Entry 3

End of week four already, time flew by so fast! This week was great. We got an extension on the blog dead line and no reading (YAY). We had the great pleasure of having Professor Sara Rabinowitz give us a rather interesting presentation on fibers. Instead of the reading, we got another artist to look at this week; Ann Hamilton and Cai Guo-Qiang.

Professor Rabinowitz works in the field of fibers. When I think of fibers, I think of pipe cleaners; thousands of fuzzy pipe cleaners. I was sort of right. Fibers is a field that focuses on weaving different materials (doesn’t have to be fabric) together to form a piece of art. I can never look at pipe cleaners the same way ever again.

The lecture focused on different artists who worked with fibers.

One artist that I found really fascinating was Claire Zeisler. I just fell in love with her work because it was just so beautiful. Her work was exceptional because she wanted her work to stand on its own without any foreign object (metal/wood) holding it up. Just visualizing the labor it would take to force a bunch of strings together in a solid shape is overwhelming, but she was capable of doing it. I thought that was very inspiring and motivating. Claire Zeisler was ahead of her time. Her work seems so modern, so 2011ish. One work that really caught my eye was the red wrapped and twisted fibers coming down from the ceiling. I found this work interesting because not only is it visually appealing, but it is obvious a great amount of labor went into it. The labor itself should somehow be framed and hung next to this. My mom would kill to get this piece of art when she was redecorating the house; I bet she would use it as a curtain.

All this talk about fibers, made me think about home. In ancient times, many people in the Arabian peninsula relied on fibers for survival. They used camelhair to weave together large tents to shield them from the harsh rays of the sun and to make camp settlements where ever they found water. The hair is often dyed different colors, in order to make patterns when weaving the hair together. Today, the camelhair tent is a cultural icon and is still often used. However, people now use it for leisure like going camping out in the desert to get away from the busy city. Others have modernized the camelhair tent by adding lights and metal beams into it and often hold banquets or weddings. I found it interesting how some people use fibers to make art while others used it for survival.

During the presentation, Professor Rabinowitz showed a few slides of Do-Ho Suh. His fabric sculptures blew me away. The precision of these sculptures is phenomenal. He made sculptures using a type of silk to make a ghostly impression of past homes. I quickly built a bridge between this work and the camel hair tents that my ancestors used to live in. They both can be folded, making them portable. And they both were temporary homes. Two different cultures yet similar ideas.

Ann Hamilton made an appearance in Professor Rabinowitz lecture slide show. I found her to be more of a conceptual artist. She explored many ideas using fibers. She demonstrated how fibers did not just revolve around textiles. What I understood from her work is that fibers is about combining many little things to form a whole, and that the process was cumbersome. As usual, I searched through the internet to find examples of her work before I read her biography to give me a sense of what kind of person she is. One image that really stood, out was a piece she did called “Toothpick Suit.” This was also mentioned in her biography. This piece was made out of many tiny toothpicks that she wore. Setting the process aside, it must have been painful just putting it on! I mean, it’s a bold statement showing the pain and struggle that  women bare, especially women working in fibers. This piece reminds me of Kosuth’s “One and Three Chairs” which was conceptual art. Hamilton echoes this piece by having a chair sit on her emphasizing the burden she is carrying.

Cai Guo-Qiang is not what I would think of as a traditional artist. The materials he uses as media are very strange to me. I mean, who would of thought that gun powder - something used to take lives and destroy – can be used in a way to create something beautiful and worth contemplating. It is oxymoronic. I think the gun powder is a cultural icon for China. Gun powder back to ancient times in China where it was used for fireworks and warfare. Guo-Qiang is tapping into his culture to create something modern from something so ancient.

Me standing under Inopportune: Stage One

Also, I finally figured out who did that car crash exhibit I stood under at the Seattle Museum of Art! It was Cai Guo-Qiang (Duh!). When I first walked in the SMA I was struck with awe as I saw real cars hanging from the ceiling. I went to stand under one to have my friend take a picture of me. As I stood there, I was anxious that the car was going to fall on me. I think that this feeling I got was what Guo-Qiang was trying to express. I felt very vulnerable and I was relieved to have moved out of the way. This piece was definitely something different than staring at painting on the wall because I never felt something like this before.

There are many things that the artists that I have talked about above share in common. They all worked in fibers (I’m kidding!). Ok, I’m serious now. I noticed that there was a great emphasis on the struggle and pain, not just with the theme but with the process. All the pieces mentioned above – Soul Home, the Camel hair tents, Inopportune: Stage One, etc. – they all took a great amount of labor. Just looking at these fatigues me. There work also puts emphasis on the struggle to make fibers an acknowledged form of art in the art world. Fibers is looked down upon as inferior by the art world, but looking at these artists, I feel that fibers should be honored along with all the other schools of art. Finally, Another point that share in common, is that each artist has their own definition of what fibers is. Hamilton used tooth picks or jeans (In her piece “Indigo”), Guo-Qiang used gun powder, Zeisler used textiles. They are different and alike at the same time.

Pictures Taken from:

One and Three Chairs

Toothpick Suit

Camel Hair Tent

Soul Home

Entry 2

                 Michael Salter was something! Quite a presentation I have to say. I sincerely and honestly say this was one presentation that really grabbed me. At first, I had the attitude “mmm k yeh another professor another presentation remember some stuff for the blog blah blah.” Boy was I wrong! The way he gave the presentation, his attitude, his word choice (excellent word choice!) it was just simply perfect.

Painting I made by listening to music

                Ok enough of my mindless babble, I’ll get serious now and actually talk about the content of his presentation. Salter’s presentation was extremely visual;  280 slides of pictures, you can’t get any more visual than that. What really grabbed me  in the presentation was when he talked about how he is influenced by what he sees. He absorbs all the images that are out there in the world, thinks about them, and then creates a piece that echoes that of which he has absorbed. I can relate to Salter in this area. However, instead of being influenced by what I see, I am influenced by what I hear. Sound is my media. Did you ever try to put sound on canvas? What I do is I plug my headphones in and I listen to music, and I draw what I hear; the images that manifest from the sound. You should try it, it's trippy.

Another painting I created through sound

                In addition, I also found another uncanny similarity between me and Michael. We both used to be people pleasers and are no longer. He mentioned that he no longer cares about trying to create something in order to sell it, but instead, he creates something for the sake of creating it; because he can. I am much like that. Back when I was younger, I cared about what people wanted and what people thought; how to fit in. But I realized I was killing myself slowly. I honestly do what I do because I want to, and not because I am expected to. Ironically, I have more friends now, then back when I was trying to please everyone. This can also be applied to art. One must let art conform to him, and not let himself conform to the art. I mean what’s so cool about drawing a person with extremely technicality with no imagination? I bet you this cake in the background that my 3 megapixel phone camera can probably do a better job.  But, when you add creativity, wit, and personality in there, then and only then can you create something that is worth contemplating and worth talking about.

                The drawings I create are heavily dependent on what kind of music I am listening to at that moment. For example, this piano solo makes me think of a theme that has to do with renewal and hope. Which would compel me to draw something relating to some sort of cycle or rebirth. My palette would be dominated by warm colors. It is weird, I never have any plans when I paint. I just plug in my headphones and draw what I hear. 

                Michael Salter did a lot of collaboration with Chris Coleman, the artist we are focusing on this week. As usual before I do any reading on the artist I would sift through their art work first to just get a feel of what I’m diving into. I watched a few animations and I’ll be honest, I did not like them. I think it’s just me, because I have an attention span of 6 year old. I watched a clips from “My House Is Not My House” and I couldn’t last 5 seconds without having to skip through it. I just did not feel it. After reading what Coleman wrote about this piece I understood it. It was meant to communicate isolation and the loneliness of the western culture. I think that being from the Middle East and having a different culture might have affected my interpretation of this art work.

                However, Coleman had a video animation called “The Magnitude of the Continental Divide.” This piece was something. It is indeed a disturbing piece, but disturbing does hide the fact that it reflects our world today. I grew up watching a blood stained T.V, and now I know longer have a T.V. I  think it was the best decision I made since I decided to study abroad. If I had to pick a part that really stood out from that video, it would be the part where a woman and her daughter are planting a little plant. The woman nurtures the plant and then when it appears that the plant has flourished, the woman rips it out from its roots and tosses it away. It conveys human nature, we have a tendency to destroy the things we love.

                 I made a bridge between “The Magnitude of the Continental Divide” and the song Zombie by the Cranberries. These two videos have very similar themes and ideas. When I was watching Coleman's video, this was playing in my head.

                The reading, in my opinion, was a lot more interesting to me than last week’s. It totally tripped me out because it made think about things I never really gave much thought to. For example, he said “Words are totally abstract icons.” I never really thought about words themselves as pictures. That means that this whole entry is, in a sense,  one big picture. The sequences of these letters create and image of something in my head, making it an icon, a symbol, or an abstract representation of reality.

                Another thing that I found interesting was the part about the human face. The author states that the human face is a mask worn by us since the moment we are born; “Slave to your every mental command.” He goes on to say “But the face you see in your mind is not the same face as others see.” I found this statement to be very significant. It shows that we as humans are have different perceptions. For example, I think that this cake in the background is a master piece of edible are but you can totally disagree (which is impossible, it’s a universal fact that this cake is awesome). This explains the rocky road of art in history. When impressionism came around  people scolded it. When Marcel Duchamp paved the road for Dada, people didn’t even call it art. But now look at us! There is a freaking urinal on display at a museum and people worship that thing as holy piece of art. It’s all about perception.

                I think the obvious element that binds all of the things I have discusses in this entry is the word “visual.” Everything was visual about this week. Salter’s 280 slides were captivating. His own art work was original and I found myself in his work, very visual indeed. Michael collaborated with Chris Coleman and after looking at Michael’s for a whole a hour, I can see his influence in Coleman’s art work. They both are digital artists which means they do videos. And videos are visual because it requires the viewer to invest time to watch the several minutes of mind blowing art it has to offer. And Finally, the reading itself was visual. I have never seen so many pictures in a reading for a class (I was thrilled). I discovered that pictures tend to keep from getting bored and I am proud to say that I survived the reading without injury.

Entry 1

Week two was quite a mouth full. We had a guest speaker, Laura Vandenburgh, give us a talk about drawing and I found it to be quite interesting. We were assigned a reading, which I found to be fun and easy to read (I know, even I couldn’t believe it). Last but not least, I was to learn about Margaret Kilgallen, a contemporary print maker.

                I found Professor Vandenburgh’s lecture on drawing to be enlightening and fun at the same time. As a person, I simply just enjoy being showed slides of beautiful images; just to have them their on the wall, and for me to stare and ponder about every detail that forms this image. What I understood from her was that there is no one type of artist, that the boundaries of “what field do you specialize in” simply merge together. One can be a painter, but can be painting on a sculpture. An example of this, is the “Wire sculpture,” where the artist attached a wire to the wall and drew a perceived shadow of the wire using a pencil. Question is, what kind of art is this? Is it a drawing or a sculpture? Thinking about this will probably damage a large part of my brain, so I would rather simply state that this is “art” (and I’d rather not get into the discussion of what is art, because it will probably kill the other half of my brain). Basically, I learned that a medium can be anything; like a pencil, hair, or even an idea.

                An observation I noticed about much of the art work that Professor Vandenburgh showed, was that the art work had to be looked at as a whole. If you simply examine a small part, or cut out a part it will rob the image of its glory. It is like a jigsaw puzzle, th  e little pieces won’t make sense alone, but if you combine them they form something tangible. An example of this would be the red ball point pen intestines. If I tear a small piece from it, like the size of my palm, I wouldn’t have a clue what it was. I can’t take it out of context. It reminds of some photographs I have seen a few months ago of Muslims performing a prayer around the world. The photographs were overwhelming, I can’t recall seeing so many people in a single photograph standing so still. Again, I have to take these images as a whole, taking a piece from the or taking them out of context would rob them of their meaning, value, and beauty. 

                As anticipated, the reading was overwhelming. I gave it a good try. I sat in a cozy chair with a mug of hot chocolate and I simply read. It was straightforward and I thought a lot of it was review because I have decent background in art history. However, what I really found interesting was the part on Freud, and how he influenced art theory. I am not a fan of Freud, and I almost always take an ferocious opposing position when I confront anything that has even a hint of Freud. However, for once (and I hate to admit it) I agree with him. On page 107, it reads “The longer answer is that his theory uncovered what he believed were unconscious drives that motivate human activity and creativity, thus opening up an understanding of what art is about.” Now when I think about Freud in art perspective it makes sense. I for one am driven and motivated by my “unconscious,”  that which makes me, me. When I paint, it feels like I slit my chest and let my heart and soul pour unto the canvas. And I believe that my heart and soul is my unconsciousness, the innate factor that drives my artistic creativity.

                Another thing that caught my attention in the reading was the part on conceptual art on page 144. I was always fascinated by conceptual art ever since I was introduced to it last year, it is so brilliant. I mean who would have thought that the actual idea and not the piece is what was important; intangible art, simply amazing. According to Sol Lewitt, “in conceptual art the idea or the concept is the most important aspect of the work.” I believe that this is very true. To me, a work of art without an idea behind it is lifeless, a hollow shell in a sense. I personally like to learn about the artist first and then look at his work, that way I can see the idea or the concept that inspired the artist.

By Margaret Killgalen

By Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

Last but not least, I got to research Margaret Kilgallen, a contemporary print maker. Before I read about her or watched the videos, I looked through her works on Google images to just get a feel of what im going into. Instantly, I saw that they resemble Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec who was a post-impressionist French print-maker. What I found interesting about Kilgallen was that she was not your traditional painter. She was out their painting on trains or walls. She was more like an action painter. Her large scale works are captivating, bold, and aesthetic. I love large scale art, because I like to be encapsulated by it. Kilgallen redefined the canvas. It is not just paper or a piece of fabric on an easel. Her work is a mark she left on something that existed before hand.

Ok, so I talked about Professor Vandenburgh’s lecture, the reading, and Margaret Kilgallen. But how do they all relate to each other? Well, I discovered that they all focus on contemporary art (who would of thought). Contemporary art differs from all the other “arts” is that it has no boundaries or particular definition. In the reading, I found that Duchamp and his idea of a readymade started paving the rocky road of contemporary art. Anything can be art and any kind of medium can be used. To me this piece of cake in the background is a master piece, I’d take that cake over the Monalisa any day. For instance, in Professor Vandenburgh’s lecture, she showed a slide of a man (I really hope it is a man) with his back hair forming many swirls; and this was art. The man’s back was the canvas, just like how Killgalen used the train as a canvas. 

Images taken from: 

Muslim's Praying

Lautrec Print

Margaret Killgalen