Observations & Interesting Things

This course will address the structure of signification in art. We will consider the modes of signification in a wide range of representational and nonrepresentational artworks from architecture through drawing, painting, sculpture, photography, video, and film to performance. Examples will be selected from various places and epochs. This course is required for transfer students. This course is offered during winter quarter only.

So goes the course description for this course at UCSD.  All students of the Visual Arts department must take this course; whether learning to be a practitioner or critic of art.  I took this in winter 2006.  Professor Kim MacConnel taught, and Zerek Kempft led my discussion group.

The point of this class is the title.  What is the structure of art?  To many people, certainly the students in this course, the very idea of there being a so called “structure” of art was unpalatable at least and most commonly regarded as offensive.  My personal feelings on this were very neutral, and this attitude turned out to be exceedingly helpful.  I started the class with the indifference of an A seeking, minimal effort sort of student, paired with my Dell Jukebox.  From this disjointed state I was able to quietly observe the sentiments of the students, the development of the course, and to find the patterns in their reactions.  The most frustrating of categories I found were the students in the studio art programs.  These students had already spent a full year at the university, not to mention the years leading up to the admittance, attempting to master their particular genre and nursing their craft, feelings and egos.

Can art have a regimented structure?  And maybe more importantly, should art have a structure?  This class was just another class to me, until I really understood the powerful implications these questions contained.  If we are to expect art to have a structure, then it is impossible for a person to produce art without learning the structure.  What is produced without this structure can only be classified as illustrations, doodles, craft, decorations, etc.  Does this mean that an amateur cannot hope to create a spontaneous work of art?  The hierarchy of “crafts” vs “fine art” is central to this issue.

I would like to write more on this subject, especially in connection to what MacConnel and Kempft taught during the winter of 2006.  More to come soon.

This is a picture of the Ohr-O’Keefe Museum, June 2008.  No this is not a Georgia O’Keeffe museum, which I at first assumed it was.  Thank goodness, because I can only look at so many woman parts/flower paintings.  This is for the George Ohr museum in Biloxi, Mississippi.  You may recall Biloxi as one of the cities flooded by Hurricane Katrina of 2005.  What many won’t recall is this Museum, because it’s not finished yet.

Well, in June 2008 I was in the area and I spent some time checking out the area and decided to hit up this museum.  The address did not lead me to the above photographed location.  I was led to a small, quaint, not worth showing old building.  This is when I found out that the actual museum was woefully stalled in a partly constructed mostly damaged state.  This is also when I found out who George Ohr was.  Part of me thought ugh it’s just clay pots.  But did I mention Frank Gehry designed the structure?  That made me give the collection another shot.

I learned a similar lesson I had learned from the Getty Museum: you can’t appreciate Van Gogh until you see one of his works.  Honestly, ceramics is really boring to me, usually.  I can only look at symmetrically or trite asymmetrically designed pots before I’m really over it.  But the collection really held my attention and made me want to learn more about the skill and thought that went into Ohr’s work.  An important test of the value of a piece of work is how long does it stay with you, and does your mind wander back to it?  Is it something that you would personally want to examine again, and maybe even again?  I can honestly say this is what George Ohr’s sculpture has done.  Yes, I am calling a ceramic pot a sculpture.  I am cognizant of the meaning of that.

I hope the finish of the museum will do some long neglected heralding for the collection of George Ohr.  I have not had the proper training to tell the monetary value of any sort of art, but I can tell you this has value that will last.  When I go to a craft fair or art show, I am eager to ask the the maker of the pieces on display what their influences were, who they learned from, what is the meaning of their piece.  I am very disappointed at most responses I get.  At that point, I know the work that surrounds me in that display is the work of a technician at best.  But not an artist.  My biggest disappointment comes when practitioner of ceramics has not heard of George Ohr.  It is painfully obvious in their boring and thick forms.  Here is just one picture of what I saw:

Anyways, the picture just doesn’t do it justice.  It was very interesting to see, and the works have really given me something to think about.  I enjoyed them.

Well, after looking at the very small collection on display, I went over to the site to have a look at what is still there.  I took the first picture the, and here are a couple more, along with what it will look like.

In Februrary I will be going to Biloxi again.  I will check up on the status of the museum.  I mean, anytime you can see a Frank Gehry building, it is more than worth it.  And to see it being constructed, while the natural elements still overpower the site, well that is a rare thing to witness!

You know a lot has happened since the stock market collapsed. I stopped reading all the articles on CNN about the economic turmoil and Paul Kruger’s column.  Sure I took one semester in high school and I recognize some vocab… but really I don’t go much further than Checking/Saving accounts and the bottom line of my paycheck.  I can offer absolutely nothing of value to the debate/discussion about what should happen with our economy; and I would be an absolute and total fool to think that reading the NY Times and CNN will grant me the understanding to do so.

Why do people invest in Art? Well, why does anyone invest in anything?  Hopefully because they believe there is an actual and material value to the investment - although the magic of art investments foils the usual bottom line value.  Paint + canvas + time = how much?  Let’s see, 4 quarts of Behr paint from Home Depot @ $8.50/ea, 3′ x 6′ canvas is about $66 from some online store, and let’s paint a painter $150/hr, for 6 hours (I’m feeling extremely generous)…. the material value is $700.  But, show me that same equation, but throw Jackson Pollock in it and now is: Pollock*(paint + canvas + time) = $143,000,000.  How is it that Pollock himself was able to increase the value by 20.4 million percent?

Jackson Pollock

That is where decisions come into play.  Pollock did not one day just one day unconsciously begin to dribble paint and decide it looked cool.  No, Jackson had thought deeply on the construction of an image.  He investigated how lines were conventionally formed on a painting.  He knew that conventional methods broke the rhythm of lines.  He knew that color, unbroken lines, and rhythm were shackled and somehow needed to be freed. He pushed these elements to their absolute limit.  When a person views a painting by Pollock, a person is witnessing the visual evidence of Pollocks sweeping hand and moving body as he constructed these vibrant and unhinged paintings.  We witness the moment in history when paintings literally separated from the canvas.  We see the layers of incoherent lines that at the same time boldly show a deeper harmony than what had ever been painted before.  How is it that nobody had seen this obvious and plain fact: this is materially only canvas and paint!  The obsessive need to mimic nature, like with Adolphe William Bouguereau , had already been eliminated.  You possibly (hopefully) may find those trompe l’oiel repulsive at this point.  But even Rothko, who brought painting to it’s epic completion and absolute maximum, was bound to the edges of the canvas.

This Pollock represents more than can be addressed in this short blog.  What Jackson Pollock did for art was construct epic paintings that represent his movements and his decisions, and these changed art forever.

Since his time, there have been more self described artists than the sea has sand.  Most thoughtlessly construct visual images without making conscious decisions about their construction.  Without thinking, they use methods and symbols developed decades ago, and combine them in the most obvious and boring ways.  The thing is, a person cannot contribute anything meaningful to Art if you do not make conscious decisions.  And many people are extremely foolish to think that a few basic courses in art and a couple trips to the museum will turn them into an artist.

Part I

Today while I was doing my daily run down of websites for news and entertainment, I ran across an article on CNN about synesthesia.  It was pretty interesting.  It seems a few researchers are trying to quantify this condition in the human genome.  The findings so far have shown how complex the condition is.

Imagine if whenever you heard a violin, you saw streams of burgundy?  It’s as if you would always see the brilliance of everyday life.  I believe that knowing about the idea of synesthesia is good, since such a tiny percentage of people actually are born with the ability to see sounds.  Now, there are other ways to experience synesthesia that are not quantifiable… Like feeling color.  And just being aware of this actual occurrence in our universe does help our minds to grasp how deep and rich something as common as the color green really is.  What if you experienced green as a feeling or a sound?  It’s a possibility that someone standing next to you is experiencing green that way.  If that is the standard, then next time you are on a hike, please remember that the green that surrounds, from a universal standpoint, is flowing as vibrant as you can possibly imagine.

I think the unifying factor in these three is that time is a huge part of many of their compositions. For instance, Jasper Johns style starts in his material.  He chooses to use wax as a painting medium. The dullness of the composition has an affect where the observer easily ‘enters’ or ‘connects’ with the painting, so there is no battle or negotiation between the subject(viewer)/object(painting). There is no hurry to focus on any particular place of the composition, there is a gentle period of taking in what lies before you at a meandering pace. Very unassuming, and not demanding in anyway.

Contrasting Johns w/Rothko is a good way to understand the meandering of Johns. Rothko relaxes the viewer, gives a pleasant experience of color and rhythm. Like Johns, a Rothko experience cannot be simulated by a poster or .jpg file… but its the best we have to work with! Rothko makes you happy to enjoy color, and to enjoy laying paint out on a canvas in a harmonious manner. There is no pretense to any “great” narrative, no pretense of a didactic motive. Pure experience. On the other hand, Johns teaches you to slow down and meditate on the menial tasks of living; relaxation and enjoyment is not the motive of his paintings. The “Coat Hanger” forces you to take your time. Don’t rush, take the time you need and want without feeling you have to go faster. Rothko shows you the experience of pleasure in living without regard to time. Johns teaches you the satisfaction of patient and deliberate living.

Hiroshi Sugimoto is a favorite of mine right now. Still living, so I don’t believe you can purchase his stuff as a poster yet, 600 bucks a print isn’t enough to price out the poster level art collectors. Anyways, his photograhs make me really just sit still. Most photographs connect the viewer with the idea of a narrative; they are wondering what happened before and after the moment of time frozen. Not so w/Sugimoto, and that makes me stop and wonder what it is that makes these prints so outstanding. I’m not even sure how I think when I’m looking at his seascapes. I guess all I can say is I’m totally impressed with his photographs. I can’t even say they are calming, or exciting. I get both. All I know is I definetly find them interesting and enjoyable.