahead of time, before going out and looking for her subjects. BUT, would I suggest that they restricted themselves to ONLY work within those parameters while shooting? Not at all! Without experimentation, without seeking out new and interesting ways to communicate one's ideas, a photographer will merely constantly return to interpretation mechanisms and formats with which he or she is familiar, and the resulting images become stale. I hope this puts at least SOME of your concerns at ease.
HERE is an interesting article on documentary photography and how it's sub-genres are defined and pursued by photographers. It may be helpful to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)