Exercise 5 – Finding out more

Exercise 5 asks first to find two still life examples including fish and make quick sketches of them, and second to gain some more contextual information about Damien Hirst’s piece The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.

Example 1

Author: Claude Venard (French 1913-1999)

Title: Still Life

Date: 1955-6

 

Still Life 1955-6 by Claude Venard 1913-1999

Fig. 1

image

Sketch 1

 

Example 2

Author: Gino Severini (Italian, 1883-1966)

Title: Natura morta con ruderi e pesci (Still life with ruins and fish)

Date: 1930

 

image

 

Fig. 2

image

Sketch 2

Both sketches were made on my Ipad using Art Rage application. This is my first try with this app and I must say that the use of tools is very natural. I don’t like much the Ipad hard glass surface for drawing but it’s a convenient app to use when travelling like I am doing.

 

Conversation about Damien Hirst’s piece on Khan Academy website

I very much enjoyed listening to this conversation and I think that many interesting points were touched upon.

– The title in itself is perhaps a work of art, even detached from the real piece. This is important because it underlines the conceptual aspect of this work, even though the strong physicality of Hirst’s shark does not really allow for a pure conceptual reading of it: and this piece is at the same time conceptual and brutally real. There is a sort of clash between the concept and the physical piece.

– The theme of the inevitability of death runs through art history, all art is ‘in many ways … a coming to terms with mortality’. And this work is a contemporary response to this theme. Vanitas paintings are an example of such type of art.

– Contemporary art is more open to interpretation than art in the Renaissance and the viewer contributes with his ideas and emotions to the meaning of it like first underlined by Duchamp.

– This is a second version of the original shark in formaldehyde realized in 1991 which decayed and was replaced in 2006. It’s open to question if the artist intended it to be so or if dissolution was not designed. Or maybe the artist was well aware that decay can be only posponed and he was just trying to do that, as ancient Egyptians with mummies or all of us when we fight against aging and death with all possible means.

– Much modern art is conceptual and philosophical in its essence, rather than being an aesthetic and formal experience, at the point that today traditional museums might be replaced by museums of philosophy.

This conversation has deepened my first understanding of the piece but along the same direction. What it really makes me think is how open to questions pieces of art like these are and how they can evolve and change in our minds if we consider their different facets and possible meanings. Contemporary art looks ambiguous in its interpretation and never really ended but I am wondering if perhaps also in the past it might have been so on different levels. After all, living in Rome I am surrounded by Baroque art that seems very complex indeed and layered too.

Lastly I read the Damien Hirst review by Adrian Searle for the Guardian and it added to the feeling of almost mind-boggling ambiguity of intentions. The review was written in 2012 on the occasion of Hirst’s exhibition at the Tate and it raises many questions about Hirst and his art: to which extent is it really innovative, and if it was innovative at the start is it still so or is now mosly business-driven. I have the feeling that also on these points is difficult to reach a final answer. Perhaps only time will tell!

List of illustrations

Figure 1 Venard, Claude Still life (1955-6) [oil painting] At: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/venard-still-life-t00256 (Accessed on 06/08/16)

Figure 2 Severini, Gino Natura morta con ruderi e pesci (1930) [tempera on cardboard] At: http://pinacotecafaenza.racine.ra.it/stampa/vallunga/vallunga.htm (Accessed on 06/08/16)

 

Bibliography

Sal Khan, Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, in Smarthistory, December 8, 2015, At: http://smarthistory.org/damien-hirst-the-physical-impossibility-of-death-in-the-mind-of-someone-living/ (Accessed 06/08/16)

Searle, Adrian (2012) ‘Damien Hirst – review.’ In: The Guardian [online] At: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/apr/02/damien-hirst-tate-review (Accessed 06/08/16)

Exercise 4 – Looking at context

Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (installation 1991, new installation 2006)

 


Fig. 1 Damien Hirst’s Shark (2008)

At a first look this striking piece makes me think of the poster of the thriller film Jaws (1975) by Steven Spielberg and I imagine that perhaps the artist too might have had this film at the back of his mind when he conceived this installation. I associate it also with some very unpleasant images of dead human babies in formaldehyde that I saw once in a museum when I was a child.  It reminds me also of those glass shrines showing the corpses of saints and Popes that are quite common in Catholic churches.

The blue colour of the liquid in which the shark is immersed looks like water but it’s a deadly water and even if frightening and huge the fish looks rather small and somewhat alone in that great case with so much liquid around it. So my emotional response is of sadness and not of feat at seeing such a once powerful creature reduced to an helpless object in a museum.

I think this work is about death and terror in front of it, about our helplessness and total sense of bewildered loss when we look at death in other creatures and I believe that the title The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living conveys this deeply engrained and irrational feeling that nothing as terrible as that is ever going to happen to us. So in a sense we are terrified at looking at this dead now defenceless creature but also comforted that we still alive.

 

Edwaert Collier, Still Life with a Volume of Wither’s ‘Emblemes’ (1696)

 

Still Life with a Volume of Wither's 'Emblemes' 1696 by Edward Collier active 1662-1708

Fig. 2 Still Live With a Volume Of Wither’s ‘Emblemes’ (1696)

This painting gives me a feeling of claustrophobia with its high number of objects in an enclosed space. The prevailing earth tones strengthen this feeling. I cannot say that I am emotionally moved by it even if it is a very fine painting.

I can see why vanitas paintings are mentioned in connection with Hirst’s work: they have the theme of death in common, but I think in a different way. In this still life I see human resignation, death is recalled and accepted as an inevitable fact of human  life. In Hirst’s installation I see a non-acceptance of death, as if the hard truth of death were not really understandable and were emotionally denied by who is alive.

 

List of illustrations

Figure 1. Meier, Allison (2008) Damien Hirst’s Shark (“The Physical Impossibility of Death In The Mind Of Someone Living” 1991 and 2006)  at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York [photograph] At: http://www.flickr.com (Accessed on 05/08/16)

Figure 2. Collier, E. (1696) Still Live With a Volume Of Wither’s ‘Emblemes’ [oil painting] At: http://www.tate.org.uk/ (Accessed on 05/08/16)

 

Exercise 3 – Reading about art

After downloading from OCA website the excerpt from Art History: The Basics by Grant Pooke and Diana Newall (2008, Abingdon: Routledge), I decided to buy myself a Kindle edition of this book. All references I make here are then taken from: Pooke, G. and Newall, D. (2008) Art History: The Basics. [Kindle Edition] From: Amazon.it (Accessed on 04.08.16, pos. 452-489)

I wrote down the paragraphs of the first few pages that I find particularly useful to get an initial idea of the theme of the book and lay the basis for the issues to be treated in the following chapters.

In Chapter 1  ART THEORIES AND ART HISTORIES the  authors formulate the basic questions they are going to develop:

What are the origins of art history as an academic discipline and how has it evolved? What is the purpose of art?

And then they they go about establishing  ‘a general set of guidelines for understanding what art is thought to be’, making three main points:

Fine art has traditionally been used to distinguish arts promoted by the academy , including painting, drawing and sculpture, from craft based arts. The latter typically refers to those works created for a function –such as ceramics, jewellery, textiles, needlework and glass which are still termed decorative arts.

A broader definition of art encompasses those activities which produce works with aesthetic value, including film making, performance and architecture.

Contemporary definitions of art are not medium specific (as ideas around fine art tended to be) or particularly restrictive about the nature of aesthetic value (as Modernism was –see Chapter 2 ). These ideas are associated with the Institutional Theory of Art which is probably the most widely used definition. It recognises that art can be a term designated by the artist and by the institutions of the art world, rather than by any external process of validation. On the one hand it provides an expansive framework for understanding diverse art practices, but on the other, it is so broad as to be virtually meaningless.

The authors concentrate then on the concept of art in the ancient Greek and Roman world and in the Western classical tradition derived from antiquity:

In a Western context, art understood as a practical, craft-based activity has the longest history … the Greek word ‘techne’ denoted a skill or craft and ‘technites’ a craftsman who made objects for particular purposes and occasions (Sörbom 2002: 24). …. within the classical world, examples of craft, such as statues and mosaics, had practical, public and ceremonial roles.

Throughout Europe and North America for example, cultural assumptions about what art customarily was were closely linked to the origins and development of the academic subject of art history itself. Of central importance to this were the social institutions such as academies and museums which were established from the late sixteenth century onwards.

And they go on making another fundamental point:

Another point worth making is that to label something as art implies some kind of evaluative judgement about the image, object or process….it is important to understand that the meaning and attributions of art are particular to different contexts, societies and periods.

(Pooke and Newall, 2008: pos. 452-489)

I think I shall study more of this book with special attention to Chapter 2 Formalism, Modernism and modernity and Chapter 7 Exploring Postmodernities.

The concepts and subjects that I propose to research more in the next weeks are:

Formalism and Modernism, Postmodernism, Duchamp and the Institutional Theory of Art.

 

Definitions of words new to me:

jesmonite: composite material used in fine arts, crafts, and construction. It consists of a gypsum-based material in an acrylic resin

plinth: a heavy base supporting a statue or vase

(definitions from the Oxford Dictionary of English included in the Kindle edition of the book)

Exercise 2 – What is art?

 

What is art?

As a start I would say that art can only be something that is a result of  human activity, creation or intervention. A beautiful tree as found in nature is not art, but it could become art if intentionally used as it is or somehow modified by an artist for a purpose – I am thinking here particularly of the work of Italian artist Giuseppe Penone (1947).  Also a photograph of a beautiful tree could be an artwork being the tree seen through the eyes of the photographer.

I also think that the intention behind an artwork is important: the cereals I had this morning at breakfast are something produced by man but certainly not meant to be a work of art. But if an artist takes those same cereals and pours for example some resin on them, they might become a bad or good work of art – probably bad because it seems a very lame idea indeed!

And with this comes another point I think. To me art should be in some way innovative, bring forward a new idea, show something under a different light, give a personal insight in an old concept, stimulate new thoughts, emotions or mental  connections.

 

How do we know it is art?

I believe it certainly helps if it’s already in a gallery or a museum, because this type of place puts a sort of frame of glory or at least of interest around an object. After all whenever I did a nice drawing at primary school the teacher would say: it’s beautiful, put it in a frame! In any case I think the way of presenting something is undeniably important: if I wish to give someone a sweater for Christmas I put it in a nice package first. And seeing something in a gallery means also that somebody decided that it is actually art before me, it’s like the label of a brand on a piece of clothing. Then of course I can think otherwise.

 

Who decides what is art?

There are no laws but I think it’s a combination of factors: galleries, art magazines on paper and online, critics, public institutions and museums. And the passing of time: Michelangelo and Shakespeare will be artists forever, this is no more subject to change. I do not see that the public or the audience are really that important in deciding what’s good or bad art. The only thing people can do is agree or not agree with what is shown and like it or not. However,  the favour of the public can exercise an influence on which type of exhibitions are going to be arranged. For example in Rome, where I live, in five years I have already seen two big Chagall’s exhibitions possibly because Chagall is a sure hit with the public. By visiting an exhibition the public can reinforce the idea that something is art and make it more valuable.

 

Is it enough just to display a found object and say ‘this is art’ because it’s in an art gallery?

Yes, in a way, because of what I have just said in answering to how do we know it is art.

 

Duchamp said he wanted “to put art back in the service of the mind”. What do you think he meant by this?

I think that he wanted to make an intellectual point here, that art has not to be judged according to aesthetic values,  but for the concept or the process an artist wishes to put forward.

 

Is technical skill an important quality in an artwork?

To me technical skill is important because I believe that through mastery of techniques, knowledge of media and a lot of practising and experimentation an artist acquires the widest possible freedom when he or she comes to choose the best tools to express a personal vision, is not limited by what does not know and also gradually finds an individual voice. To this end I also believe that another important thing for an artist is to be aware of past and contemporary art movements. Technical skill does not mean that an artist has to make or create everything personally, but I think that also when trusting other people with the physical realization of the piece it helps if an artist is aware of the technical aspects.

 

Do you think art needs to move you emotionally?

Not necessarily. Sometimes an artwork moves me emotionally and leaves an echo for days, though there are other times that I don’t really like a piece at first sight but there is something in it that engages my thoughts and  acts on me perhaps at a deeper level or makes me aware of things I had not thought before. There are also works of art that I find very aesthetically pleasing and nothing more.

 

Does art have to be unique?

Not really. Also in the past of some paintings or sculptures existed several copies, even if there were differences because they were individually crafted so in a certain sense everyone of them was an original. Today mechanical or industrial reproduction and very recently 3D printing allow for perfectly identical copies. I think this is fine if this is the choice of the artist.

Notes and sources on Marcel Duchamp

Wonderful website on Duchamp, a real mine of information here:

http://toutfait.com/ (accessed 1/08/2016)

The Marcel Duchamp Online Studies Journal

Tout fait is the French translation for ready-made

Among other things a very interesting article The Creative Act by Julian Jason Haladyn, Published: 01/04/15, Updated: 05/05/16

I believe very strongly in the “medium” aspect of the artist. The artist makes something, then one day, he is recognized by the intervention of the public, of the spectator; so later he goes on to posterity. You can’t stop that, because, in brief, it’s a product of two poles – there’s the pole of the one who makes the work, and the pole of the one who looks at it. I give the latter as much importance as the one who makes it.

from Pierre Cabanne, Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, trans. Ron Padgett (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1987), 70.

In June 1968 Joan Bakewell interviewed Marcel Ducham for the BBC only months before his death.  I found this very precious primary source on Youtube:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwk7wFdC76Y

Apart from the emotion I felt in seeing and listening to him speaking first-hand, in this interview he touches upon many interesting points: what does he mean by retinal painting, the Dada movement and his role in it, his work the Great Glass, the concept of ready-mades and his intention in creating them, Op and Pop Art, happenings, if art can still (in 1968) shock the public.

Exercise 1 – Fountain by Marcel Duchamp

 

Marcel Duchamp ‘Fountain’, 1917, replica 1964 © Succession Marcel Duchamp/ADAGP, Paris and DACS, London 2016

Fig. 1 Fountain (1917-1964)

 

I already knew this icon work by Marcel Duchamp so my reaction cannot be really fresh and innocent, but I shall do my best to see it with new eyes:

– The Fountain is not at all pretty but very forceful, unpleasant and rude, a slap in the face of the onlooker (me), teasing, amusing

– I am not shocked anymore, a century has passed, but it is not difficult to guess the outrageous reactions when the visitors saw it in an exhibition for the very first time in 1917. After all, as Grayson Perry funnily remembered in his first Reith lecture, in many countries the most desirable painting, even today, is still “a landscape with a few figures around, animals in the foreground, mainly blue” (BBC, 2013)

– Having a new look at The Fountain it suddenly came to me that today’s trend – mine included – for reusing the “found object” in the arts and crafts (jewellery, textiles, mixed media paintings and sculptures) has its roots among other things in Duchamp’s ready-mades

I really think that Duchamp is still very vital and influential as an artist and that his ideas are still very contemporary and far from being exhausted.

 

List of illustrations

Figure 1. Duchamp, Marcel (1917, replica 1964) Fountain [sculpture] At:  http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573  (accessed on 31.07.16)

 

Bibliography

BBC Radio 4 (2013) The Reith Lectures, Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 1 [online] 15.10.13. At:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt (accessed on 27.07.16)

First thoughts on listening to Grayson Perry

 

Almost at the end of the last of his four Reith lectures Playing to the Gallery on BBC Channel 4 in 2013,  the British artist Grayson Perry says:

For  me art is refuge, a place inside my head where I can go on my own and process the world and its complexities, it’s an inner shed in which I can lose myself

(BBC, 2013, 1)

I must confess that these simple, almost humble words did surprise me coming from an artist as witty, self-ironic and disenchanted as Grayson Perry, but they sound very true. And on me, at the beginning of this learning journey in Creative Arts, they also have a reassuring effect because in this puzzling, very complex  and at times bewildering  and also a bit intimidating  world of contemporary art it’s still possible to say something so disarmingly personal.

Then of course there are all those difficult questions he asks, that I jotted down as I was listening to him:

What is art actually? What are the boundaries of art? What is quality in art, how might we judge it, who says that something is art and does it really matter? Can art still shock us? Has art a role? How do you become an artist today?

Perry gives many clever hints, suggests some possible answers, some answers lead to other questions, makes jokes and is very entertaining, also. He takes sides, though, he has very personal views, he says what he thinks of artists and art movements, he’s never neutral or too poised. And it’s obvious that art to him is very serious business, not play.

I wrote down abundant notes from his lectures and I shall keep these in mind as I progress through this course. A selection from my scribbles.

 

From the first lecture Democracy has Bad Taste (BBC, 2013, 1)  

Marcel Duchamp …  he said aesthetic delectation is the danger to be avoided … Proust said something to the effect that we only see beauty when we’re looking through an ornate gold frame, because beauty is very much about familiarity and it’s a reinforcing an idea we have already … Because our idea of beauty is constructed you know by family, friends, education, nationality, race, religion, politics, all these things make our idea of beauty

the self-consciousness is the very DNA of modernism, I mean modernism really, the whole of modernism, the last hundred years of art leading up to say the 1970s

the nearest thing we have to an empirical measure of art is the market

we live in an era where everything can be art, not everything is art

you don’t have to like it all

 

From the second lecture Beating the Bounds (BBC, 2013, 2)

In many ways I am a kind of conceptual artist, using traditional media like pottery, tapestry …

Arthur Danto, a philosopher, said an artwork is about something, has a point of view, a style, and it uses rhetorical ellipsis – that is, it engages the audience to fill in the gaps … art needs an art-historical context

today self-consciousness is in the DNA of contemporary art … you can’t be an innocent in the art world, you can’t be a child

 

From the third lecture Nice Rebellion, Welcome in! (BBC, 2013, 3)

to be outside the boundaries is not going to happen anymore

outrage has become domesticated

detached irony has become a default mode of our time in the art world

in the past artists were the true innovators of technology … now we chase technology instead of leading the innovation … technology in many ways is more cutting edge than art

we live in an age of creative capital, the skills learnt are incredibly useful in the modern creative economy

there is no avant-garde anymore, there are just multiple sites all over the world at different levels, in different places,using different media for experimentation … most of it is rubbish, but that was ever thus, and some of it is absolutely amazing

 

From the fourth lecture I Found Myself in the Art World (BBC, 2013, 4)

art primary role is meaning making

it’s very very deep this need to express one-self

art college is a place to make it wrong, to make mistakes … what you pick up at college is understanding the time and place you are as an artist … the best art takes quite a while to find their voice, art is a marathon not a spring … coolness is the enemy of creativity

for me art is refuge, a place inside my head where I can go on my own and process the world and its complexities, it’s an inner shed in which I can lose myself

art, it’s a serious business!

 

For the time being I’m happy to know that these questions and answers are there for me to consider and I quietly look at them, turn them in my mind, connect them with other things and try to be alert. I’m sure I shall come back many times to these issues throughout my Course. From what I am reading and listening in these days it has already dawned on me that to these questions there may  be no easy answers, that answers may be multiple and self contradictory at best or perhaps not even available. Or that every answer might be true. Or that they could depend on ‘time’ and ‘place’, the two fundamental themes around which Creative Arts Today revolve. Mmmhhh a lot of food for thought!

 

Bibliography

(1) BBC Radio 4 (2013) The Reith Lectures, Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 1 [online] 15.10.13. At:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt (accessed on 27.07.16)

(2) BBC Radio 4 (2013) The Reith Lectures, Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 2 [online] 22.10.13. At:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt (accessed on 28.07.16)

(3) BBC Radio 4 (2013) The Reith Lectures, Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 3 [online] 29.10.13. At:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt (accessed on 27.07.16)

(4) BBC Radio 4 (2013) The Reith Lectures, Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 4 [online] 05.11.13. At:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt (accessed on 27.07.16)