What is art?

This is somewhat like an extension of ‘where’s the art?’ 

A few days back, my Language Arts teacher held yet another discussion in class, but unlike previous sessions, I found my(self) ass perpetually off the chair, hand raised high like the next Hermione Granger.

It was quite a surprise, really, when our teacher walked into class and announced that we would be discussing the question: what is art?

(and here i thought we would never touch on my favourite subject. Last year, in objection to yet another year of expository essays and the complete expulsion of narratives from the curriculum, I asked our teacher what we would be tested on (in the bid to prove that expository essays were not a fair way to test students) 

She replied that we would be tested on our general knowledge (and that’s where I went AHA!)

to which I said, but then that’s not a good way, because what I consider general knowledge would not be what yours is made out of, and since your general knowledge isn’t anything that I a)know b)interested in then how can you call it general knowledge (and therefore test me on it)? your questions would never be on the mona lisa, or jackson pollock and thankfully not: what is an installation?

I’m sad to add that, I think I lost the argument… )

but going back to the point, I was terribly excited and I couldn’t stop grinning from ear to ear. But when it came to the actual discussion it was far from what I expected, mainly because whenever my classmate pinned a criteria that art must have before it could be considered ‘art’ I could recall some vague painting or installation that refuted this statement. for example:

Art must be pretty – One and Three Chairs (it’s just neat, orderly – what’s so pretty about it?)

Art must have meaning/ concept/ cheem thought - portraits? many portraits (like in the Renaissance period had not much thought to it, other than simply capturing the person’s looks, money, status, etc. and was basically a means for artists to earn money

Art must be something special, something that is difficult to do, of a certain technical difficulty (if not everyone could be artists!) (my classmates didn’t say this, but it’s other people’s opinions that I’ve read elsewhere) – Jackson Pollock; tell me, which one of you cannot take a bucket of paint and splash it over canvas? or throw junk onto the canvas and stick it on? in fact isn’t that what kids do best? (wihtout the canvas)

so what is art?

The problem with trying to define art is that it has evolved over past centuries, constantly evolving. New forms or branches of art have developed, each challenging the definition of art.

My personal opinion is that there are many different kinds of art, and therefore each kind would have its own judging criteria. It is hard to create a set of rules and expect all works of art to fall neatly into them. There are so many different art movements, and even then not every art piece follows a movement, so when we judge what is good art or bad art, or whether it can even be considered art, we must take into consideration the background of the artist, the time of the work, and (if there is) the art movement the piece falls in. Only then can we judge the work, and define what it is, based on other previous artists or similar works.

For example I think we can safely say there are two main kinds of art: the decorative kind and the kind with a message to bring across.

In the first kind, the art is just there to be pretty, and is often what we hang in our living rooms. It is still a valid form of art, as it tries to express and capture beauty. Only then, in this kind of art, does the ‘rule’ of art must be beautiful apply, that it has to be of a certain technical standard.

As for the second kind, art is no longer purely for looking at. As the viewer, we have to go one step further to understand what the work is trying to convey. In this category, art becomes a medium through which the artist expresses his thoughts and feelings, it becomes the ‘voice’. It doesn’t even have to be a message like: war is wrong! we should never go to war! rather the artist can be trying to express a sensation, or explore a notion (e.g. what is life?) and there might not necessarily be a resolution where the artist goes: aha! this is what life is.

Art cannot just be about beauty anymore, in fact having the artwork look beautiful could take away the original meaning of the work, especially if it is supposed to have blood and gore. What is and important criteria for this work then, is for it to be accessible. The viewer, the ordinary layman should be able to understand what the work is about, or at least form some idea as to what the message is.

Of course, not everyone can understand what the work is trying to say, but I think for the artist, as long as someone can appreciate it, that would be great. ^^ (or is it just me hoping someone can understand my coursework? haha)

*

well anyway for the discussion, our teacher concluded that for something to be an artwork it must be innovative, creative, or at least be the first of it’s kind.. once again like pollock, anyone can splash paint on a surface, but he was the first one who thought of it, and proceeded to do it.

George Simmel

heh, I’m posting this because I keep losing it and finding it and then losing it again..

*

“The deepest problems of modern living derive from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces.” – George Simmel, The Metropolis and Mental Life, 1902-3

In the above quote, George Simmel is addressing the problems in modern life, in particular the loss of self-government (autonomy) and individuality, and their causes. I will be discussing these ‘overwhelming social forces’ as well as the problems, with reference to two art works 100 Cans by Andy Warhol and I Love You with my Ford by James Rosenquist.

In the text, ‘overwhelming social forces’ refer to influences that affect modern life. They come about due to industrialization in which products are now being produced at a faster and cheaper rate which in turn created the rise of consumerism. Quoting from Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American, “We live in what may be the most consumer-oriented society in history. . . .Once a purely utilitarian chore, shopping has been elevated to the status of a national passion.” The increase in consumerism also raised the demand for commercializing and marketing the product.

Autonomy is lost as well. As stated by George Simmel, ‘Man’s nature should develop unhindered’, however due to industrialization lifestyle has been changed to a ‘functional specialization of man and his work; this specialization makes one individual incomparable to another, and each of them indispensable to the highest possible extent’. The specialization sets a boundary for the individual’s freedom of choice and what his actions.

In a way media, a social force, also restricts the individual’s freedom of choice. The individual will only choose to buy consumer items that have been well-advertised and is in vogue.

For example Andy Warhol’s 100 cans, 1962 shows us this power of commercialization. In this artwork, Warhol repeatedly paints Campbell’s canned soup, each identical to the other. In the image, Warhol uses small yellow circle in place of Campbell’s medallion. Yet we still can recognize that the can of soup belongs to Campbell. This ability to recognize a product even if not properly depicted highlights the use of commercialization, primarily referring to advertising. Campbell has been very well advertised and marketed such that even now on average, consumers purchase more than 100 cans of Campbell’s Soup every second of every day of the year.

Warhol’s 100 Cans also fills up all the space on the canvas making it look as if it can stand as an advertisement for Campbell soup on its own. Thus at the same time reflecting the theme of advertisement.

Like Campbell soup, the individual often lives on a product if well marketed. Thus commercializing influences and restricts the individual’s freedom in terms of consumerism.

Similarly, in James Rosenquist’s I Love You with my Ford, 1961 the artist divides the painting into three sections, each depicting a particular ‘favourite’ of Americans during that time, the Ford, black and white movies and instant spahghetti, which were very popular at that time.

The Ford is particularly symbolic as its popularity gave it the term ‘the car that saved an empire’. It prevented Ford Motor Company from financial trouble, and earned Ford an astounding $177 million profit that year.

Black and white movies also tend to hinder the modern man’s decision-making as the lifestyle shown on the screen becomes the lifestyle the modern man wants to achieve.

The painting emphasizes the impact of commercialization. It had become so powerful that it had influenced main aspects of the individual’s life: his job, his recreation, what he ate and from the title, even the emotional aspect of life.

The increase of consumerism, as well as the change from ‘proprietary capitalism to corporate capitalism, mass-marketing, … the subsequent explosion in advertising’ as stated by Tom Pendergast, Creating the Modern Man has resulted in the loss of the modern man’s individuality. Individuality in the sense that the modern man now lives in the same style with the same material goods as his neighbour.

 

This problem is also addressed in both paintings. In Warhol’s artwork the rigid repetition of Campbell symbolizes two things: the rigid lifestyle the individual in modern life experiences and the lifestyle of the people as a whole.

The painting could represent the modern man’s life, with every can representing one part of his life. Every can is depicted in exactly the same way, regardless of colour, shape or size. This shows us that throughout the modern man’s life, there is the presence of rigidity or lack of experimentation due to jobs being more specified. In fact the artist himself expressed this rigidity. Warhol was once quoted as saying (when asked as to why he chose to depict Campbell soup), “I used to drink it. I used to have the same lunch everyday for twenty years.”

The image itself is also symmetrical, this is symbolic as it also emphasizes that in modern life, not only was your life rigid and structured, the life of any stranger you meet on the street was the same as yours. Like in the painting, every can was reflected exactly the same as the other. Furthermore the bottom row of cans is cut off, which suggest that the stacks of cans are endless. Similarly, the loss of individuality is on a huge scale. It is not just one or two people who live like you, but hundreds and thousands of them.

100 Cans was also one of the last images Warhol painted by hand. This means that while as a whole the cans look identical, in reality they differed from each other slightly. This is important as it shows modern life has brought unique individuals together to work for ‘the greater good’. However while they may specialize in different things, they come together to work as one body; they are no longer seen as individuals.

In James Rosenquist’s painting the title itself addresses the causes of the problems, in this case money or material goods. The line ‘I love you with my Ford’ is a gibe at the famous line ‘I love you with all my heart’. The increase in value of material riches is now used to represent or even take over emotions. This shows us that values of the modern man have changed, causing him to become more materialistic and superficial.

The section at the bottom of the painting depicts instant spaghetti. Instant spaghetti was a hit as it was not only easy to use but also very cheap, due to mass production. Mass production is another factor that influences the modern man. Mass production allowed products to be produced at a low and face rate, which in turn helped give birth to supermarkets and shopping centers. This means that the individual buys the same product as other people around him as they go to the same place to purchase that product. In these terms, individuality is now lost.

Similarly, when related back to the black and white movies individuality is lost as everyone now shares the same dream and ambition as all of them watch the same movies.

In conclusion, Simmel’s ‘overwhelming social forces’ refer to the in particular the influence of commercialization, advertising, and the phenomenon of mass-production which create the loss of autonomy and individualization. In fact autonomy and individuality are very closely related in the post-industrial age as it is not only one individual who loses his autonomy but countries of them, resulting in a loss of individuality.

 

Awww

*music fades in*

~Dancing in the sunlight~!

   

~Everybodys feeling warm and bright it’s …

…such a fine and natural sight~!

Everybodys dancing in the sun~light~~                             *music fades out*

*

Aww… aren’t they the sweetest thing you have every seen? This is a really cool present. While they might seem like normally cute little figurines - halt and not be fooled! These two figurines are actually salt and pepper shakers (everyone gasp in awe please) which I most definitely did not make.. (as I sadly lack the skill and the creativity). And I say it’s a really cool present because my ma was the one who received it.. at a wedding!

It’s definitely different from the expected chocolates or mini candle gifts that the bride and bridegroom would give out to their guests. There’s also a very lame but cute pun… that they (the couple) add flavour to each other’s lives..

Well I’ve never really thought much about designing (stuff like chairs and tables and figurines) but this little thing is just so innovative. !! it’s just really cute  The theme that the entire design is centred on is appealing and different, which makes it jump out at the viewer. The figurines are also very simple; very simple lines and forms, (they just look like little blobs of dough) and they look good whether together (dancing) or separate. Sometimes certain desgins require both compenents in order to look complete, but for this thing I feel that they look just fine even as an individual blob. 

Owing to the curved lines and the way the head is tilted to one side, the little things also suggest movement. I’ve seen another one that has the same idea as this but the figures are standing upright and stiff, and somehow it’s not that appealing. Maybe it’s because when movement is suggested the buyer can almost imagine that the blob-thing is alive ! (.. and we’d start playing with it and making it do weird scenes under bridges of feet) so on some level we interact with the blob (albeit childishly) and therfore adds a certain personal touch. And to make this tiny thing even more impressive, it’s got a function, so it would make me think twice about not buying it because then i’d have a proper excuse to purchase it instead of the usual ’but it would look so pretty on my shelf!’

It’s pretty amazing how such a tiny design (it can’t be taller than my finger) requires so much thought put into it to get to that level of success. It almost makes me want to dabble a bit into designing cute things… but sadly I fear I lack creativity.. (I confess to only being able to copy things)

*

Even though I didn’t make this.. I’m still putting it under 2D.

Hey. My photography skills are quite good no? I mean, do you know how long it took to wait for the sun to shine through the window again? And when I was just about to take the shot, how annoying it was when the sun played hide and seek with them clouds? ^^

 

“All human wisdom is summed up in two words – wait and hope”

Alexandre Dumas Père

lantern festival

Just celebrated mid-autumn festival! Amidst the mooncake, pomelos and yet-to-be-full-size moon my dear cousins took it upon themselves to set as much things afire as possible.

 <- i was playing around with the camera functions to get good pictures at night without using flash.. Quite pleased with whatever I fiddled around it as I like the contrast. However for this picture the original one was so dark that their faces couldn’t be seen.. so I lightened it with photoshop.

I quite like the theme the pictures are centered around, children + light = future of the world? (sings: I believe that children are our future….) it’s quite a cliched theme, but it’s something that’s still holds true to this day and I just love my cousins (or just children in general), so these photos are currently taking up some new, special space/department/compartment in my heart. ♥♥♥

I’m even thinking of painting this for uob next year. (and maybe i’ll fare better this time ^^) It would definitely stand a better chance because I would really really love what I’d be painting. For my previous entry, I was excited every time I painted a new fish or even a just completed its fins, or the scales. So for my next try, I feel elated just thinking about it. (although that would mean I’d feel even more disappointed if something goes wrong. T T) 

ZY has just told me that it reminds her of the Potato Eaters, or Rembrandt’s coloud scheme. *blushes furiously*

…….. well not that my cousins are destitute or anything. 

what I especially like as well is the action of my cousins lighting the candles up. There are many advertisements promoting children rights, and they’ve all got children holding up candles. In many such pictures, the children look at you hollowly, eyes wide, silently pleading for help. the children look helpless, simply because they are helpless. But in contrast I’ve realised that my immature ones show children building their own light, their own path, embrace their own rich rich culture. It’s the total opposite; instead of needing help, here, independent, individual, children can help themselves.

wow. 

It’s strange really, I didn’t take the photo with all this in my head. I merely wanted to catch my cousins in such a great light, and in the later two photos I had not much control of how it turned out as they smiled freely on their own. It’s like, a picture has a thousand words (once again cliched, I know) and I think I just found my first 300. 

*

And maybe I’ll put a pretty lil’ slogan: Thanks adults, but we can take it from here. 

And i’m not kidding around about the burning.. at one point marc was setting leaves and twigs on fire. He was very sweet, because mine extinguished (thanks to my clumsy brother who dropped it even before I could properly hold it) so he tried to relight it – by burning a variety of things. It got to the stage where I imparted some sec 4 chem notes to him, e.g. Marc, burning plastic releases poisonous gas into the atmosphere, it could kill you… like how the spider you were talking about releases poison into its victim and kills the poor man.

We even brought a waterbottle along when we went out to the park with the lanterns. ^^ (Callista’s brilliant idea, and thank goodness for her sharp mind… because we ended up using it)

Ode to Art

It’s times like these I’m really grateful I’ve got an arty family.    ^^

A few weeks back my uncle suddenly called and rushed us over to ‘Ode to Art’ (an art gallery downtown). We got there and there was this mini-crowd right at the gallery’s entrance. So owing it to innate kiasuness I just had to poke my nose in… and saw Fan Shao Hua!

Fan Shao Hua is an amazing artist who’s recognized not only locally but internationally as well. He won the UOB Painting of the Year Competition (.. ><) and has participated in many many other exhibitions. But what really matters is that his paintings are extraordinary. I’ve only seen pictures of his portraits and already they look so filled with emotion, meaning, detail…

I thought it was really cool fantastic that the gallery (or whatever organization) would organize this because people got to see what went behind master artworks instead of merely looking at the final product. He was doing something from his Lotus series (and he paints really fast) and while I don’t feel that it was one of his better works (perhaps it was incomplete then) through the course of his painting it was so easy to tell that he’s got years of experience; with the firm way he applies his colour and strong, sure brushstrokes. But what fascinated me most was the background of the paintings he uses for the Lotus series.

While the flowers are painted very abstractly and boldly, the background is finer and softer. It looks like crumpled paper that was smoothed out again with the creases and everything. And my ma and uncle were arguing about how it was done. My ma says that he probably used a printer, because some artists print out their background textures and then paint their subject matter, while my uncle adamantly said that he painted it. It turned out that the background was hand-painted - which means the artist is freaky.

Having to paint the same kind of subject matter over and over again would also sound boring, but it really isn’t. None of the paintings look like a repetition of the other. The colour palette always changes, which just reflects how well the artist has mastered the choice of colour, and there is always a brilliant contrast that just catches the viewer’s eye. It also helps that his paintings are all very large, and so there is always a significant impact created.

And this instinctively reminded me of Montien Boonma’s ‘Two Buffaloes’. Like Montien Boonma’s choice of subject matter, Fan Shao Hua’s choice of the lotus is also significant. (from what I read) the Lotus is very symbolic as it is held sacred in many eastern cultures, a reflection of the artist’s deep rootedness in his Chinese culture. It is also evident from the way he paints the flower from its stalk, because in Chinese poetry the stalk has been repeatedly likened to the bond between family or lovers (as it is easy to bend but difficult to break) and so what I really admire is the artist’s ability to translate beautiful words into beautiful pictures.

(and this is direct lifting from the book that i stole from my unclegot) It says, ‘the lotus reminds us of the miracle of beauty, light and life. With its root in the mud, the lotus rises through murky water to blossom clean and bright, symbolizing purity, resurrection and the enlightened being who emerges undefiled from the chaos and illusion of the world)