Orals Statement

            My paintings depict layers of time, digest my memories, and fuse together elements of text and pattern, to create a vibrant visual experience. I reduce the narrative of the text to a form, described with paint, intermixing the different patterns and layers. The patterns and colors are my reactions to the memories or ideas I am thinking about. Manipulating the paint confronts my responses to things that cannot be controlled. 

:::::::::

I'd say it's an addiction

Reading response 4

Roberta Smith’s article “Who Needs a White Cube,” begins with a statement I found very interesting. “…Reassert the process and mind set of art rather than the product.” I consistently thought of art in a gallery or museum as a finished product of the artist. With out this product there would be no use for galleries or museums. The art fills the white space, giving it life. Working in a gallery now, I am accustom to the repetitive process of finding artists to show, getting them installed, having an opening, and then uninstalling, week after week. Luckily, I’m constantly introduced to different art so the redundancy of the market it less daunting.  Don’t get me wrong I absolutely love it. But I am recognizing the pattern that is taking place in the system. Lately, it has been refreshing to see that artists are finding alternative ways to show their work without being confined to a white cube. Gallery owners are straying away from traditional, static, white walls, allowing artists to take control of the space or let the space speak of what it is or use to be.

In the article “Among the inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance is Bliss,” Erica Goode talks about the ego with in people and what it allows us to see and makes us blind to. I found it extremely interesting that highly conceited people do not realize that they are, causing lower egos to label them ignorant. I can think of many people like that. They are so confidant that they do not realize their own pitfalls. I find it tricky to be a cocky, ignorant artist. Sometimes I wish I were though. It is one thing to be confident in your work and be able to carry the message of it through to the viewers. It is another thing to think that you have the best work of all mankind and all your viewers find it to be complete bullshit. Granted, I know there will always be a combination of these people; maybe being overly ignorant saves from hurtfulness.  It has already been discussed that sometimes in the art world, we have to think we are the best artists out there so other people will believe we are.

The exclusive KUNSTMARKT 67 introduced in Christine Mehring’s “Emerging Market,” spawned an innovative way of seeing, buying and selling art. KUNSTMARKT 67 allowed the “who’s who” of artists and dealers to attend. This art fair created smaller fairs that coincided with it and spread like chicken pox. I can relate Miami Basel to this easily. Seeing that much art, from so many different places, by so many different artists, was mind blowing. Without fairs and festivals like this some people may not have the luxury to see what gets shown. 

Reading Response 3

         The definition of a metaphor is, “a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest resemblance; an emblem.” Daniel Chandler’s article, Semiotics: The Basis: Challenging the Literal, talks about the relationship between metaphors and our physical reality. Metaphors apply to the language we speak, and the language we see in art. I believe that each individual has their own individual reality, giving each their own individual interpretation on some metaphors. In art, if a viewer is looking at a piece where the content is deliberately non-literal, what ever the interpretation, the viewer will have different connotations of the metaphor. Culture, family, races, immediate environment always come into play with interpretation of any language. It’s the “baggage” of the viewer.

            In the article “Transaesthetics”, by Margot Lovejoy, the issue of technology becoming the new medium in art arises. Lovejoy talks about the two sides of technology that people, not always in the art world, gravitate towards. There is the side that sees technology as Satan. And the side that sees it as God. The Satan side is filled with skepticism and resistance while the God side embraces technology and engages in a positive interaction with it. Technology as a medium in art brings a question of the artist hand in the work. How much is the artist actually creating and how much is the artist allowing technology to create the work, or simply be the work. For example, I am a painter, so my hand in my work is extremely important to the creation process and the finished product.  When I use imagery in my painting, which is rare lately, I do use the technology of the computer to reference images. I also use it as far as documentation and publication of my work, research of other artists or historical references, or communication. As far as creating my work though, technology is not Satan, but it is far from God. For me, technology is a tool, not a medium. I think that technology is viable as a medium to anyone that can utilize it in a way to create successful work, whether that be video installations, manipulated two-dimensional imagery, or machine made sculpture. “Definitions of art alter with historical and technological change.”  

            Claire Bishop’s article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,” talks about Bourriaud’s writings of “relational art work seeking to establish intersubjective encounters rather that private individual consumption of the art.” Relational art can be designated to performance, installation, and interactive art. It utilizes the space and the audience. The artist creates a different reality or community, a synopsis of the concept for the viewer to experience first hand.

 

These make great paint containers.

:]

Outsider Studio Visits

Last Friday I brought my friend Alexa to my studio and introduced her to my work. Alexa does not have an art background and has never seen my work before, so my challenge was to have a discussion with her about my work in a way that was straight to the point. It was meant to be practice for senior orals. All in all, I think it went really well. She seemed to understand what I was trying to do and asked really good questions.

Meet Alexa!

I talked with Alexa about how I was creating a visual experience inspired by my memories and that my layering process was a way to play with the levels on the surface creating movements throughout the support. She talked about how the different patterning made her stay "in" the paintings longer. The more time she spent looking at a piece the more excited she got and the more she talked about the physical aspect of the paint. She appreciated the text as telling a story for the artist but acting as a visual component for the viewer. She understood that the actual stories of the pieces only go as far as influencing the piece or acting as a visual stimulant. The finished product is meant to let the viewer have their own visual experience without any preconceived notions. 

After we talked for about an hour I took Alexa to a couple different studios and she was very generous and talked with other artists in their studios. For someone with a non-art background I think Alexa could hold her own here.

Mini Group Critique

I really enjoyed the intimate group critique. I feel like I got a lot more out of a small discussion like this rather than the standing in front of the entire class talking about my work for a few minutes then answering questions that are generally only asked by the same two or three people. I'm not sure what it is but discussions seem to flourish with less people in it. Don't get me wrong, it is nice to be able share with the entire class and get feedback from everyone. Maybe it was just the people in my group or the size, what ever it was it was way more beneficial than a class critique.

My group consisted of myself, Paul, Sean, Jack, and Meagan.
Here they are!

(Paul, Jack, the back of Sean's head)

(Meagan, Paul, the back of Sean's head)

What also made the talk interesting was hearing the view points of my peers that do completely different work than me. Not everyone was from a painting background and it was somewhat refreshing to listen to comments from people of sculptural or printmaking background. 

I got out of the mini critique that I have a good direction of exploring the theory of therapy through art making. We talked about the ability to announce or own the right to accepting things, bad things, that have happened to us. There's something about making a proclamation about it that tells ourselves that we are okay and can move on. We talked about it that it was just as important to use the process of making a painting inspired by an incident to make something positive for a viewer to experience. It wasn't that I was trying to change things that have happened to me, just process them in a way that I can continue moving forward.

I was asked how my work had changed since I came to Ringling and we started listing past works that I had done. And holy crap...it's dramatically different. In a great way though. I feel more confident about what I am making and excited to keep pursuing it with different processes. Another question was raised of why I use paint to make my statement. Why not sculpture or printmaking? That is something that I have not actually thought about. Recently I have been thinking about incorporating my painting with some printmaking and more suggestions were brought up today that I would love to try. 

Overall, I am happy with the experience of the mini group critiques. It should be interesting for the next round with all new people. 

:]

Recent excitements

Thesis is making me more and more excited about finding and learning about artist that are interested in the same ideas, materials or processes that I am. There have always been artists that I have been attracted to and inspired me but they didn't look like anything that I had been exploring. Recently I was introduced to artists with similar aesthetic as me.

Here's a couple for you!

Sean Landers:

Sean Landers was born in Massachusetts and currently resides in New York. A lot if his work contains written or painted text. I saw some of his work at the SYNTAX show in the Tampa Museum of Art. The pieces I saw there had dealt with free flowing thoughts and spontaneous writing, something that I have been interested in. He has other  works that introduce imagery with his text. I am personally more of fan of the ones with just text and color treatments. I find the text to be more of a visual aspect of the piece rather than serving as a story telling element.

Glenn Ligon:

Glenn Ligon was born, raised and stayed in New York. His work deals with race, identity, language, desire, personal and cultural history. The main concept behind his work explored the struggles of being and African American, homosexual man living in the United States. Ligon relates to my work in the sense of being strongly influenced from personal experiences and how he got through them. He uses a lot of text dealing with civil rights and sometimes creating images out of the text itself by manipulating the density.

I like to think that artists today are never original. As weird as that sounds. We are all influenced by other people and works, we appropriate things to fit our own vision. Not being original does not mean that we are not authentic to the ideas that we, as artists, explore.  I have no problem at all that my work is like other artists and visa versa. Its some what comforting that other people process and think the way I do. Makes me feel not so crazy.

 :]

Reading Response 2

In Peter Halley’s article “Nature and Culture” I found it interesting that the dynamics in art changed as society changed. He used the example and time era of World War II a lot. Art in that time period, and shortly after, was greatly influenced by the war. People that experienced it and lived through it became use to the idea of war and its affect on society. It became normal to hear about it on the news. It became an every day occurrence for people to die, for something to blow up, for some one to protest. It became second nature. A lot of art is based on the relationship of the artist to their immediate environment and emotions. Artists during World War II were heavily influenced by their immediate reality. Their emotions and experiences of that war influenced their work. Halley also stated that back in the Bourgeois period, a lot of laws prohibited any sort of impulsiveness and emotionality.  This goes to show how the constantly changing society evolves the style and approach to art. The generations of artists after World War II changed the art scene as well. War was not a second nature to them. They never experienced it in person. Photographs and stories may have given a taste of what it may have actually been like, but this generation couldn’t make any authentic work about World War II. Because their natural world was different from the World War II generation, their art was based on a different relationship. It was still a relationship with nature, just a different one. Halley asks the question about why certain practices of art that have been around for decades suddenly disappear and new ones emerge. I believe it has a lot to do with our changing culture. Things natural and common thirty or forty years ago either are or are becoming obsolete. Artificial and synthetic things are referred to as “natural” like perfume or deodorant because it is a normal necessity. Intellectual philosophy causes people to develop new trends.

Walter Benjamin talks about the importance and difference of replicating work. Making a replica of a painting almost devalues it. Take for instance the Mona Lisa. This is a beyond priceless piece. All the money in the world couldn’t buy it. It began to appear more and more as posters, cards, umbrellas, napkins and so many more things that could be bought for less than ten dollars. The authenticity is stripped not from the original piece but the copy. It doesn’t have the same essence as the actual Mona Lisa. Benjamin describes it an “aura”. It was not originally paint on a calendar. Benjamin compares it to film and the relationship between the actor and the character they are playing. No one will ever truly know a character in a movie 100 percent. The character is being channeled through the actor, like the original Mona Lisa is being channeled in a book. It’s not the real thing. It gives the viewer or audience a taste of the authentic character or painting. An actor will always portray a little bit of him or herself through the character they are playing. They are merely a representation of someone else. 

Reading Response 1

Kat Fong           

Thesis1

August 30 2011

Michael Wyshock

            Susan Sontag’s article, “Against Interpretation,” talks about the importance of content for interpretation in a work of art. Although she argues the necessity for interpretation all together, I think she clearly points out that any style of art is going to be deciphered differently. Viewers will always have their own experience that may not be the same as the intensions of the artist.  I think the evolution of art itself has also evolved the way in which we, as the viewer, interpret a piece of art. When art use to be mainly mimesis, there was no reason for any other interpretation. A painting of a person was merely a painting of a person. When symbolism comes into play there becomes all these elements of that steer the viewer into certain areas of interpretation. Translation of a piece is entirely subjective. As viewers, we have our own personal baggage that we attach to the intended concept; often changing it to better fit our interpretation. It’s like trying to translate a language from one to another to perfection. It’s impossible. The intended phrase, or in this case a concept, cannot be reiterated in the exact same way. There are always subtle differences. In my work, along with many other artists, the goal is to create a kind of experience for the viewer. The way a person interprets a piece affects the way they experience the work.

For me, the stories are important because they influence the result painting.  Once the painting is done, the story is less important to the viewer than it was to me. They experience the production for themselves and then create their own interpretation of the story.

            In the article “What is an Author,” by Michel Foucault, he questions the importance of the author’s role for the article. I think the author plays an important part in getting the information he wants passed onto the reader. When a reader reads in their head, they hear their own voice. The readers are discovering this information for the first time on their own. The author’s job is merely to provide that information for the reader to discover. Whatever the author writes serves as a starting point for people to base their thoughts on and spark conversation between others. Once the author finishes the writing it is no longer up to the author who reads it, how its interpreted how its discussed, and who it is discussed with. 

Hypothesis and Thesis Statement

A visual experience can be made from the reactions of memories for the viewer to be interpreted in his or her own way. 

Art can be a therapeutic process confronting events and situation, past and present, positive and negative. Memories from the past can influence paintings that constantly create different experiences. A visual experience can be made from the reactions of memories for the viewer to be interpreted in his or her own way.  Memories act as our unconscious diary. Everything in the past lives in today.

My more recent works express layers of time. The numerous layers make the paintings vibrate as a whole. The more time taken to view it the more the layers fuse together, making it more difficult to decipher between each layer. They introduce a personal history. My patterning allows me to control the manipulation of each layer, confronting the laws of past, present and future in a non-chronological manner. It is my way of controlling my reactions to events and situations that I have no control of. I find my paintings to be therapeutic, dealing with personal instigations I face day to day.