Went to the Australian War Memorial today. The assignment was to find examples of photographic engineering and link them to today's technology.
During the first world war, portable cameras and printing were very NEW technology and as such were not used a lot to capture images of war. Photographic Journalism is very much a new profession, and it has it's roots in the First and Second World Wars. The Vietnam and Korean wars were the first wars that were shown photographically to the public because of the availability of portable cameras. It was the first time that the general public was able to view the reality of war. This caused mass protest of War and pushed the "hippy movement" into the 20th century.
An example of photographic images used during the first world war were stereoscopic images that were taken with cameras that were far from portable and were scarcely found. These were the first images taken of war that the general public was able to view, however these images weren't mass produced.
During the Second World War, photography played a larger role, with the invention of Aerial Cameras such as the british F. 52. This camera was used to take Aerial Shots of enemy bases. Three cameras would take one shot together to create a full view of the landscape. However, reconnaissance was not the only thing cameras became useful for. With the development of new ways of printing and portable cameras, Newspapers were able to print actual images of combat, but as the combat was mostly land-based, many of the images were of the Navy or the Airforce.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Feminism: Griselda Pollack
I believe that what Griselda Pollack is trying to say in her rather long-winded thesis on Feminism in modern art is that throughout the ages, women have been represented as THE art, not the artist. She talks of the "body of the artist" and the "body of the art" and is telling the reader that when looking at an image, you are seeing the image through the eyes of a male, not a female... and that women are just the canvas, owned and painted on by male artists.
I feel, however, that in the context of Modernism, her theory is over-reaching. Art is about expression and aesthetics, and rarely has anything to do with Feminism (partly because not many women have become famous in contemporary art). If more female artists were to present their art to the world, such a theory would never have been conceived. Jackson Pollack's art is representative of raw emotion and not JUST sexuality. Women rarely have anything to do with it.
Feminism in contemporary Art, however, is prevalent, with most underrated female artists attempting to represent the shekels of a male-orientated society and how they are affected by it. It IS unfortunate though, that most modern artists are, indeed, male... so it is rare to find a female perspective in Art. Griselda's thesis is a call for women in the arts to show themselves to the world, rather than hide in the shadows of the Modern Abstract Artists who have defined 20th century art.
I believe in the future, this will change. It is no longer the 20th century, and we need to stop thinking in terms of gender roles. Men are men, Women are women... when you break down what is expected of them, the only thing left is their emotions, their feelings and their perspectives. It is not the man's fault that women these days are still unable to see that.
I feel, however, that in the context of Modernism, her theory is over-reaching. Art is about expression and aesthetics, and rarely has anything to do with Feminism (partly because not many women have become famous in contemporary art). If more female artists were to present their art to the world, such a theory would never have been conceived. Jackson Pollack's art is representative of raw emotion and not JUST sexuality. Women rarely have anything to do with it.
Feminism in contemporary Art, however, is prevalent, with most underrated female artists attempting to represent the shekels of a male-orientated society and how they are affected by it. It IS unfortunate though, that most modern artists are, indeed, male... so it is rare to find a female perspective in Art. Griselda's thesis is a call for women in the arts to show themselves to the world, rather than hide in the shadows of the Modern Abstract Artists who have defined 20th century art.
I believe in the future, this will change. It is no longer the 20th century, and we need to stop thinking in terms of gender roles. Men are men, Women are women... when you break down what is expected of them, the only thing left is their emotions, their feelings and their perspectives. It is not the man's fault that women these days are still unable to see that.
Robert Hughes and Greenburg (Modernism)
Greenburg's thesis is a very hard one to follow but from it I discerned the following points:
Modernist Painting is:
- Mostly about the medium you are using. Instead of trying to represent the world, it focuses on using the paint to create an IDEA of the world.
- The images are flat, it is no longer necessary to create an image that is an exact likeness of the real world.
- It is self-critical, which I take to mean that instead of portraying outward things, it is mostly portraying the artist's feelings or emotions.
Other than that, I understood very little of what he was getting at.
Robert Hughes' documentary tries to illustrate how Modernist Art came into being. It is believed that it derives from the point in History, after the first and second world wars when everything became purely commercial. America's economy was booming thanks to the debts that the losers of the wars were asked to pay. Cars, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Industry, all these things that were once mere PRODUCTS that ultimately meant nothing in the grand scheme of things became IMPORTANT, and thus people started to believing in NOTHING.
I believe that it was at this point when the artist started looking inward instead of looking outward... or criticizing the outside world and their relation to it. Pollack focused on the ACT of painting, throwing it about the place as if nothing mattered... Bauhaus was a movement that took that commericialism and made art based on functionality, it pretty much says that ANYONE can have art. Warhol took it to the next level, taking normal, everyday things and mass-producing prints of the items calling them Art and thrusting art in the public's face yelling: "SEE WHAT YOU WILL CONSUME!!!"
Modernism is art for art's sake... It rejects everything and nothing... it is confusing... and pure chaos, and that is why people love it.
Modernist Painting is:
- Mostly about the medium you are using. Instead of trying to represent the world, it focuses on using the paint to create an IDEA of the world.
- The images are flat, it is no longer necessary to create an image that is an exact likeness of the real world.
- It is self-critical, which I take to mean that instead of portraying outward things, it is mostly portraying the artist's feelings or emotions.
Other than that, I understood very little of what he was getting at.
Robert Hughes' documentary tries to illustrate how Modernist Art came into being. It is believed that it derives from the point in History, after the first and second world wars when everything became purely commercial. America's economy was booming thanks to the debts that the losers of the wars were asked to pay. Cars, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Industry, all these things that were once mere PRODUCTS that ultimately meant nothing in the grand scheme of things became IMPORTANT, and thus people started to believing in NOTHING.
I believe that it was at this point when the artist started looking inward instead of looking outward... or criticizing the outside world and their relation to it. Pollack focused on the ACT of painting, throwing it about the place as if nothing mattered... Bauhaus was a movement that took that commericialism and made art based on functionality, it pretty much says that ANYONE can have art. Warhol took it to the next level, taking normal, everyday things and mass-producing prints of the items calling them Art and thrusting art in the public's face yelling: "SEE WHAT YOU WILL CONSUME!!!"
Modernism is art for art's sake... It rejects everything and nothing... it is confusing... and pure chaos, and that is why people love it.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
National Gallery of Australia
The artwork that I like the most at the National Gallery is definitely Andy Warhol's "Electric Chair".
Compared to most of Andy Warhol's work, this is a darker and less superficial work of art. Even though most of Warhol's work is screaming for attention, this particular piece makes the viewer pay MORE attention given that it is not a mundane object or an image that you see often in everyday life. The subject matter itself confronts the viewer, while the choice of colours and the high contrast of the image give the illusion that it is flashing electricity all over the canvas. I love this painting (or print) purely for it's shock value (although I do find myself condemning Andy Warhol often for being so arrogant with his so-called "statement" pop-art. Though they may be social commentaries of the world we live in, people who figure themselves ABOVE art and don't feel the need to explain themselves are the definition of pretentious)
The piece I dislike the most of the gallery's permanent exhibit is Jo Baer's "Untitled".
I apologizes for my lack of enthusiasm about the apparent minimalist approach the artist has tried to achieve, but when it comes down to it, what are they really trying to say? If you were trying to find some sort of deeper meaning within this diptych, you could say that the lack of imagery in the painting allows the viewer to create their own image, thus making a critique on peoples' lack of imagination or some such toffery. However I feel that sabotaging these paintings with molten lead would make more of an artistic statement than whatever it is the Artist is trying to say. I guess what I am trying to say is that behind all the pretentious critique and 10 dollar words, all you have is just two white canvases.
Compared to most of Andy Warhol's work, this is a darker and less superficial work of art. Even though most of Warhol's work is screaming for attention, this particular piece makes the viewer pay MORE attention given that it is not a mundane object or an image that you see often in everyday life. The subject matter itself confronts the viewer, while the choice of colours and the high contrast of the image give the illusion that it is flashing electricity all over the canvas. I love this painting (or print) purely for it's shock value (although I do find myself condemning Andy Warhol often for being so arrogant with his so-called "statement" pop-art. Though they may be social commentaries of the world we live in, people who figure themselves ABOVE art and don't feel the need to explain themselves are the definition of pretentious)
The piece I dislike the most of the gallery's permanent exhibit is Jo Baer's "Untitled".
I apologizes for my lack of enthusiasm about the apparent minimalist approach the artist has tried to achieve, but when it comes down to it, what are they really trying to say? If you were trying to find some sort of deeper meaning within this diptych, you could say that the lack of imagery in the painting allows the viewer to create their own image, thus making a critique on peoples' lack of imagination or some such toffery. However I feel that sabotaging these paintings with molten lead would make more of an artistic statement than whatever it is the Artist is trying to say. I guess what I am trying to say is that behind all the pretentious critique and 10 dollar words, all you have is just two white canvases.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The National Photography Portrait Prize 2010
Gori, Bougainville
by Stuart Miller 2009
"The name of this man is Gori and at thirty-five years of age he is an active environmentalist and youth leader among his own Hako community in north Bougainville. When Gori stood for this portrait on the beachfront of the Buka passage a storm had just begun and I was struck by his confidence. Gori, and youth living in Bougainville are an incredibly resilient group of people, which is remarkable considering their hardship living in a post-conflict and troubled environment."
I feel that Stuart Miller's photograph should have won the National Photographic Portrait Prize this year. In my opinion, portraits should not only portray the emotions of the subject, but also tell their story. The colours and the lighting set the mood of the picture, and a high shutter speed has captured the rain drops falling around him. The picture is very detailed, and you can see the water running down Gori's chest as he stares intently into the camera. I am also very impressed with the way that although there is so much in this picture to see, the subject remains the main focus. This photograph tells the story of a man who stands resilient while hardship "rains down" upon him. Miller uses symbolism in an original way.
I was angered by this photo and feel that it shouldn't have even been entered in the competition. There is nothing about the composition that is relevant, the colour is pretty standard and there is even a flash that has been reflected off the poster in the background. As far as "photojournalism" goes, the fact that there are journalists and radio announces everywhere proves that this photo was taken on a whim, with no artistic intent behind it. A better photo would have been taken on the red carpet. Perhaps, the photo was chosen because it shows and innocent little boy being harassed by Journalists... perhaps the photo was chosen because he is the "walk about" boy... I WILL PROBABLY NEVER KNOW!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Assignment 2 - National Gallery - Master's of Paris - Impressionism to Modernism
Today I went to the "Master's of Paris" exhibition at the National Gallery. They were showing various paintings of Parisian artists such as Monet, Manet, Gaugain, Van Gogh and Lautrec. The task was to find the painting that moved you the most (and connect it to the development of the Modernist Movement).
MONET, Claude 1904, London Parliament; sun through the fog, oil on canvas, Musée D'Orsay, France, taken from National Gallery of Australia Website
Monet's "Sun Through the Fog" was my favourite impressionist painting at the Master's of Paris Exhibition. I was first attracted to to it because of the colours and the way they were used to create the sun's light shining through the fog. I was also very impressed with the way Monet created the fog using tiny strokes of complimentary colours.
As with most Monet's, from far away, you can clearly discern what is in the picture but as you move closer the small brush strokes of different colours on top of each other become apparent. This illusion is the root of pointillism, a style of painting made famous by Seurat (another french artist). It is this particular style of painting that led to a world-wide discovery of the "essential". Painting was no longer a mere impression of the things and people around you, it was what it was, paint on canvas. The idea that paint could be used in so many different ways to portray so MANY different tangible and INTANGIBLE things pathed the way to the Modernist movement which incorporates many sub-genres of art, particularly Minimalist painting and sculpture
In my view, Modernism evolved from various different art movements rejecting social norms. Here is a VERY basic schematic:
As with most Monet's, from far away, you can clearly discern what is in the picture but as you move closer the small brush strokes of different colours on top of each other become apparent. This illusion is the root of pointillism, a style of painting made famous by Seurat (another french artist). It is this particular style of painting that led to a world-wide discovery of the "essential". Painting was no longer a mere impression of the things and people around you, it was what it was, paint on canvas. The idea that paint could be used in so many different ways to portray so MANY different tangible and INTANGIBLE things pathed the way to the Modernist movement which incorporates many sub-genres of art, particularly Minimalist painting and sculpture
In my view, Modernism evolved from various different art movements rejecting social norms. Here is a VERY basic schematic:
- Impressionists rejected Classicism and moved art out into the real world. They painted people and workers and landscapes and worked with reality to form emotional impressions of the world.
- Post-Impressionists rejected the Impressionists because there were too many limitations. They painted anything and everything and worked on flatening the image to show that painting came down was essentially paint and could represent ANYTHING.
- Modernism combines every aspect of art that is or was at one stage controversial. Modernist art is representative. A line on a piece of paper, given the right context, could represent the struggles of the people in Afganistan.
... Well that's how I see it anyway.
Friday, February 26, 2010
ETHICS & CRITICAL THEORY - The Shades of Grey
Silvia: "One of the major topics across all the Visual Culture classes this year will be ETHICS. As professional photographers you need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the ethical, political, social and moral issues of representing people via photographic images. Just today this report was published in Crikey, and I found it alarming and important for our class discussions. Please read it and think about it. We will address it in class."
The matter of Ethics within the Art Community has long been a topic of debate. Children are often represented as pure and innocent and Adults, tawdry and perverse (especially from an artistic point of view). When the roles are reversed, it often confuses and infuriates the viewer because it is, of course, taboo to view children in a sexual light (It is also against the law).
A lot of critics have accused photographers such as Bill Henson, Sally Mann and even Annie Leibovitz for condoning Child Pornography because of the ways in which they have represented children in their photographs.
In the article "Naked Aboriginal Kids on postcards: the line between art and exploitation", Bob Gosford (who hails from Alice Springs) has drawn the distinction between the postcards of naked aboriginal boys and child pornography. As an ethical issue, he feels that if the children were Caucasian and not Aboriginal, most people would draw the same distinction.
I feel that Mr. Gosford has lost sight of what is important in Art, which is the intent of the work of art and the way in which that intent has been shown through artistic devices and semiotics. A picture of a baby's naked bottom under soft light or a naked child being cradled by their mother is no-more erotic than a painting of a naked cupid holding a bow and arrow. A photo of a naked child holding a whip, however, would be . If the artistic intent of the photograph is clearly not sexual in any way, then the photographer may be excused for taking photos of... to be continued.
The matter of Ethics within the Art Community has long been a topic of debate. Children are often represented as pure and innocent and Adults, tawdry and perverse (especially from an artistic point of view). When the roles are reversed, it often confuses and infuriates the viewer because it is, of course, taboo to view children in a sexual light (It is also against the law).
A lot of critics have accused photographers such as Bill Henson, Sally Mann and even Annie Leibovitz for condoning Child Pornography because of the ways in which they have represented children in their photographs.
In the article "Naked Aboriginal Kids on postcards: the line between art and exploitation", Bob Gosford (who hails from Alice Springs) has drawn the distinction between the postcards of naked aboriginal boys and child pornography. As an ethical issue, he feels that if the children were Caucasian and not Aboriginal, most people would draw the same distinction.
I feel that Mr. Gosford has lost sight of what is important in Art, which is the intent of the work of art and the way in which that intent has been shown through artistic devices and semiotics. A picture of a baby's naked bottom under soft light or a naked child being cradled by their mother is no-more erotic than a painting of a naked cupid holding a bow and arrow. A photo of a naked child holding a whip, however, would be . If the artistic intent of the photograph is clearly not sexual in any way, then the photographer may be excused for taking photos of... to be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
