Thor: The Appearance of Good and Evil

Last night I went to the cinema to see Thor, which I thought was pretty good. I couldn't help thinking about how Loki was set up as evil throughout. If you don't know the story a brief here a brief summary -yes spoilers-.

Thor and Loki are raised as brothers and both potential heirs to the throne of the 9 realms (one including earth although we are oblivious to all of this). Thor in his want to prove himself to his father makes a big mistake and rekindles past wars with the ice giants. For this Thor is banished and sent to earth as a mortal, in the meantime Loki discovers he is not really Thor's brother and we discover his jealousy has fuelled him to plot against his people.

Aside from the physicality that from the beginning we learn of Loki's talents of deception in the first fight i realised there are also some visual juxtapositions. Some very obvious and some more subtle. 

First of all Thor embodies a youthful projection of his father, the armour and the facial features. Loki with his dark hair stands out as rather different form the offset. However they both wear armour at the beginning of the film. Evidently their abilities require different armour specification i.e. Thor's armour is heavier because he uses force over Loki's mind tricks and deception. However Thor embodies stereotypical colours like red and gold while Loki blacks and dark greens which have connotations of serpents and slyness etc. . Now here's the bit that I loved and devastatingly i couldn't find a single image!

-Spoiler-

When Thor is captured he is wearing cloths that you and me would identify with; Loki appears to tell him what's going on (surprise, surprise he lies), but is also wearing cloths that you or me would identify with instead of his new kingly regalia. 

Thor is wearing what you see above which gives him a very relatable and humanistic appearance. Now I'm not saying that Tax Men aren't human; but the cloths that Loki wears resembled just that to be. Smart black jacket and trousers with his hair combed back and shiny. It seems to be set up in this film that those with authority in the human world are more sinister.

Back to their main 'hero' outfits...

Thor's armour represents him in a bold way, you can digest his mindset and attitude but Loki's keeps you guessing a little more. The tough armour of Thor emanates strength while Loki's slippery material reassembling something more suspicious and concealing. Its - not to overdo this connotation- almost like an additional skin to be shed in its overwhelming letheryness.

What I'm trying to say here is that art really is everywhere. I realise that many people have made these assumptions and that this is hardly news to most but I wondered how many people thought about how these basic impressions are given off when they watch films.

Enviroment

Artwork is so amazingly personal that it could be argued unless you know the artist you will never truly understand their work. I think that is why, seeing that fleeting snap shot of the painting process seems so profoundly romantic.

Len Tabners work has been influential to my work for a while but it wasn’t until I saw this photo that I felt truly inspired. You can truly see the raw power that his work is drawn from; you can see the landscape physically forming in his style as the waves encroach on his space.

The concept of space is also incredibly personal. Some artists like to block of the world around them while others immerse themselves in it. When I paint I like to keep a sense of order but usually during the process that descends into something a little more chaotic but that chaos seems to be more personal. I know that I order things in strange ways; however I suppose everyone’s way is strange to someone else. But nothing prepared be for seeing a photo of Francis Bacons studio; every time I see it my eyes widen and I have to sit forward, it’s almost awkward to look at but gradually the ‘chaos’ seems to make sense. You can see where he walks and where he stands and you can see him working despite his absence. This is very different to the comparatively sterilised environment that Gerhard Richter chooses to work in.

Jackson Pollok seems to embody the ‘action shot’. Indeed the power in his work fits this portrayal. However the capture of this moment seems to almost be a capturing of the thought. The action is immortalised in a completely new way. Although when looking at a painting it’s fundamental to the understanding of it to visualise the brush marks and how they were applied; I find there remains a block between knowing they were applied and imagining them being applied. It feels to me that the works weren’t constructed but somehow grew. It’s a very odd sensation.

The building of an environment seems to be an insight into the personality of the artist while the work is an insight into their mentality (in some cases for both claims). The mystery of an artwork seems to draw us into wanting to be inquisitive and on the whole it seems to be quite common for great claims about an artist to be made from how they work.

Synesthesia effects me, but i don't really call it 'a condition' . Odd though it might seem I realise that this effects how I build my environment. Light is crucial, I find nothing more annoying than strong artificial lighting as it feels claustrophobic. I picture time around me and so I spread out all of my equipment to sort of mirror this sense of time and space. It’s a little difficult to explain and its details that I’m only just discovering myself so I’m not even 100% sure. But you don’t need a so called ‘condition’ to set up something personal because how you work naturally is your ideal environment.

There seem to be many artists that become icons because of their appearance. One that springs to mind is Andy Warhol. But that brings into question how we want to be seen and how we are seen. It wasn’t until recently that someone pointed out that I tend to stand on one leg when I paint. I’ll be honest I have no idea why I do it, or how often but what I do know is that when my friend tapped me on the shoulder to tell me something very odd happened. I found working for the rest of that day incredibly difficult because I was so conscious about it. I might carry this on at some point but I’ll leave you here for now, goodnight!

Sheppard Fairey

I have been thinking for a while how can you make an artwork that recalls speaks to people. I have ventured into looking at the world of abstract and non-representivism but I don’t feel that this is right for me.

Upon taking my mother around our local art gallery I realised that pieces that can be described in this way are generally overlooked by the majority of people. I personally feel that this is wrong but in order to speak to people you need to be able to capture something iconic in a way that will appeal to them.

The impressionists were shunned in their day for their work, but now are overwhelmingly held up as masters. I believe that through time this will be the same for artists such as Cy Twombly and Rothko, who are appreciated today massively but seemingly to a select group with an extended appreciation for art. This is why when reading Computer Arts April 2011 I was gripped by an article about a graphic designer Sheppard Fairey.

Obama has been immortalised. His inauguration speech has been flagged as one of the most famous speeches and attributed to the same effect as those of nelson Mandela and Churchill. He is immortalised in this image, simply called “Hope”. The wise face is staring into the distance but at a slight proud angle. The simplicity mirrors that of a newspaper and is tinted with the patriotic colours of the American flag to create a sense of belonging and righteousness.

Sheppard Fairy was incredibly daring with his piece because of the legal problems with its production. The piece is bassed on a photography taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia while on assignment for the Associated Press (AP), which believs they deserve credit and compensation for the work. However, Garcia believes that he personally owns the copyright for the photo, and has said, "If you put all the legal stuff away, I’m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it's had." In February 2009, Fairey filed a federal lawsuit against the Associated Press, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the AP photograph was protected by the fair use doctrine and so did not infringe their copyright. In October 2009 Shepard Fairey admitted to trying to deceive the Court by destroying evidence that he had used the photograph alleged by the AP. His lawyers announced they were no longer representing himand In May 2010, a judge urged Fairey to settle. There are questions as to the copyright of his work to which his reply is:

“My feeling about copyright is important but that it should apply to verbatim reproductions, bootlegs, exact identical copies, not transformative pieces... because long before copyright law was as powerful as it is today, artists, musicians, speech writers, authors were making new works inspired by older works but somehow updated conversation and had a new unique value... And that is the danger is that people will not make that kind of work for fear of being sewed”.

I feel that due to the origional artis feeling that that the work is lawfull and the stark differences between the two both in media and effect that Fairy should not be persecuted. I feel the line is crossed when those copy works claiming that they are the creator of the indovidual piece. However I do not feel should be condemned for this case. The work has striking differences and is intended for a different audience. The three renaissance painters Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael were constantly creating new and supposedly ‘improved’ versions of each other’s work. But this all boils down to the never ending question of what is art.

I believe that Sheppard Fairy’s work deserves individual appreciation. I feel that the word of copyright is, in some cases, spinning out of control. That to stand to create something that really speaks to the popular you must embody what they are looking for. But the creation that embodies this “truer than trueness” and this new concept of a populace would be an interesting ally to explore.

The creation of something like the work of Gerhard Richter is focused on a personal experience; Rothko strikes similarities but seemed to want to portray his work in a specific way. He rejected contracts that were worth thousands of dollars because the environment wasn’t worthy of the message his artwork was trying to portray. I thought here I should point out I’m not criticising anyone, in fact I’m just building on a collective understanding of art. I think in reality the only difference between a graphic designer and a fine artist is the purpose. Both fundamentally employ creativity and try to project themselves into their work by going on creative journeys and discovering their own style. It wouldn’t surprise me if in 100 years time it is large graphic images that take up the majority of wall space in our galleries; but once again this is no criticism. The tides of art are constantly changing through external innovation and change. Art will never remain a stationary concept and I feel that one of the reason the question “what is art anyway?” is so perplexing is because it’s a concept that is constantly changing.

I’m always open for debate on these things, but that’s my personal belief anyway.

War

I am no photographer, but I was looking back at a presentation that my lecturer had shown me earlier this year when I had some free time. I was drawn to them at this time because of how grippingly emotive they are, they show is something so true its beyond truth. If you’re told something you know to be true you well agree with it, but if you discover something to be true then you have ownership of that feeling. By discovering the fear and turmoil in these images you are feeling the grief and fear yourself and therefore there is no further truth. As photographs they dramatically contrast to the works of (for example) Rothko physically, yet they seem to strike this parallel. Rothko’s paintings call upon you to discover the meaning yourself, indeed it takes a greater amount of contemplation but I think Rothko wanted to portray this trust beyond truth.

Don McCullin – Shell-shocked Soldier, 1968

We can identify with this picture through the understanding of shell shock and the effects of it. That is what triggers part of our understanding of the photo. Had this photo been hypothetically presented to someone 100 years ago it would not fit into the same bracket of meaning.

The figure appears hunched over and clinging to the gun as a means of comfort, the contrast adds to the drama concealing his eyes and subsequently detracting from his ‘identity’ due to the intensity of the horror he is surrounded by. The image appears quiet. Like a deafening silence has occurred amidst the chaos yet the figure is filled with kenetic energy and could spring into life at any moment. In trust it is the ambiguity of the image that truly speaks to us, what happens next? Seems to be the most potent question.

Another piece that truly stood out to me was:

Robert Capa - American soldiers landing on Omaha Beach, D-Day, Normandy, France, June 6, 1944, 1944

The blurriness of the image seems to capture the chaos and horror beyond the static clear image depicting the true defined horror. It draws you to believe that you are in this situation running without a clear shot of the destination, in turn inducing a feeling of fear. But without the knowledge of the war would we apply this same reaction to it?

Art is not something separate from the social climate. Everything effects art, war is definitely no exception. In 2003 there was controversy at the UN just before there was a press conference detailing western involvement in the middle east, because a tapestry of Picaso’s Gurnicia was on the wall behind. It was concealed behind a blue curtain for the conference but it really begs you to wonder why a image depicting the horrors of the Spanish civil war and the massacre of Guernica remained so potent. Most people I know have never seen this painting and could not even tell what it was about, yet somehow it stuck some chord of guilt or fear? What is for certain to me is that it proves the power of art is still tremendous even today.

Some links that you might want to read about what happened in 2003

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/guer-f08.shtml

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/News/guernica.htm

Blogs Here and There

I thought I should say that this is in fact my second blog around the same topic. I have copied over some of the posts and will continue to do so but this blog remains more art history and personal based while my other blog is more steered to follow my own artwork. Here is the link to my website if its of any use http://mypictureplane.webs.com/

Rothko: Mind over Matter

Looking back, I feel that I have been a little rude. My interests from an art history point of view embody everything; well I have yet to find something that isn’t fascinating at least initially. But my influences in my art work are, to be honest, allot more selfish and contained. Although I am currently pulled back to the same faces and brushes, I want to expand this. (I promise to also begin – and hopefully back tract – to reference all the works I mention here as I have found out nothing is more annoying than when you connect to something and don’t know the adequate context to talk about it)

So you’re very much in media res in my artist discovery.

Tonight I have really taken a dive into the deep end. Over the past few years my ideas have dramatically taken a new shape. I’m someone who through naively disregarded most modern art is now becoming deeply connected to it. Which brings me to Rothko...

Rothko; mind over matter

I was shown this painting and at first I thought that it was some sort of cheat, but tonight I sit here and see so much more. Rothko loved his masters, but unlike them he was not interested in creating an image that could be looked at and understood. He wanted to make a comment on absolute humanity. What makes us human? It is our ability to translate an image? Or is it our emotion? Rothko came from a background before the heyday of modern art and chose to even reject massive commissions because they didn’t fit his personal mission. He believed that art was more than just a media it was a quest of heroism; one that paralleled the Greek and Roman hero’s he loved to read about, but that fundamentally art could change the world.

He chose colours that spoke to our mortality; blood reds and purples that symbolised our own frailty. He stated that, those who broke down in tears in front of his paintings had experienced a glimpse of his journey to the outcome. Indeed it was known that he was suffering depression; his later suicide almost seemingly devalued him to that of a mere failed American abstract artist driven to that extreme.

He was asked how long one of his paintings took to create and he replied a lifetime. His journey to these monstrosities of paintings had taken him through masters and impressionism, through the influences of Dada and Cubism.

Although through this pessimism there resides something remarkably optimistic. That although the gloom in his paintings are claustrophobic that the fear is deal-able. You may turn away from these paintings and still feel their looming presence yet you have the ability to walk away which inspires a sort of confidence in the viewer.

The colours in his early work are not representative but merely sing in their own right. The complex layering creates vivid movements and the spark of life. However towards the latter part of his career the phases of his depression are evident. His first marriage had failed and his daughter had abandoned him, his alcoholism and chain smoking left him with heart conditions and his second marriage was beginning to fall apart. His paintings became increasingly blocked. The black abyss here at the Houston Chapel is completely void of that earlier optimism. There is no movement and therefore the life is completely drained from it. It feels like a cold lifeless slab waiting to have someone’s nails scratched down its rough surface to create that screech, causing the shuddering ripples of discomfort.

Although it may seem that this entry if incredibly pessimistic I beg that it is not seen that way. Rothko saw himself as the modern master trying to speak to the here and now. His paintings may seem pessimistic today but imagine them juxtaposed to pop art. He used every ounce of his humanity to paint for something he believed in and this feeling of a greater purpose and winder concept to his work had really made me think about my own work. Why do I paint? It is a question I will have to get back to you about

And so on that cliff-hanger I bid you goodnight!

The History of Satire

Hogarth has fuelled my recent projects but today I really was given the opportunity to think about satire and its uses! Satire might have been of particularly popular in the 17th century and now in political illustration; but do we have a connection to it still?

William Hogarth - The Harlots Progress (Plate 4)

Hogarth was arguably the founder of Satire. He began by exposing the life of the individual through his controversial prints, his legacy was continued in the ever growing fame of the print shops. Hogarth knew the world he wanted to depict. He knew the taverns and the brothels as well as the figures within them. These figures feature greatly within his work which you could argue had a similar effect to photos of celebrities on popular culture today. The ability to see those who people recognised held within them a unique special that was void from high art. Here the fate of Moll on the harlot’s progress is illustrated shockingly. She has died at the age of 23! yet those surrounding her coffin are entirely preoccupied with their own interests. In a word of increasing instability the market of prostitution seemed ever more attractive to young women but with uncontrollable illnesses such as syphilis raging through the cities, life expectancy was low. However it seemed to Hogarth if the population was in denial.

One thing I particularly like about Hogarth is how he created thumbnail sketches. He would actually walk around and when he saw a figure he felt would fit well into one of his prints he would literally draw them on his thumb!

Martin Rawson – The Prime Minster

Rawson demonstrates a few traits of modern satirical work that I have noticed. First of all his focus seems to have moved from a generalisation of the populace and exposition of a wider problem to that of a singular figure. This was explored by Thomas Rowlandson who worked shortly after Hogarth, yet he also dabbled in a wider satirical message. He also uses the ‘Mickey Mouse Procedure’ which has been effectively used since Rowlandson; however not names until much more recently hence ‘Mickey Mouse’. Mickey Mouse is instantly recognisable by the iconic ears, usually satire involves the exaggeration of the person. This means that the figurative aspect is almost lost so my selecting ‘key features’ of a person the illustration can still remain recognisable. So here Tony Blair (outdated I know!) is recognisable by the ears and mouth!

Satirical illustrators seem to be able to get away with so much more that couldn’t be said in words. However satirical images have changed in value. They are now not considered fine pieces of work and now commercial artwork. This is probably due to hundreds of factors! I will leave that one up to you I thought it was great to think about!!