Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Aims
Let's talk a little bit more of the work i intend to produce:
Produce work inspired by the paradox character of contemporary society. Investigate how we abandoned the indulgence of the post-modern era to embrace a state of complete tension between guilt and pleasure, social responsibility and individual goals.
The work will relate directly to our zeitgeist and communicate to people, either on the streets or galleries about our human condition, any comment about art, graphic design or it’s roles in our society are not to be considered the central issue.
I would like to present open-ended visual narratives in what I call prolonged-contact environments (indoor spaces). I aim to get the viewer to spend more time dialoguing and creating meanings with the artistic pieces. On the other hand, I plan to develop a more iconographic and synthetic work for brief-contact environments (public spaces, transit spaces) where I intent to create a rupture, to break the usual signing code of the city, in order to once again provoke rupture.
Produce work inspired by the paradox character of contemporary society. Investigate how we abandoned the indulgence of the post-modern era to embrace a state of complete tension between guilt and pleasure, social responsibility and individual goals.
The work will relate directly to our zeitgeist and communicate to people, either on the streets or galleries about our human condition, any comment about art, graphic design or it’s roles in our society are not to be considered the central issue.
I would like to present open-ended visual narratives in what I call prolonged-contact environments (indoor spaces). I aim to get the viewer to spend more time dialoguing and creating meanings with the artistic pieces. On the other hand, I plan to develop a more iconographic and synthetic work for brief-contact environments (public spaces, transit spaces) where I intent to create a rupture, to break the usual signing code of the city, in order to once again provoke rupture.
Monday, 5 October 2009
John Heartfield
After the Tutorial today, I followed Sigune's tip and did some research about work. I really liked his political photomontages. One can see the connection between his work and contemporary artist whose political work I admire, such as Banksy and the Chapman Brothers. All the advertising photomontages that have been bombing society in the last decades descend from this early form of communicative, political art developed by Hearfield and George Grosz
This quote I foundf in WWII Art is very interesting:
"When John Heartfield and I invented photomontage in my South End studio at 5'oclock on a May morning in 1916, neither of us had any inkling of its great possibilities, nor of the thorny yet successful road it was to take. As so often happens in life, we had stumbled across a vein of gold without knowing it."
George Grosz
More work from Heartfield and similar artist can be found in the avangarda online magazine. Very good quality images!
Hannah Hoch, Cut with the cake knife, 1919
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Text/Image - seminar 1
CHOSEN IMAGE
DENOTATIVE DESCRIPTION:
Medium: photography with digital composing and retouching
Format: landscape
Description: one couple in a boat on the foreground, on the background, we see a large body of water. A big concrete statue of a man in open arms stands above the water. There are some rocks on the background marking the shoreline, on the far background a hilly shoreline completes the picture. The horizon is in the middle of the picture, and runs in a slight upward diagonal across it.
On the boat the man has long, blond hair and white shirt, paints and snickers. He is seated on the handrails and is spitting water in a young woman who is laying on the sun in front of him. The woman is a brunette wearing sunglasses and a colourful 2 piece bikini set. She is laughing.
CONNOTATIVE DESCRIPTION
The image is quite disturbing, We see this rich, well dressed couple in a fancy yacht in front of the partially sunken statue of Christ The Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. As the Redeemer stands on the top of the Corcovado hill, which is very high, we can assume that the image shows that a gargantuan rise in see level happened, flooding the entire city of Rio, as well every costal area in the world.
Moreover, the playfulness of the couple in face of such mass scale tragedy is quite upsetting. The fact that they belong to a rich class, given their looks, clothing and the fact that they are having a very expensive form of entertainment, makes the picture even more shocking.
In addition, we cannot help but raise questions such as :"Is this why the rich and powerful are not really taking measures against global warming and the subsequent melting of polar ice? Because they will be able to preserve their wealth and lifestyle?" or, further along: "Would it be possible to be so frivolous about a global tragedy of unseen proportions?"
Finally, the fact that the man is spilling water, probably drinking water, in the middle of a saltwater wasteland, completes the shocking picture.
We can read this as a "straight in your face manifesto to the middle and lower classes of today to act against global warming.
CONNOTATIVE REDUX
As we are aware that the picture is actually an add of a campaign of fashion label Diesel (other campaign ads below), we still feel shocked, but in the opposite way. The campaign is very cynical, for it projects an image of success, of superpowers for those who wears it. As it slogan states, it's a brand for "successful living". Those who wear the label would associate themselves with the rich, the upperclass, the ultimate winners of social darwinism. The final touch of the image's cynicism comes in the figure of the Redeemer, Christ in open arms, welcoming us and forever forgiving mankind for it's sins.
QUESTION RAISED:
How would we perceive the ad, have it only been signed by the greenpeace logo, for example?
OTHER ADS IN THE CAMPAIGN
DENOTATIVE DESCRIPTION:
Medium: photography with digital composing and retouching
Format: landscape
Description: one couple in a boat on the foreground, on the background, we see a large body of water. A big concrete statue of a man in open arms stands above the water. There are some rocks on the background marking the shoreline, on the far background a hilly shoreline completes the picture. The horizon is in the middle of the picture, and runs in a slight upward diagonal across it.
On the boat the man has long, blond hair and white shirt, paints and snickers. He is seated on the handrails and is spitting water in a young woman who is laying on the sun in front of him. The woman is a brunette wearing sunglasses and a colourful 2 piece bikini set. She is laughing.
CONNOTATIVE DESCRIPTION
The image is quite disturbing, We see this rich, well dressed couple in a fancy yacht in front of the partially sunken statue of Christ The Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. As the Redeemer stands on the top of the Corcovado hill, which is very high, we can assume that the image shows that a gargantuan rise in see level happened, flooding the entire city of Rio, as well every costal area in the world.
Moreover, the playfulness of the couple in face of such mass scale tragedy is quite upsetting. The fact that they belong to a rich class, given their looks, clothing and the fact that they are having a very expensive form of entertainment, makes the picture even more shocking.
In addition, we cannot help but raise questions such as :"Is this why the rich and powerful are not really taking measures against global warming and the subsequent melting of polar ice? Because they will be able to preserve their wealth and lifestyle?" or, further along: "Would it be possible to be so frivolous about a global tragedy of unseen proportions?"
Finally, the fact that the man is spilling water, probably drinking water, in the middle of a saltwater wasteland, completes the shocking picture.
We can read this as a "straight in your face manifesto to the middle and lower classes of today to act against global warming.
CONNOTATIVE REDUX
As we are aware that the picture is actually an add of a campaign of fashion label Diesel (other campaign ads below), we still feel shocked, but in the opposite way. The campaign is very cynical, for it projects an image of success, of superpowers for those who wears it. As it slogan states, it's a brand for "successful living". Those who wear the label would associate themselves with the rich, the upperclass, the ultimate winners of social darwinism. The final touch of the image's cynicism comes in the figure of the Redeemer, Christ in open arms, welcoming us and forever forgiving mankind for it's sins.
QUESTION RAISED:
How would we perceive the ad, have it only been signed by the greenpeace logo, for example?
OTHER ADS IN THE CAMPAIGN
Film Screening - Reviews
LONDON
Dir: PETER KEILER
Year: 1992
Be prepared to take a long London tour through the thoughts and takes of fictional character Robinson, a self educated architecture professor, who teaches in Barking and also work at a Brixton café to make ends meet.
Our guide and narrator to this tour is the a friend of Robinsons. His speech is accompanied by long shots depicting various scenes of London, taken throughout 1992. Although the link between images and text is often loose, it adds character and depth to the film, building some of it's humour and charm. On the opposite, the soundtrack is mostly literal and used to punctuate the narration - one of the weak points of the film in my opinion.
Going back to the story, it seems that director Peter Keiler uses Robinson to embody the frustrations, nostalgia and longing for a lost and romanticised past of London's conscious, left-oriented middle class. Robinson, as we are told, wishes to be a flâneaur, to be able to travel and have different experiences, however, he feels entangled with London and unable to live. On the one hand, Robinson admires and is exited about the city's past, history, legends, anecdotes and meanings, on the other hand, there are evidences that London has become something that Robinson can not bare facing for what it really is at the present day. Therefore, in a attempt to see the world his way, Robinson rewrites the meaning of everything that seems to be out of place or against his beliefs. For instance, even a meaning for London itself is created. Robinson decides to view the city as a monument to Rimbaud, a tragic poet, unrecognised at his time, who left London, travelled the world and suffered a premature, painful death.
As the movie progresses, the 1992 election is covered through Robinson's eyes. The outcome is a heavy blow for Robinson. The conservative win, backed by middle class voters that - in Robinson's view - where the greatest victims of the Thatcher year, seems to strip Robinson out of his romanticism and onirical takes on London.
Finally, we are offered a bleak picture, as we tour the heart of London - it's historic centre, the City. Any hopes Robinson showed about a bright, illuminist future of the City goes down the drain when he concludes that London is a city characterised by it's absence and it's lack, for it's historical centre became a private void, flooded in and out by a daily migration of workers. In his words:"London is the first Metropolis which disappeared".
Interesting quotes:
"Interesting people in London would prefer to be elsewhere".
Dir: PETER KEILER
Year: 1992
Be prepared to take a long London tour through the thoughts and takes of fictional character Robinson, a self educated architecture professor, who teaches in Barking and also work at a Brixton café to make ends meet.
Our guide and narrator to this tour is the a friend of Robinsons. His speech is accompanied by long shots depicting various scenes of London, taken throughout 1992. Although the link between images and text is often loose, it adds character and depth to the film, building some of it's humour and charm. On the opposite, the soundtrack is mostly literal and used to punctuate the narration - one of the weak points of the film in my opinion.
Going back to the story, it seems that director Peter Keiler uses Robinson to embody the frustrations, nostalgia and longing for a lost and romanticised past of London's conscious, left-oriented middle class. Robinson, as we are told, wishes to be a flâneaur, to be able to travel and have different experiences, however, he feels entangled with London and unable to live. On the one hand, Robinson admires and is exited about the city's past, history, legends, anecdotes and meanings, on the other hand, there are evidences that London has become something that Robinson can not bare facing for what it really is at the present day. Therefore, in a attempt to see the world his way, Robinson rewrites the meaning of everything that seems to be out of place or against his beliefs. For instance, even a meaning for London itself is created. Robinson decides to view the city as a monument to Rimbaud, a tragic poet, unrecognised at his time, who left London, travelled the world and suffered a premature, painful death.
As the movie progresses, the 1992 election is covered through Robinson's eyes. The outcome is a heavy blow for Robinson. The conservative win, backed by middle class voters that - in Robinson's view - where the greatest victims of the Thatcher year, seems to strip Robinson out of his romanticism and onirical takes on London.
Finally, we are offered a bleak picture, as we tour the heart of London - it's historic centre, the City. Any hopes Robinson showed about a bright, illuminist future of the City goes down the drain when he concludes that London is a city characterised by it's absence and it's lack, for it's historical centre became a private void, flooded in and out by a daily migration of workers. In his words:"London is the first Metropolis which disappeared".
Interesting quotes:
"Interesting people in London would prefer to be elsewhere".
Film Screening - Reviews
A STUDY IN THE RELATION OF INNER AND OUTHER SPACE
Dir: DAVID LAMELAS
Year: 1969
In his 1969 film "A study in the relation of inner and outer space", David Lamelas presents us with a clinically descriptive narrative about some facts of the city of London. Lamelas restrains himself from jumping into judgements and conclusions. He doesn't "connect any dots" of information.
The film starts depicting a gallery space to the minutiae of electric voltage use and decibels produced. What at first resembles a Monty Python sketch in it's awkwardness and surreal character turns into a cold description of London. Devoid of any emotions and using a monotone narrator, Lamelas builds a black and white portrait of a civilisation that appears to be long gone, from which only unconnected data remains.
Despite his use of a very straightforward approach, Lamelas is able to weave some poetical moments, such as the calm, silent footages of the aircraft movement in Heathrow airport.
However, as the film approaches it's conclusion, there is a rupture in it's structure. In a cold cut, the soulless descriptive narrative is replaced by interviews done by Lamelas on the streets of London. The interviews's subject, "man's landing on the moon", relates somehow to the issue of inner and outer space, but it completely brakes the aesthetic proposition of the film. Moreover, the interviews are performed by Lamelas himself, who tries to put the subjects in a awkward position asking them questions such as: "Would you be surprised if the first man on the moon was black?". Furthermore, the inclusion of the racial issues at end of the film, backed by Lamelass shallow approach to them and the natural way people responded to his questions, weaken and crack what could be a more closed, concise and powerful work.
Dir: DAVID LAMELAS
Year: 1969
In his 1969 film "A study in the relation of inner and outer space", David Lamelas presents us with a clinically descriptive narrative about some facts of the city of London. Lamelas restrains himself from jumping into judgements and conclusions. He doesn't "connect any dots" of information.
The film starts depicting a gallery space to the minutiae of electric voltage use and decibels produced. What at first resembles a Monty Python sketch in it's awkwardness and surreal character turns into a cold description of London. Devoid of any emotions and using a monotone narrator, Lamelas builds a black and white portrait of a civilisation that appears to be long gone, from which only unconnected data remains.
Despite his use of a very straightforward approach, Lamelas is able to weave some poetical moments, such as the calm, silent footages of the aircraft movement in Heathrow airport.
However, as the film approaches it's conclusion, there is a rupture in it's structure. In a cold cut, the soulless descriptive narrative is replaced by interviews done by Lamelas on the streets of London. The interviews's subject, "man's landing on the moon", relates somehow to the issue of inner and outer space, but it completely brakes the aesthetic proposition of the film. Moreover, the interviews are performed by Lamelas himself, who tries to put the subjects in a awkward position asking them questions such as: "Would you be surprised if the first man on the moon was black?". Furthermore, the inclusion of the racial issues at end of the film, backed by Lamelass shallow approach to them and the natural way people responded to his questions, weaken and crack what could be a more closed, concise and powerful work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)