Fine Art Visiting Speaker Forum

Timothy Hyman : Carnivalesque

2009-03-15T15:10:00.000-07:00

Timothy Hyman

Is the carnivalesque a trope that can be reduced to annual street processions, or does it have impact on contemporary art today?

In his talk and in the seminar that followed, Timothy Hyman drew a link between the street processions (a familiar sight in many European countries) and the concept of the carnivalesque. This somehow anarchical trope has influenced artists from medieval times throughout the centuries up to present-day, most noticeably in works by James Ensor, Max Beckmann, Philippe Guston or Paul Mc Carthy. The fact that street processions are celebrated predominantly in mainland Europe and less in the UK, sheds light on the Anglican past in Britain and somehow puts the carnivalesque in opposition to puritan ideology.

The puritan, disciplined idea contrasts profoundly with the carnivalesque and grotesque body. The focus on the ‘bodily lower stratum’, vulgar expressions, scatological elements and deformed bodies inverts Western ideals and positions itself in direct opposition to the classical, well-proportioned body. The inversion of hierarchies, focusing on orifices, defecation and human needs becomes a relevant tool to conflate straight-laced, progress-orientated conceptions of both art and society.

The use of masks, the tumultuous crowds and grotesque bodies go beyond the inversion of hierarchies. Carnivalesque renderings often seem to offer a way to negotiate the relationship with the other, foreign, different, ugly by combining both sides (self/other). Situated exactly on the threshold between excess and abstinence (Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday), Carnival is described as a dialectical in-between state. Masks, dressing up, becoming somebody else, dissolving in the crowd, are all aspects that can be found in many depictions of the carnivalesque. It thus becomes a reflection of this transgression, the inversion of self/other, the ‘mise-en-scène of otherness’. Therefore the carnivalesque, in its inversion of hierarchies and redefinition of self/other division (most evident in Mikhail Bakhtin’s writings) proves to be an important aspect in contemporary art production.

George Chakravarthi Blog

2009-03-15T15:09:00.000-07:00

George Chakravarthi

Genesis, one of the Chakravarthi‘s early video works and the first piece shown at the Visiting Speaker’s lecture, seems to summarise some key issues in his work. Chakravarthi’s live performances, videos, installations and photographs are concerned with gender, sexualities and racial identities. Various works are linked to the places where people meet such as bars, dating agencies or public places (Maxx Shurley’s Speed dating!, Barflies); means of communication such as postcards, letters (To the Man in My Dreams; Places); and other identity-forming (and contesting) media, where sexual or racial divisions often become most noticeable.

The creation of identities in Chakravarthi’s work is linked to destabilisation of socially and culturally accepted norms. Genesis, a large-scale video projection of face and upper body, proudly showcases the artist’s body, while offering a more intimate emotional aspect, which destabilises Western codes of behaviour. The transition between laughing and crying, interior/exterior questions the viewer’s preconceptions and arguably contests common representations of the self in Western Culture.

In some of his self-portraits, art historical references to Manet’s Olympia, Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, or Indian Goddess turn the attention away from the self, and onto the Other, the marginalised. Manet’s Olympia is re-enacted in a video piece emphasising the active role of the viewer instead of the fixed and distant image of the other (the stigmatised prostitute). It is exactly the breaking up of binary structures (not just of viewer/artwork, self/other) that Chakravarthi’s work deals with. In short, his work is concerned with the creation of complex identities that challenge simplistic categorisations.

Jasper Joffe Blog

2009-03-11T09:33:00.000-07:00

Ok, so you’re faced with a big billboard sized painted image of a naked woman, legs parted showing full view of her vagina, and covered in seamen. How do you feel about this? What’s your first reaction? How do we tackle this issue of pornography?! This was just one question of many that we debated extensively in our seminar with artist Jasper Joffe. Here I have written about the main points brought up in our discussion, raising questions at the same time that we may not have considered. Feedback and further debate is very welcome.
To begin with I wanted to open our discussion with what I found most people were questioning- the morality of such subject matter. It is a fact that painting has been subject to criticism throughout the centuries and in a sense this is why today we learn about these artists that have changed the course of art? I asked the question whether Jasper Joffe felt he was reflecting society by painting these confrontational truths. And I emphasise painting here because this is what he is doing- painting these truths. We all know what we can access online, it is constantly thrown at us, the photos and the videos, but by painting is Jasper Joffe opening up pornography in a different light, most certainly to a wider, more variable audience?
Those who simply want to access pornography for their own pleasure know where to get it. So by presenting it in an exhibition of paintings, it is being opened up for discussion, concerning other aspects than the obvious fact of whether it gets our juices flowing.
And so comes the embarrassing situation of viewing all this with one’s parents. Going to a gallery with parents to specifically look at these paintings is for intentions of discussion and cultural exploration. However, when watching a film with our parents we instantly feel uncomfortable when a sex scene makes an appearance, similarly we would not flaunt to our parents a keen observation of pornographic imagery. This leads us to think that the more controversial, dirty, or immoral the subject matter is, the more there is to say- the more we have to discuss, and in actual truth, the more exciting the discussion becomes.
It is no surprise that the younger generations of today are not as affected or shocked by it all. It could be argued that children are losing their innocence earlier as they see, hear and witness more shocking things than what their parents and grandparents did. Perhaps this is what we mean by saying that morals are slipping The issue of what media we use in relation to sexual or pornographic imagery was raised with much deliberation of how this affects our own personal comfort zone. Photography seems too crude, almost too close to the actual act. By painting, we take it away from this reality; we are in a sense creating something new. There is a blank canvas and we fill it. We create an image. Even if we copy from a photo or from life part of the process is from what we imagine when we create it with our own hand. It shows a manipulation in the slightest of ways. We take from a real life situation and make it into something different. For example if the model happens to be someone we know- a friend perhaps, in a photograph there is no doubt that we recognise them as our friend. But if that person models for a painting then the painting becomes someone different. We don’t refer to the person in the painting as the friend we know but more so as a different person, someone else, another presence- ultimately a person created in relation to the paintings subject matter- not the original model.
Another incredibly significant thing to think about is when Saatchi bought Joffe’s painting of Himmler there was uproar- a Jewish man buying a painting of a Nazi?! In this case however, he claimed it was because he liked the colours, not even knowing who the painting was of when he took an interest, and so this brings us to a rather confusing state of mind. How does a painting of a Nazi leader cause so much outrage and yet the paintings of pornography are dismissed quite casually. It’s perfectly normal to read about and see articles in newspapers or books about Hitler and the Nazi’s for example, as it is historical fact. But when we see photos of pornography we are ultimately disgusted. The painting seems to tone down the sexual content and at the same time be acceptable because it crosses over into the imagined fantasized world. In contrast a painting of a Nazi is immoral because once someone paints it, it involves a whole sense of interest and opinion, as after all, the artist is dedicating their time, effort and love of painting into something that is not so favourable.
If your friend told you that they liked to look at pornography you wouldn’t exactly disown them, but if they told you they liked the Nazi’s then you’d find this quite disturbing. To put it simply, pornography is normal, and murder is not. There is no room for fantasy or pleasure with the latter as there is with pornography, and yet this can also be turned on its head. It has become increasingly apparent that some people think Hitler was sexy, and that the Nazi uniform in general is somewhat sexy. This idolisation appears to be a normalising factor. Ultimately we are getting further and further away from the very routes of the historical fact.
Is this dehumanisation of people a good thing? Or does this lend itself to the animalistic behaviour of sexual activity whereby we look, we are pleased and so we express this pleasure? It is human nature after all, isn’t it? Our eyes take it in and our body reacts.
Picture the scene, Jasper Joffe sitting in a room with a group of people, the majority of which are female. We are discussing work that seems to portray the objectifying of women. Immediately one would think the united female voice would be hissing ‘sexist’ to the man, however this is where a strange shift occurs. For it appears that Jasper Joffe is concerned that we females don’t seem to be bothered. Joffe has become the feminist in a group of women. Do women feel empowered by the fact that we are subject to the artist’s canvas? After all, women have been the subject of painting for the majority of history, but never really the painter. Even now as there are many more opportunities for female artist, the male still dominate. We may feel proud that we are the mystery that men have long tried to solve, but surely we would feel objectified because that is all we are taken for? The women in these paintings may appear to be objects of use, but what if it is the man that is being objectified whereby women use men for their own pleasure and thus getting pleasure from knowing that she is giving him pleasure and so she is in control. Do women feel that they are superior to men because men cannot control their animalistic behaviour, or do women simply express their fulfilment in a different way? How would it affect the issue if it was a female artist’s work?
Has the debate of feminism run on for so long that people have lost all sense of the meaning? Being about equal opportunities is what makes the difference between a choice to stay home and look after the children or to go out and work. Are we blurring what defines feminism, losing our grip on the basic line? At end of day it could be argued that women want equal opportunities and the choices in life but still want a man to open the door. But this is just gentlemanly behaviour- another argument entirely, but one that is so often mixed up with that of feminism. There is a shadow overhanging this debate and ultimately we are left hanging in the middle of it all, clearly being an issue worthy of a seminar of its own.

Reece Jones

2009-01-07T02:13:00.000-08:00

In preperation for the seminar with Reece Jones, we read around Kant and contemporary theories of the sublime. We also read a text written by Mick Finch called 'New Techniques, New Painting?' (Published in Contemporary Visual Art Magazine (N°17), 1998)

http://www.mickfinch.com/texts/new.html

We began by discussing the idea of the contemporary sublime with reference to the work of Reece Jones. Can the sublime exist without a religious foundation?

His work can be read within the concept of the contemporary sublime, due to its use of war imagery which is often used out of context, to create feelings of cinematic tension and mysticism. This subject matter was seen to be potentially sensitive and volatile, which lead us to discuss the ethics of the artist as a social commentator.

Within the lecture, a question was posed that, given the warlike nature of his imagery, would he ever consider visiting these sites to gain first-hand experience? This became relevant to our discussion and expanded on the ethical viewpoint.

We ended the seminar with a lengthy discussion questioning the responsibility of the artist to create and maintain the dialogue between the artist and audience.

There were various viewpoints which ranged from the idea that the artist must first and foremost consider the work over and above the needs of the audience, to the necessity for the artist to consider how the viewer may respond to the work whilst adjusting their practice accordingly.

Dr Alistair Payne seminar

2008-12-07T09:45:00.000-08:00

‘The main thing wrong with painting is that it is a rectangular plane placed flat against the wall…it determines and limits the arrangement of whatever is on or inside of it’ – Donald Judd ‘Specific Objects’

We had a very open discussion covering many broad and important questions from the limitations of painting to more general ideas such as the importance of art to society and even how one can classify a work of art (if at all possible). For those who missed the seminar I will try to repeat some of these points (if anybody thinks I have left a particularly interesting one out then please bring it up!). It is worth noting that the original seminar group read through two texts: ‘specific objects’ by Donald Judd and ‘art and objecthood’ by Michael Friedman. I have found a link to the Judd essay online however I was unable to find a whole copy of the Friedman.

Judd - cep.ens-lsh.fr/poetik/doc/judd-specific%20objects.pdf

Ever since Duchamp there have been arguments over the ‘death of painting’. Painting is limited, ‘the rectangular plane is given a lifespan’ however by concentrating on the limitations of painting are painters today giving painting fresh importance?

In his talk Alistair spoke about the idea of ‘Frontality’ and that he was interested in ‘challenging the notion of surface within painting’. His work attempts to bring painting off the two-dimensional plane into three-dimensions, but by doing so he is betraying painting’s most distinct characteristic – the flat surface. Therefore can his work still be classified as painting? Do we need to classify it?

How do we classify a work of art? I think it was Angela who talked about the idea that a streetcleaner is creating art simply by the act of cleaning the street. Alistair Payne then mentioned an artist (I can’t remember the name) who would do things such as picking up a discarded piece of clothing, take it to the dry-cleaners and then return the clothing to the spot from which he picked it up.

Judd claimed in 1965 that the ‘disinterest in painting in sculpture is a disinterest in doing it again’ but how necessary is the constant progression in art? Michael Brick suggested that perhaps this is a Western symptom, pointing out that Egyptian art had remained unchanged for over a thousand years. The idea of the ‘artist’ did not exist until Vasari’s ‘ the lives of the artists’.
This was a very interesting, and I think important, discussion and for those who missed it this is an opportunity to add your thoughts and opinions. For those who were there and feel there is something to add then please do! The blog allows room to think when adding your ideas (the seminar might have been a bit intimidating!)

Mark Melvin Seminar

2008-11-26T08:43:00.000-08:00

Discussion centred around 2 main points; the artist as craftsperson/technician and processes in video editing which mimic old media techniques - splicing, razoring in Final Cut for example. I have tried to reproduce some comments that were made below. The text for discussion was Lev Manovich's Flash Generation available at this link www.manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc

Sarah Tulloch discussed the physicality of film as a medium being a relevant consideration in its use, Mark Melvin later re-inforced this point by mentioning the presence of film (as opposed to video) projectors in gallery spaces as being a particularly powerful one.

Ross (1st year?) mentioned that he had produced some work contrasting new and redundant technologies (typwriters vs word processors) and physically pulling old technologies apart and making interventions. Ross if you could include a link to this work on the blog that'd be wicked.

Gavin (4th year) made the point that older technologies require more time and investment. This lead to further discussion about how much artists should learn about the technologies or skills they work with. Mark Melvin suggested as an example that learning to arc weld for a one of project would not represent an efficient use of an artists time. Tom Schofield suggested that the danger with that can be a lack of awareness of processes at work within the building of something which can feed into the work. Sarah pointed out that this mostly only true in process-based work.

Please post on these issues! This blog is your chance to think about what you want to say before you say it.

Denise Hawrysio

2008-11-19T05:59:00.000-08:00

We were originally interested in the idea of how collaboration works, and how open this is in Denise's work. We looked at her collaborations with other artists or "non-artists", the environment, incidents and natural processes and encounters with objects. These happenings or performances were often marked onto the printing plate.
We were also interested in the links between Denise's work and the ideas of Fluxus, including social engagement, chance/impulse change, process and performance.

During the discussion the following questions were raised:

What constitutes collaboration, are there rules that should be complied with?

Can you really give up all aesthetic control to the subject/collaborator, and does it really matter?
Highlighted in Denise's Log splitter prints, good collaboration was when the artist had no aesthetic control. Within this piece Denise is questioning this framework.

Is a paradigm shift the "best" outcome of collaborative work?
Although this is not a motive for Denise it can sometimes be a unexpected result.

Rachel Thorlby seminar: Face Value?

2008-11-05T07:42:00.000-08:00

We used the text The ontology of the Photographic Image from Andre Bazin’s What is Cinema? as a starting point. We felt this was a way into the issues surrounding the effect photography had on the plastic arts and their ability to represent reality.

Based on looking at the work of Rachel Thorlby and our own areas of interest we arrived and three core questions to be explored in the seminar:

The object/image relationship in Rachel’s work

The use of impoverished materials in the construction of artworks

What is the contemporary relevance of the romantic and how does that relate to our ‘idea’ of landscape?

Discussion:

Briony asked a question about whether Rachel’s criteria for choosing images was purely aesthetic/formal or if she selected images because she was interested in their history.

This sparked a discussion centering around the undermining of any claims to ‘truth’ in images both painted and photographed. Rachel was drawn to images that could have a slippage of meaning, i.e. a dress becomes a type of landscape. She did not select images on the basis of their historical narrative but once selected she became involved in their background stories.

The discussion moved on to Rachel’s use of impoverished materials vis a vis the elevated status traditionally associated with portraiture or landscape painting. The low-value, low-tech use of materials like cardboard and polystyrene within Rachel’s work was a mixture of experimentation allowing the materials to ‘do what they do’ and a desire to reconfigure and re-invent the original source material.

Rachel talked about the masking or intervention in a straight reading of the face within her work on portraiture. She wanted to direct attention away from this figurative aspect of portraiture as she was not interested in the figurative. By using strategies related to Surrealist ideas of juxtaposition and masking out the figures within a landscape she hoped to provoke a sense of the uncanny and in some way reinvent the image.

The consensus of opinion was that to merely represent reality was not central to what is considered interesting within contemporary art practice today.

We ran out of time to really cover the third question in our framework: What is the contemporary relevance of the romantic and how does that relate to our ‘idea’ of landscape?

Please feel free to discuss this here on the blog. As a starting point we thought that the romantic movement has a huge influence on how we represent and construct visual and mental ideas of what landscape is even if it’s ideals have been superceeded by a more naturalist/realist sensibility.

Posted By Sue Warlock and Sarah Tullock

NADIA HEBSON, the uncanny valley

2008-10-22T05:31:00.000-07:00

In this morning's Seminar we embarked upon a crazy journey attempting to delve into various topics surrounding issues of the sublime, the portrait, artistic intention, and robots.....

Perhaps because all of these issues are so complex we were left with more questions than answers, but will attempt to summerise what was touched upon below;

Sublime and the Contemporary Sublime: A strand of thought very evident in Nadia's work, however something we all agreed is hard to define, or even attempt to capture. This concept is perhaps restricted in the present day due to it's associations with the enlightement, but could be thought of as the 'blankness of nature'.

The Portrait: A problematic mine-field that continues to entice artists and viewers alike. Does the portrait still have a place in contemporary painting? and if so how should this be tackled? what place does identity have within the idea of portraiture? does it still remain to be a vehicle for emotion, in comparison to other mediums such as film?

Artistic Intention: A heated debate exploring whether artists should set out with a clear outline of what they wish to convey, or if this must be handed over in it's entirity to the viewer.

Robots: Welcome to uncanny valley!

Many thanks to Nadia for bringing some very interesting points of disscusion forward.

Laura Napier

2008-10-21T09:53:00.000-07:00

Laura Napier’s lecture was followed by a seminar on time. Chaired by Daniel Jagger and Kelly Murray.

“Time is a relevant issue to be considered within Laura Napier’s Work. It is raised on several levels from the different “times” or timelessness she creates in her work. This ranges from her physical instillations, to the audiances own perceived and real time as the space is explored.

This opened up the discussion for looking at time in a broader sence in relation, not only to instillation, but also sculpture + painting. The role of the gallery + institutions that often create a false sense of permanence + fixed sense of time to art+art objects also opened up an interesting trail of thought.

Laura is also interested in the way it is possible to control or even manipulate viewers to move around her installations in particular ways. This seemed to provoke conflicting responses with often viewers resenting being controlled + when left to explore freely, every viewers experience being different.”

Neil Bromwich- The aesthetics of social engagement.

2008-10-08T05:27:00.000-07:00

Does art get in the way of social change or can it be used as a vehicle for social change? Can art contribute to social change at all or is it hindered by the fact that it is called "Art" in the first place?

These are some of the issues we discussed in the post-lecture seminar. With relation to "Sci-fi Hot Tub" we considered the affect of an art work in a social environment i.e Kielder reservoir, as opposed to the white walled gallery setting. In the discussion Neil suggested that although the art work "lost something" in the gallery space, it also allowed for a new critical perception.

How did you feel about Neil's work? What draws you to his work- the spiritual utopian aspect, the aesthetic documentation or the social engagement within a more public realm.

Ginny Reed: what can we say about nostalgia..

2008-05-07T06:11:00.000-07:00

Ginny talks about the importance of the subjective realm in her practice ( Barthes "punctum"). How does the use of medium and documentation alter this interplay?.......

Jamie Allen : Killing Lena

2008-04-30T08:33:00.000-07:00

What is the relationship between the human and the digital component in Jamie Allens Work......Does this have implications for digital technologies of the future......?

NEIL GALL : Shelf life

2008-04-23T06:23:00.000-07:00

Simon Groom , in his essay on Neil Gall, talks about the stillness and suspension of time in Neil's paintings. Through what medium are these qualities memorialised......does size matter?

HEATH BUNTING

2008-04-16T05:50:00.000-07:00

How does access effect "virtual" and "real" networking systems. Are these relationships exclusive?

SUSAN ALDWORTH : scribing the soul

2008-03-12T06:58:00.000-07:00

Can consciousness be defined?

URBAN ART

2008-03-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

In Urban Art's projects, what is the relationship between history, politics, place and community?

EDWINA ASHTON

2008-02-20T06:13:00.000-08:00

What qualities arouse pity. ....Are these interrupted by human intervention?

HANS ABBING: Why Are Artists Poor?

2008-02-13T09:27:00.000-08:00

How do you measure success?

Isobel Young: what remains (james)

2008-02-06T07:39:00.000-08:00

How is Isobel's practical framework sustained by her conceptual framework.

Sally Underwood

2008-01-30T05:55:00.000-08:00

How is the audience a part of Sally's language of " destruction"?

Jayne Wallace

2008-01-09T05:58:00.000-08:00

In Jayne Wallace's research, to what extent does technology have the potential to effect the meaning/perception of the object ?...............discuss

Gary Woodley

2007-12-12T07:02:00.000-08:00

How does architecture act as a framework in Gary's practice?......

Sue Collis

2007-12-05T05:50:00.000-08:00

What is the relationship between Fine Art and Craft in contemporary practices. Is context everything?...........

Mark Ariel Waller.

2007-11-28T06:56:00.000-08:00

Mark talks about narrative as inconsequential in his films. In the context of their original installation , is this still true? Can experience be a substitute for narrative?........

Mark Titchner: BEYOND BELIEF

2007-11-21T06:43:00.000-08:00

in reference to mark's work, does context effect belief?........discuss

Francis Mckee

2007-11-07T06:38:00.000-08:00

Can there be cultural boundaries in open source ideology.........? Discuss

David Kefford: LOST OR FOUND

2007-10-31T07:30:00.000-07:00

Is the object lost....or found....?.discuss

Kerry Morrison: CULTURE CONSERVATION SCIENCE

2007-10-24T06:26:00.000-07:00

In reference to Kerrys talk, can there be synergy between art and science?......discuss

Basil Beattie "corridors of uncertainty"

2007-10-17T08:53:00.000-07:00

Basil talked about the relationship between figure and ground in his paintings as a narrative of opposites..............discuss

After Harris Kondosphyris' lecture

2007-10-10T06:25:00.001-07:00

In Harris Kondosphyris' lecture he spoke of how "an image can not constitue truth".

From this quote, discuss & debate...

Katie Cuddon

2007-10-03T05:54:00.001-07:00

Has Katie really deconstructed romanticism? Does romanticism still have relevance for you?