It is now week 4, and I am beginning to see the bigger picture of how maths and art are intertwined with each other, quite literally in fact. After James drew up a quick diagram I recognized that the metaphorical circle that defines art should not be a static thing. In fact, it is up to us are artists to mold the shape of that very circle to encompass new features. We can even remove features of that original circle if we chose to do so. For too long, the "isms" of the art world have ruled, they are now a thing of the past. This simple metaphor once again, made me reflect upon how I used to think of art before coming into this course and how I view it now, after 6 months of BCT.
Today's lessons also branched away from the maths aspect of the paper and focused more so on the art perspective and its presentation and interpretation. The "white cube" was a perfect example. As extravagant as it sounds, it is but a mare gallery. However, once inside the building, all you are confronted with is an extremely plain environment, completely surrounded by bland white walls. For me, looking at this I felt as though it transported visitors to a completely new realm, disjointed from the world itself. It focuses peoples attention on the artworks that are strewn precisely around the walls. It made me think about how I present my work and how important it is for the surroundings to reflect the art itself. It is almost as if the environment that art is in, is in fact part of the artwork itself.
Another subject talked about in class was that of symbols. All through school I thought I had an understanding of what symbolism is after writing countless symbolism essays on novels and films. However, once again, my views were drastically changed. I realized that what makes a symbol a symbol is how we invest meaning into that specific object, word, sound etc. It isnt inherent for an object to have meaning in it, the meaning comes from us, who we are, and what we have experienced. A prime example of this from class was the use of the crucifix in a particular painting. The cross itself wasn't a symbol, it was the use of a symbol...Hard to get your head around I know. From listening to James I came to the conclusion that we ourselves don't need to be theorists on the subject of signs and symbols, but we can use them as a powerful tool to aid in our creativity.
I enjoyed the first part of the class however, the second part with Andy was not so enjoyable. In fact it was noted down as one of the most "WTF" moments in BCT so far. We were introduced to an artists by the name of Joseph Beuys. His face was covered in honey while he cradled a dead hare and whispered to it descriptions of the paintings around the room. For me, this is just too much. And quite honestly, strange for me to consider as art. However I am making a huge attempt to keep an open mind during this course and from witnessing such acts, I can understand how this may not seem symbolic to me, but that it probably because it has no invested meaning to me. Once again, this class has broadened my ever expanding view on art, as I eagerly await the next class.
No comments:
Post a Comment