This is a work in progress, but I have today taken out a risk assessment to display a knife through a painting of one of Damien Hirst’s Spot Paintings. Right through the middle of the piece, to display and supply the idea of the destruction of the contemporary master.
I must admit, this has been a very quick piece, and I’m not pleased with the colour scheme, due to lack of time, lack of size judgement of each circle and lack of paint colours, it looks more like a game of Twister.
It may be interesting to display this piece (a better version) in the degree show, in comparison to the Frida Kahlo self portrait, I believe (if produced well) the image would be very powerful.
After today, I have finished a large scale painting of Georgia O’Keeffe’s Forget Me Nots and Black Pansy – in oils and acrylics on a 100cmx140cm piece of very good quality watercolour paper.
From a tutorial I had with Jerome on the 24th April, he mistook my piece The Rebirth of Venus (the piece that I put in for the interim show) for a bookcase. The image, which was originally on a frame of the same size, with 15cm off the ground to add depth, was stood up right in my space, with the painting on the back. Jerome went up to it and mistook it for a bookcase, which I really thought was intereseting. Admittedly, I was a bit offended, the piece on the back took up the majority of my time, regardless if I do not like it, it was very time consuming. Whereas Ash the technician made the frame within an hour. This is not a dig at Ash, I am so pleased that he had the time to make this for me, but it’s just an interesting concept.
The overlooked element which was expressed within my interim show piece was still everpresent; yet I didn’t like the piece on the back. I’d pretty much decided that I didn’t want to use the Forget Me Not piece for the jigsaw, therefore I used it for this piece instead, and could actually supply a more interesting concept.
In my space, I’ve made it so that the bookcase is the first thing you come across, with books on, and found pictures of women, and on the back the Forget Me Not piece, a width’s way from the wall, so that you can look behind it.
I plan on making some book sleeves of the master to go on the bookshelves, to reinforce the idea that the Master is better than the Mistress, and that the image of the Master prioritises our visual culture, and again, reffecting on history, the female painter is hidden. Due to the mass of things I need to do before the hand-in I doub the sleeves will be produced but I like the idea of making bespoke inserts for books with names of the Master on them.
Make a box for a game, that is not a game? Idea of playfulness, but is far from it. Satirical humour.
My idea here is to represent the female artist through a interactive game that the viewer will have to play – this will be a jigsaw puzzle, but not the typical jigsaw puzzle, this one will have several missing pieces; this will display the idea of and reflect that females have had a limited history within the artworld; with influences from a fellow student Adam Davis (who’s interim show was Harmonious Discord) and Cecile Abish (below), who looks at photography and its missing pieces.
I know that I want to paint a portrait for this section, but will most likely happen now after the hand-in, this is just a proposal at this stage. OR look at a female artist in a derogatory stance, like in Paula Rego’s Dog Woman (below). Possibly call this “Not the entire image”, “Not the entire picture”, or “This is not a game”.
After talking to Nick today, I want to now try the laser cutter through displaying this and cutting out the shapes. In my sketchbook, I have trials of doing this, nt my own , just samples to remind me, and will need a bit of help doing this.
I would like to produce this piece either in oils or a computer drawing, and then either have the physical puzzle pieces in either cardboard or perspex.
The idea of the amount of jigsaw puzzle pieces being on the box; could this possibly be the exact amount of female artists in Tate’s Collection – OR amount shown in MET, The Guerrilla Girls, 1989??
OR potential idea of content – Forget Me Not – Forget Me Nots and Black Pansy by Georgia O’Keeffe (1926) (below) and name it “Forget Me Not” ?
Georgia O’Keeffe is a substantial female artist (much like Frida Kahlo) yet this cannot be said for the majority of female artists in the past. Forget Me Not – don’t forget the women artists!
Today I had a quick tutorial with Nick, we were discussing the idea of me creating the video of myself popping the balloon dog, an object representing the easy destruction of the master led art world.
We spoke about the equipment I would need, such as what type of microphone I would use and where I would place the work, what angle I would shoot the video at etc. Nick said that it would very much depend on trial and error; I plan on shooting tonight, so after hand-in I could try out plenty of versions and see what colour balloon, what lighting etc looks best on camera to supply my idea in the right way.
As another part to this film, my work last term was highly influenced by the ideal of the woman, and the objectification of her within an advertising stance. A quotation that highly influenced me is from the book Feminist visual culture, edited by Fiona Carson and Claire Pajaczkowska (2000).
I therefore wanted to play on this idea a lot more, looking at the voiceover of the film, in a male’s voice, to give the viewer a ‘legitimate’ experience, reinforcing the ideal viewer of a comfortable, yet uncomfortable visual encounter. The male voiceover will say “POP” – the tone of the male voice is yet unknown, ask Abi about the types of microphones that she would recommend for this area.
We also discussed social etiquette, revolving around the idea of the prioritised white male in society.
Below is a quick plan based on how I want the video to display and turn out:
This is based on the yellow balloon I have created, as well as the smaller white, but, repeating from above, there will be trial and error points potentially after hand in – I want the best possible version of this to be in the degree show.
After finishing this piece today I plan on possibly framing it with an old frame, and the idea behind it is that it’s playing on the stereotypical reasoning that the expected viewer of an artwork is thought to be male.
In John Berger’s book Ways of Seeing, he suggests that “the ‘ideal’ spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of the woman is designed to flatter him” (Berger, John, 1972, pp64).
I want to challenge the thought of the female viewer instead, rightfully we should be able to become a viewer too, cultures have changed so much since this book was produced, yet not enough change has occurred.
Why Frida Kahlo? She is one of the most popular female artists of all time, and I wanted to display this – I painted the portrait over the course of 3 weeks in total, on A3 paper with oils and acrylics, instead of getting a print of the exact portrait, I wanted to recreate and establish the idea that I am a female artist too, and that my experience has been affected by the female having a limited practice of art throughout history.
The idea of the acetate – I plan to suspend two of these A1 acetate pieces down from the celing so that they are the same height as a typical female, around 5’5″ or 5’6″, then printing a computer generated image of a female with her back to the work onto the acetate. I originally wanted to print out three female viewers, but after the acetate arrived, I was fully aware that this couldn’t happen, I ordered the incorrect size, therefore I have to ‘double-up’ on the pieces to create what I want.
Above is my piece named ‘Pixelated Vermeer’ which I created for the previous module hand-in. This was a pivotal piece for the module, it was discovering the master painter looking at the female and supplying her as an object. Admitedly, the content (looking back on the piece) could have been more explicit? Like a naked woman painted in the way of pixelation. I did look at this through the use of image transfer onto glass and mirror, the mirror being a frequently used feminist prop, to show the unmistaken identity of the female artist.
The pixelation was an idea I was playing around with on my laptop through the use of the reproduced image (based on Google images, as without being in the country were the image in fact is) it would be inaccessible, this is why the platform of the internet and the digital is so important. Due to advances in technology, the art world has been highly influenced by this change. The main focus for me was the visual quality of a glitch, covering the history of the objectified female, no longer glorifying the master/male artist, but erasing their history, juxtaposing the indifference between female and male succession in the art world.
Playing a character
Note to Self – relatable (everybody does this)
Even to be a person is to perform – different situations in life – around your friends, student peers, parents, work colleagues etc
Persona – meaning mask
Unpredictable, dogs point of view
Trial and Error – Black Magic (Clean version) – different viewpoint than the dog before this final version
MALE VOICEOVER – FIND QUOTE
On Thursday 2nd March 2017, it was the turn of the third group (the penultimate show before it was my group’s go) of our Art/Work/Life module.
The partakers in the show were as follows: Ashleigh Page-Curley, Lynsey James, Fiona Smith, Deborah O’Brien, Anton Jackson, Victoria Obee, Amy Wareham and Andreia Andrade.
One of the stand out sections of this show was upon the entrance of the show. The title “Acknowledge” was in big foam writing stuck on a transportable wall around head height of the viewer. It stood out and you knew exactly where you were.
Despite the natural flow of the show, the group did struggle to start. In one of the original meetings for this module, this group admitted (with only three people present at this meeting on the day) that they had yet had a meeting. This was the week before the first group had opened their exhibition. Our group had had around 3 meetings up to this point. So, without suggesting the lack of communication, the reasoning for the show did lack coherency – from where the works were placed to the curatorial text.
To coincide with Fiona Smith’s piece of artwork in the show ‘The Acceptance of Myself’, looking at the inner-self and meditation, and the nature of her own activities, she decided to include a interactive section of the show to invite people in – she bought sweets, and wrapped around a bit of paper, which had something written in invisible ink on. This was a good idea, and got people eating, schmoozing, and talking about the works; somewhat giving the show a more informal feel, yet didn’t degrade the show.
The works where spaced out well on the walls, yet this selected show was vast in that of sculptural works. Andie Andrade had a few plaster plinths which were laid out well, yet took up a lot of room. Deborah O’Brien’s piece ‘Black Swan’ required some room as there were balls suspended from a wired harp-like object; Deborah provided a tool, and regularly someone would go and adjust the balls so that they’d start off at a certain speed, then somewhat find their own rhythm/speed/dynamism, therefore matching the instrumental element of the piece, with it being made from a reconstructed piano/organ.
Anton Jackson’s ‘Barky’ was placed in the corner; another sculptural element to the show, suggested a creature mounted upon a mass of plastic bottles, fake grass and dwindling moss; reflecting the effect of plastic upon society, most likely the effect of waste too.
Victoria Obee also had her piece of work ‘Empty Puppet’ hanging in a section of the room, which were little bits of suspended mimicked children’s clothing made in porcelain, distinguishing the fragility of a child. An amazing, and well thought through piece of work, yet, again took up a lot of room with the combination of Jackson’s, O’Brien’s, and Andrade’s works, and also the big movable wall at the forefront of the gallery. Ultimately, with the mass of visitors, it was sometimes a struggle to find space to walk around.
I also believe that selected lighting could have been better – particularly on Deborah O’Brien’s partnering piece ‘Beegeesus’, This piece of work was in a black frame, with a black background, a record disc, with a male figure, a likeness to Jesus and one of the Gibb brothers from the popular band The Beegees. Due to the reflective nature of glass, I found it very hard to take a picture of this certain work, and failed to capture its full potential. I’ve been lucky enough to see it better lighting within the studio, as I’ve spoken to Debbie about the work previously, yet, for a visitor, who may not ever see the piece again, it could have had a bit more thought put into either the production of the glass, or selecting a light to show the work in a light of its full potential.
The final thing I’d like to pick up on was the catalogue. Outside of the gallery space, as you walk through to the show, there were nine catalogues suspended from string, showing the works of the selected participants in the gallery space.
The idea of them being suspended matched some of the works, like Vicky’s being suspended on thin wire, and reaffirming an idea of the fragile nature of works in the show. The catalogue was well laid out, and had a professional finish, however, lacked a few things.
The first being that the curatorial text was not in the catalogue, something that had been done before in the previous catalogues from the two weeks before.
The pages had the same format, and was very thorough, yet these were the only copies. Unlike all of the other groups, who had taken the time to print out additional copies for the visitors, this group failed to do so; the nine on the wall were those printed off for the artists as a part of the documentation. Perhaps saving costs, this did unfortunately lack professionalism. It wasn’t hard for me in particular to do this, but I found it quite a nuisance having to take pictures of each page of the catalogue, and them being suspended to the wall, hole punched through, with o support, it was a struggle to hold one handed and then take an image of this catalogue.
Nonetheless, it was a fantastic turnout, and I’d like to congratulate those in the show!
On Thursday 23rd February 2017, the second organised group of our Art/Work/Life module all of the members collaborated to bring us an amazing show.
The partakers in the show were as follows: Jessie Hoskin, Charlie Harryman, Jazz Moreton, Emily Steer, Emilie Zumkeller, Rachel Hartell, Bethany Harper and Eden Jones.
There is also a sub-heading underneath the curatorial text, and that reads:
This show was undoubtedly a success; the title of the show given in tape and gloss which lighted up if you were to shine a torch light upon it; making it clear which show we were at. Also the curatorial text was on the outside of the door, as opposed to last week’s show, where the text was on the inside wall on the left as you walked in (just before Stephanie Turley’s work). Also this group included a floorplan, showing the viewer (who may not be familiar with a certain person by view) where a certain person’s artwork was in the room.
As listed above there was a sign saying ‘Warning: content that some might find upsetting’ – this was on account of Eden Jones’ work Run, 2017 – a piece of artwork not dissimilar to that of Damien Hirst. Jones aquired three aborted foal anatomies from a friend, who had placed the foals in a preserving material. The content culd be considered quite explicit for some people, therefore the team offered their discretion to warn those entering the exhibition.
Jazz Moreton – Hand-made Hammock and Projection on Ceiling
Bethany Harper –Transpicere, 2017 – Gloss Varnish on Acrylic Panels, Linear Ataraxy, 2017 – Matt and Gloss Varnish