Friday, April 24, 2009

As usual, I wasn't impressed

Esotericism and Incoherence

“Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition.” The WSU Museum of Art website (http://museum.wsu.edu/exhibitions.html) turns this phrase to attract the unsuspecting visitors. The Palouse art enthusiast. The visiting high school student who has lost his or her way. The WSU student hoping to salvage his or her grade with extra credit. The Honors College student who truly cares and wants to learn more about art. Each individual arrives with his or her own background and biases, but it is safe to bet that everyone expects to be pleased and impressed by what they see. The awarding of a Master’s Degree implies that the receiver is an expert in his or her field, and other evidence speaks to this standard as well; one of the exhibitioners, Tobias Walther, has even received a prestigious Fulbright grant back in the 2007-2008 year (http://www.tobiaswalther.com/). Although the artists presenting their work had not yet received their degrees, the expectation was that this would happen soon. The extraordinary talent and mind-blowing qualities inferred by the presentation’s title were undetectable for this observer.
Unlike the previous Chris Jordan exhibit, there was no advertised theme for the current arrangement. If this observer were to provide a title, it would be “Esotericism and Incoherence,” for only a few seemed to have the potential to understand such a presentation. The exhibit also consisted of several disparate components, ranging from Brad Dinsmore’s “Epistemological Notebooks” mixed media to Walther’s confusing “Sailor” film. Elements of the titles could sometimes be observed in the work itself, such as in Lauren McCleary’s piece (s) composed of mixed media: “Elephant Splat/Between Being/Walk Wonder.”. Although it was unclear to this reviewer if these three titles were for one artwork or three, the “Walk Wonder” element was intuitive; since the creation was an installation, one was required to physically move from one end to the other while enduring intense confusion as to what the message, point, or even materials were. Elephants were present throughout the work, and that particular corner of the room left this observer beside herself, possibly “Between Being?”
Another piece possessing this clandestine meaning was the unoriginally titled “Untitled” artwork by Dustin Price, which consisted of white pillows surrounding a real tree that was decorated by white Buddha-like statues. While it possessed aesthetic quality, the meaning was completely open to interpretation, so it could be argued to be nonexistent. This characteristic alone seems to suggest that Hickey, who argued that beauty trumped meaning, would appreciate this piece. The best and worst examples of this principle were also created by Price, who presented a series of very complex constructions, one of which was entitled “We Are Just Fine.” Most of these artworks consisted of several elements carefully arranged around a wooden box protruding from the wall. They were so complicated that they had a repelling effect on this observer; perhaps too much symbolism and meaning is possible. These artworks could not possibly satisfy Tolstoy’s beliefs; if the observer does not know what he or she is looking at or supposed to be feeling, the artist’s desired communication could not possibly come across.
The Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition failed to satisfy this observer’s expectations. The artists are no doubt skilled, but very little of this was obvious in the display. They would have earned much more respect from the museum visitors if a synopsis of their written work was available for perusal before the presentation was taken in. Brad Dinsmore and Heather Losey McGeachy took a step in this direction by showcasing technical skill (self-portrait) and creating a digital example of a classic art piece (digital painting), respectively. Perhaps if the other students had followed in their footsteps, they would appear to be better prepared to face the cold and critical art world that no doubt awaits them.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Another analysis of Pollock

I feel that Paul Jackson Pollock is a prime example of both Sigmund Freud’s and Foucalt’s main arguments.
Freud’s discussion on daydreams and art stated that an artist’s creation is a representation of his or her unconscious wishes. Pollock’s abstract expressionist work seems to me to be the best at supporting this theory. He has been quoted as saying “The method of painting is the natural growth out of a need. I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them.” Although Pollock, in his frequent state of intoxication, may have not been able to nail down exactly what he was experiencing, at least for me, his paintings possess some sort of strong emotional undercurrent. It could also be argued that his earlier work also satisfies this theory, since much of it depicts “realistic” scenes with a twist in the interpretation. The unconscious of Pollock may have accounted for the “twist” in these earlier works.
The famous artist also embodies (quite well, I might add) the take-away point from Foucalt’s theory, in which he used Velazquez as an example of pushing boundaries and choosing to buck widely accepted norms. The style of abstract expressionism, which Pollock is known for, breaks quite a few “rules” about art that the common folk who are not privileged members of the “art world” tend to hold dear. These include; art should represent something, perhaps a familiar object, it should be pleasing to the eye, and it should require talent. An abstract expressionistic Pollock, to the layman, appears to satisfy none of these. However, it is painting in this style that made Pollock famous and allowed one of his paintings to sell for the obscene amount of $140,000,000 just three years ago. I feel that Foucalt admires this, which is why he focused his discussion in the text on Las Meninas, which rejected both social and art norms of the time (aka offering different perspectives and focusing on the king and queen, as they were the most powerful people in the land). I do not know if this painting caused Velazquez any strife at the time, but I would assume that it would. Oh well. It got him some academic praise and perhaps some Pollock-esque fame and approval.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Heidi's Chronicle


The Heidi Chronicles is no doubt a well-written piece, and was skillfully represented both in Jones Theatre and in the Honors Lounge for our class the next day. The problem I have with the play is the same problem that the great philosopher Aristotle would have had, noted in his quote that “Of simple Plots and actions episodic are the worst” (Art and its Significance, pg. 74). I do not mind the episodic nature when it appears in a TV sitcom, because that is just simple entertainment, but in this particular play, it made the story seem very lacking. Quite a bit of speculation is required, which may have been intended and desired by Wasserstein, but by doing this, I feel that her influence as the playwright is greatly diminished. So much of Heidi’s life is missing, and not much attention is given to her accomplishments (of which there are many, especially in the academic realm). Most of the reasons for what the characters do are hidden from the viewer, as well as the reader.
I feel that the two paintings on the main blog page defy the description of the selection of women’s art (as compared to men’s art) made by Heidi at the beginning of the play. As you recall, Heidi said that the women in the displayed works seemed to be observers instead of participators. In the painting by Caravaggio, Judith seems to be shrinking back from the center of action, which is ironic, because she is the main action character; she is the one beheading Holofernes. In contrast, the painting by the female artist, Gentileschi, has Judith much closer to Holofernes, displaying no timidity at all. Perhaps she was demonstrating her hostility toward the opposite sex in this creation; who knows?
Overall, I do not feel that gender “determines” art, but it can definitely wield a substantial influence over it. Freeland stated that great female artists did not have anything uniquely common about their artistic style that separated them from the male artists, but the example of Judy Chicago was also provided. Her artwork, “The Dinner Party,” provided a woman’s answer to the representations of women by men in various media in our society (Freeland, 141), and in this case, I consider it highly motivated by gender. Gender has also determined art in the past, when female artists were not recognized or chose not to pursue a career in art, because of social roles. Overall, I do not believe there is a definite answer to this question; it depends on the artist and the circumstance.