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!!

What is this thing called Art?

The Universe according to Art is a turbulent episode of cause and effect. No movement lives in isolation but is a reaction to something.

But art isn’t this a dated term? Does it hold any meaning today?

I believe it does, and that it isn’t. With a world that’s increasingly fast paced and visually driven we are surrounded by art more than we ever have been. With new innovation and technology, new platforms have been made whether this be the discovery of deep blue pigment in 1590; the invention of photography in 1826 of the creation of Photoshop in 1988. All have had a tremendous impact on art, and because of these new innovations the definition is constantly changing and seems to have no ownership at all; as it’s completely different from person to person.

Conventionally you may say that art is a sculpture, painting, piece of textiles, fashion, print making etc; but that seems to be only scratching the surface. What art is to me is something deeper than that.  I always think of a Douglas Addams quote when I attempt to find a definition - Which I’m sure many people do - I’m almost certain that a fixed definition wont be achieved, not one that everyone will agree with anyway,but it won’t stop me. The quote is "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space”. It might seem completely irrelevant but allow me to explain. Person A wants to be an artist, a painter to be more precise. Peron A goes to school and learns how to paint (The walk to the chemist), but person A also has a fascination with the subject. A great imagination and an innovative style that tries to speak to the audience beyond the physical application of paint (Space).

(And if this is the universe according to art we might as well carry on with the interstellar theme)

Art as one continuous development has been evolving, as it still is for thousands of years. Let’s start with our good friend JMW Turner (1775-1851). Since his work we have seen; impressionism, post Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, Cloisonnism, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Fauvism, Cubism, Orphism, Futurism, Synchromism, Expressionism, Vorticism, De Stijl, Supermatism, Dadaism, Surealism, Abstract Impressionism, Post-painterly abstraction, Colour Field Painting, Tachism, lyrical Abstraction, Installation art, Sound Art, land Art, Maximalism, Minimalism, Post-Minimalism, Geometric Abstraction, Hard-Edge painting, Neo-Expressionism, Pop art, Photorealism, Conceptual Art, Neo-Geo, Superstroke, Superflat, Stuckism, Performance art, Streen art and Intervention art.

So what are we in today? Officially it’s not definable until it’s in the past. Upon the invention of photography Paul Delaroche stated that “From Today Painting is Dead”. Yet it that occurred way before any of these movements then isn’t there an indication of how art behaves, or misbehaves you could argue.

Most art movements are met with criticism, the impressionists were definitely no exception and yet today they are held up as masters. I feel that today’s mass criticism of Modern Abstract work (not to be confused with modernism) will one day be seen fairly strange as art evolves into something else. I personally love the 'abstract' and will rant about contemporary works as well as historical ones.

Today we are almost visually drowned, with advertisement everywhere, books, film, television we are an incredibly visually society. This I think is great and does mean that our relationship with it has changed. Our culture is especially visual today were so used to imagery that graphic designers now focus on getting impressions across as quickly as possible and remaining as memorable as possible, which contrast slightly to the print makers of the 1800’s who revealed in creating chaotic scenes in which people would want to spend time unravelling. What I’m trying to say is I think to explore art you need to have an open mind, much like you would if you were trying to contemplate space. It’s so vast and expansive yet at the same time incredibly unknown. If art is such a personal mission then how will we ever truly understand it?

In this blog I will now explore movements and masters, sketches and strange rarely heard of pieces and artists. In fact why don’t I call it The Universe according to Art?

;)

Introduction

Art...

A small word with a big effect. I know people who like me love everything art; others that have specific likings and some that despise the stuff. I believe all are valid positions, though if you’re the latter beware you may be converted.

;)

There is the physical art like the paintings and the sculptures, the fashion the textiles the print making the photography (it’s endless); but there is also Art the concept. What made someone 75,000 years ago scratch an abstract geometric pattern on a rock? Possibly boredom, it could be the world’s first doodle after all. But isn’t doodling an art form? But what it represents is someone designing something. That is what fascinates me.