Accumulation: Final

There was little interest in this exercise towards the end. It was a project of endurance. At the beginning I had a certain idea that I was going to try to communicate by collecting these angels. What happened was an experience with much more organic qualities. Wandering between different aspects of angels and how they manifest had a kind of dynamic quality. Much more interesting than a cohesive idea with all pieces merely a repeat of the next.

What I have learned is a greater understanding of how thoughts can morph into multiple variations. A sense of there being greater than one singularity. A world within a a single motif.



Greater Beings For A Greater World, dimensions variable, amassed evidence

Accumulation: Week #12

Accumulation: Week #11

How does it all get there?

Accumulation: Week #10

secret

This is for Leeann.

New Sculptures- Projects1

Just finished. There are three sculptures mixed in together.

This Is An X

Garden of Stone (Goldsworthy)

Perhaps Goldsworthy is just nice. He perceives everything to be this great cosmic dance. He his work is concentrated on the idea of birth and death cycles. Creation of the memorial is not an aberration, but a chance to continue his thoughts in a different environment. He deals with the balance of nature through time and cycles. This outlook is extremely spiritual and could not manifest itself in someone that did not believe in spirituality. So to create this memorial he merely channeled himself into the work to achieve, what is in a sense, a piece of poetry. Those who do not share this similar sense of spirituality will likely never understand it.

public sculpture manifesto

I'm not sure of what i think about this. I, of course, agree with most of what is written. There should be a greater understanding of visual forms of communication. But where things get tricky is when there certain parties that need to be satisfied by public art. Much of this is in relation to politics and finances. Very little can be done to change this unless you would like to change a larger segment of society that affects this smaller aspect. Public art is just like other areas of the arts. That which has the greatest appeal will always prosper. Much of the time this appeal has little to do with the actual work itself, but rather how the work integrates into the overall social context and agendas. What is sad to say is that as being a visual artist there is a different view of the world and many times what we see is not what others see.

Article: How Creativity Is Killing the Culture

There is little interest for me in the article. It is just a rant on some aspect of life that is a common occurrence. While it is somewhat intriguing as an idea that there is somehow an inherent flaw to a part of society, there is little to show that there is a trend of creativity as bad for society. The magical use of statistics that were cited could hardly be used to prove anything. The two methodologies for the statistics of the amount of the population that experience depressive episodes is likely differing. The definitions used in the two different time periods were likely also in conflict. As for the statistic that the amount of the population that is being treated for the occurrence of depression has grown, the amount of awareness and psychopharmalogical drugs that were developed and marketed during that period was likely at it's largest point of growth.(According to the documentary "Does Your Soul Have A Cold?" , Which is about depression in japan, the first marketed US depression medication was not introduced until 2000. After the awareness of the condition brought by the drug companies, there was a boom in the amount of people diagnosed.) Even if it was not the case of bad statistical implementation it would still only be a correlation and have no evidence of connection.

It is necessary for, so called, creativity to be part a large part of society. I would be reluctant to use the word creativity because it has more than one definition and I actually never use the word. What i believe the author was likely referring to was a sense of craftiness. Which would be the idea or implementation of skill. He believes very few can achieve at a high standard this craftiness.

Something that is commonly called creativity is a dissent in the structuring of ideas. Which when implemented in various locations in society, including art, there is the opportunity for a greater understanding of the surrounding world. This is what the author likely doesn't get.

Artist: Matthew Barney

1. Does Barney function as the Kinkade of the art world?
2. How has Barney been able to fund his expensive work?
3. Is message put on hold for theatrics?

1. In many ways he does. He uses marketing and business practices that support his production that are not that unlike Kinkade's. The major differentiating factor is that of scale, which is determined by the specialty market of fine art. Barney uses supply and demand in similar ways as Kinkade in order to create the needed monetary support that is required. Creation of various marketable products tailored for varying viewers/customers is also a shared aspect. Audience is a definite deciding difference; where Kinkade wants his work to be as widely disseminated Barney would rather his work to be only seen in limited amounts.
2. Barney has been able to fund his work through the diversification of available products. He has created products for the expressed purpose of generating capital for his primary work. Limited editions of drawings and film stills are available for more nominal amounts. While books of about the Cremaster films are sold in bookstores everywhere. Even the props and sets are sold as sculptures elevating the them to fine art status.
3. It appears that content is not put away and replaced by theatrics but is instead just overwhelmed by the grandiose cinematography. Art critic Jerry Saltz reported that he saw the film Cremaster 4 seventy-five times and discovered new meanings every time. This is in part can be credited by the layering of such lush imagery and could in convolute the messages contained in the film. Of course, it is likely that is the intent of Barney for this to be the case.

THREE MORE:
1. Could Barney's films work with a lower budget's aesthetics?
2. How has the influence of the current times affected his work as far as monetary extravagance?
3. Will the art world be as interested in his work with its internal fantasy in the future of the awareness of social realism? (I believe the current state of America is that of a receding idealism and a new awareness of reality or the belief of social realism.)

Artist:Thomas Kinkade

1. What is the reason for the cute landscapes?
2. What is the primary audience?
3. Is there any irony in the construction of these fantasy landscapes?

1. It appears that the artist identifies with the idea of unity within society and has a utopian idealism that accompanies. He sees his place as being evangelical and needs to show how things are good in the world by displaying perversions of the real world. The use of idealistic landscapes are used as propaganda; they message is encoded into an image that has mass appeal that can be easily digested. I can't remember the russian photographers name but he altered photographs he had taken to create a communist utopian idealism. Anything that went against this vision was either omitted or altered. Also, the structure and composition of the photographs were also very important in the creation of the sublime.
2. The primary audience is the average person. The elite art viewer is not satisfied by the simple representation with the lack of strong social context. The elite are only satisfied by the perverse. There is a constant need for more, an all consuming addiction. Satire of art is what becomes art in order to create a fulfillment.
3. There is no imparted irony by the artist. The images are deadpan deliveries of his idealism.

THREE MORE:
1. What is the important function to society that these images fill?
2. Can the images survive into the future without the attachment of irony by the future art world?
3.
Is it luck or a true understanding of business that makes Kinkade successful?

Artist: Vanessa Beecroft

1. Does the article state defendable reasons for the blatant use of strong sexual content?
2. Does the artist intend the pieces to be seen more as sculpture or performances?
3. Is site specificity important at all?

1.No. The only true reasoning is that she can create the works because she can. There is no grand idea that the artist states in the article. Therefore, there is no way or need for defense, unless on ethical or moral grounds. The act of objectification can only judged as seen from an ethical standpoint. Beecroft's work may or may not directly address this aspect of ethics, but it is somehow unavoidable. She states that her works must be seen by the upper class museum goer or the space and tension of distance could be erased.
2. It is difficult to tell. They operate on both levels, but it is precisely this that creates some of the interest in the work. By definition they are performances. Yet, they are performances that strive to be sculptures. This ultimately undeniable sense of failure creates a tension; they will always fail in becoming a perfect inanimate object of beauty.
3. Site is very important but only as a means to control the way the work is viewed. As stated earlier the restriction of audience is important to how the work is perceived and conducted. The psychological space that her selected, reserved gallery goers create is extremely important and can only survive in this niche.

THREE MORE:
1. How does her other work such as painting and drawing relate to the performances?
2. Is there a way to translate the experience to broader audiences?
3. Is the only reason that her is able to create interest because of it's vague symbolism?