Monday, November 30, 2009

some kind of statement.

i paint for myself. i don't necessarily think of the viewer. ever. my paintings don't have to be conceptual because they end up having meaning anyway. to the artist or to the viewer. if it doesn't have meaning then it's not a successful painting. i'll save it for a while and then paint over it later. when it becomes worthless.

but even the unsuccessful paintings were learning experiences, which give them worth. but that doesn't last.

to specify "ends up having meaning anyway." meaning doesn't have to be concrete. i don't expect someone to stand in front of any of my paintings and come up with words or thoughts. i don't know if i want them to. when i paint i don't think; i feel. i'm not trying to get at something, i'm trying to get something out.

when i paint my body it's personal. it's hard to feel a painting rather than think it when you're staring at your face in the mirror and smearing cold paint on yourself. it has to be like a trance.

if i could eat colors or become colors, i would. painting myself is a way for me to get as close to colors as possible. but this is a small part of why i keep doing this.

the thing that keeps me most interested in the body painting is the impermanence of it. when i'm done the paint washes away. the only thing that is left is the photos. and no one can see them unless i let them. no one can see me painted unless i invite them into the room. it doesn't become an object and it doesn't exist unless i want it to.


Thursday, November 26, 2009

Photography Final Images Selection 1 (Day 1&2)- Unedited

Will most definitely be made into a print.

Needs some work in photoshop, but will be an awesome print because of the juxtapose here. Notice the earring/berries. Love that moment.

Probably won't make it into the final cut.

There is something about this shot on a large scale.

Probably won't make the final cut because it is sort of unrelated. I dig it though.

Definitely click on these to blow them up for the full effect.


Saturday, November 21, 2009

Friday, November 20, 2009

Excerpt: 11/19/09 (sketchsteph)

"Jackie called us brave...with the idea that there is a certain bravery in an autobiographical piece. We know we have to talk about what we do and we don't want to necessarily, but the art that comes as the end result means enough that what we think about it just doesn't matter. At least not in that way.
Painting 4 will be a continuum of the absence of, coupled with "what comes from" things gone. Sort of like when a ship sinks and something new comes from it...or when something dies in nature and something new and living inhabits its space or its dead body.
I will be using natural fluids in this painting. I had a difficult choice to make between whether I would use a chemical or a natural fluid. The reasoning behind my choice of the natural is that almost everything about my triptych revolves around human nature in some way. The nature of desiring, bearing, raising children. The nature of societal confusion, the nature of feeling devoid or being devoid of something that others have (ie-emotion, parent instinct, anything...). Outside of the concept, the process stems from nature as well. I test the nature of water on water against gravity. The nature of the fast-drying acrylic versus water that will not easily evaporate into the canvas. My "hand" plays only a small part in the painting. I apply the paint and the water and allow it to live, naturally. I am involved with these paintings. Anytime we are physically involved with someone, the other party should have an equal say on the extent of the physical interactions. I allow my paintings these choices to the same degree which they allow me. I do not want to be in complete control. If I don't have to why should I?

On my original idea of Choice for this triptych...just now I am conciously considering ways to make choice a relevant idea in my life. Not necessarily revolving around pro/anti-choice but around being a young woman getting by in an ever-changing but still largely patriarchal society.
So, this triptych may also be considered a serious look at my exercising of CHOICE. Viewed in this way, it is interesting to note my ongoing discomfort at having to discuss the concept behind these particular works. I have made my choice, but is my lack of eloquence in speaking about it a reflection on my inability to stand by that choice? I don't feel fear of my choice, but something else is happening internally that keeps me unable to be very open about what I am working on.
I am hiding from something.
A large part of it may be my fear or frustration at having to try convincing an audience of something so obvious and important to me. I don't necessarily care that it is rejected.

!!!!!!!!!!!No, I DO NOT care that it is rejected-
MY ISSUE-FINALLY- is that I have an ENORMOUS fear of failing my piece. I don't want to fuck it up. I love it and I can't let it down.
The painting is more than capable of standing on its own. It is what it is, it says what needs to be said. It does these things perfectly so I won't have to.
Maybe I paint because I want something that can take care of me & my paintings have been pretty good at that so far. They aren't going anywhere & there are more to come to keep me afloat. The absolute best part of this is that these paintings are all an extension of myself. In a round-about fucked up way, I've got it all taken care of. I'm using tools to do it, but I'm still doing it. It's still just me looking out for me.

*applause* if you've read this entire post.


Monday, November 16, 2009

Holy Shit

Fading Out <---link

I can't figure out what this guy's concept is but I'm loving it. I wish I had more to say about it, other than "this shit is fucking cool."

Saturday, November 14, 2009

art can be... anything?

when i was done watching this i said, "what is THIS?" It is a music video, which makes sense viewer-wise, but it is also interesting, creative, nothing i've seen before... it is art. art doesn't have to be inspiring, beautiful, or ground breaking. art can be fun. art can be light hearted. art can be just weird.

i'm not sure what point i'm making, probably a point i've made before... but i guess i'm trying to say that there are no boundaries in art. there are no rules. art is art. art can be anything.

fantastic mr fox.

...we'll never be able to learn it all.

Friday, November 13, 2009

How to Explain to My Parents

How to explain my parents from Lernert & Sander on Vimeo.

This video was tough to get through, but something I need to watch at least twice more soon and will need to re-watch probably for the rest of my life.
It brought up a lot of important issues I have with this same topic that I didn't really realize existed.

There is this sad assumption for most artists, I think, that our parents will not understand our art. I can only guess that it is some raw fear that stops us from even trying to make our parents "get it."

The art we create is too important and too intimate to be shot down by someone who is also important and intimate to us.
Watching this video, there is so much tension and hurt happening. Art is an enormous part of this man's life, and it's something that he cannot share with his father. There is frustration and anger and I think he was brave for trying and his father is brave for attempting to listen.

There is so much personal work that comes with figuring out what we consider art, why we consider what we create to be art, and why we create at all. It takes years of serious thought and reflection to get anywhere. These thoughts consume my mind, and I'm only at the beginning of the road. But I know that if I were to try to explain to my parents, or friends, or anyone else but an artist it would be a difficult thing for me to do. I would have to catch them up on years of learned "art vocabulary," then fill them in on my own very abstract but solid views of art, then talk about a lot of things I don't like talking about (the reason my art is conceptual in the first place). Maybe it's my job as an artist, maybe it isn't?

The road to "what is art" is so hard to travel...trying to convince someone else of that same road is even harder, because it is more likely to fail.

Anyway, that video opened up a whole new train of thought for me about communicating art to the type of person who doesn't quite get it. Is it possible to catch these people up? I lean towards no, because each person who wants to get to "that point" sort of needs to do it on her own.

Unresolved, maybe I'll get there. I'll probably post about it again sometime soon.


Loretta Lux

First, let me say- it's been way too long since I came across an artist with a decent website. THANK YOU Loretta Lux. Your photography is well worth it.

Anyway, I think it's probably very obvious why I am enthralled by Lux's portraits of children. The content completely captures my heart for two reasons.

Reason one, and possibly of less importance: working with children
Reason two: Working with children strangely.

It's obvious that she hasn't photographed these kids in an attempt to show the world her love for the young aliens of our society. I feel like this artist and I would have a lot to talk about. Which is to say that the way she photographs children is how I generally feel about kids when I am around them: Disturbed, uncomfortable, awkward, because I find them a little bit eerie. For the first time I can say that a work of art does not only affect me very deeply in an emotional way, but also that it speaks to me. Something that sounds so absurd until it is experienced. And it's an important experience. This series is helping me resolve some serious issues I have with childhood and motherhood that are so unresolved for me as a 21 year old female. Obsessions.

Her photographs have obviously been manipulated, but this certainly does not take away from what is going on through her collections.

Love love love it. LoveloveLoretta.


Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Lava Project.

If there's a guy talking in the beginning just skip it, because the actual video is what's cool.

art can be anywhere, any material, breaking any boundaries.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

didnt read anything you posted yet need to write nonsense probably.

just left senior seminar with one third of the senior artists on campus and then had an argument (right word i dont know) with my interior design roommate. i called half of the people(including her) closed minded because they looked at most of the art presented (damien hirst, corniela parker, marcel duchamp, picasso even) and said, "that's not art."

excuse me, what?!

what the hell IS art then??? roommate said she looks at damien hirst (picture of the lamb in fermaldehyde) and it disgusts her and doesn't inspire her and she never wants to look at it again, and therefore it's not art.
to me, something that creates such a strong reaction DEFINITELY makes it art. if you put a carved out of marble lamb that is "beautiful" in a gallery and put a real lamb in fermaldehyde in another gallery and you have, an equal reaction to the two, one in awe and one in disgust, how does that not make them both successful pieces of art.
how do you not appreciate that? you can hate something and still appreciate it's value.
and then i asked if it's not art then what is it? and she said an idea.
isn't art ideas?
i'm starving and shaky and not thinking clearly i want to write more but i cant.
It's been a while, but I was waiting for something good to come along and it finally did.

In Art History yesterday, we watched a 30 minute documentary called Couple in a Cage. Artists Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gómez-Peña studied the reactions of the public in the characters of two members of an undiscovered native race, the Guatianaui.

A few things really struck me about this video.
One was that the public seemed to fall for the act put on by Fusco and Pena. Only one or two spectators showed any inclination toward disbelief. Watching the documentary, I tried to put myself in the shoes of the museum-goers, wondering if I would honestly fall for what was obviously a show.
To take it a step farther, it floored me that once people had fallen for the act, they were completely okay with it. Only one viewer showed any concern about the idea of human beings put on display in a cage for others to gawk at.

The "primitives" would tell a story in their native language or do a dance for just $.50, and for $5.00 the male would show his genitals. Total. exploitation. People completely bought into it.

Anyway, I read the piece as a criticism on the willingness of modern culture to exploit what they consider to be "the primitive." For some reason, people find it easy to disconnect the idea of human-being from primitive human-being.
I honestly believe that most of the museum-goers who loved this exhibition would say that putting the Native Americans on display in circuses and such so many years ago was immoral, hardly realizing that they were tested for making the same mistake and failed.
People. never. learn. And it's scary.

Anyway, I couldn't find any good video clips. Or any actually, except for this one. With a small write up by someone who basically felt exactly as I did when watching this.