From completing this exercise, I have determined that research is hard and takes a lot of time! But that I really like google scholar as it helps you find much more short, concise articles about exactly what you're looking for. In future I need to remember to designate time to doing only research and doing it well.
Showing posts with label Studio brief 1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Studio brief 1. Show all posts
Friday, 14 October 2016
Finding Research Sources
Today we had a seminar on how we can find research sources for any writing we have to do using the sources that are available to us. We were given a list and had to try and find three resources for each method of research relating to our chosen quote. My quote is the one on society by David Shrigley, "In the studio the artist has no responsibility. But when the artist displays his work the situation changes."
Friday, 7 October 2016
Investigating My Own Quote
As a continuation of the Triangulation and Analysis blog post, we were asked to come away from the lesson and chose another quote and analyse this one in the way we were shown. I am choosing to look at the quote from the technology section from Phil Taylor which reads "The alchemy of analogue is more unpredictable, and therefore more alluring".
The quote communicates to me straight away that its the journey involved in creating a piece of analogue art work that is so appealing to people, you never know how its going to turn out. I believe it fits into the theme of technology as in the developing world, particularly in fields such as illustration, technology is fast becoming something that is at all of our fingertips. If we wanted, we could now use software to create what only years ago we would have to collage or draw by hand. With new technologies related to the arts being created every month, we have the choice whether or not to jump on the band wagon. Where we can more or less collectively agree that advances in medical technology have benefitted everyone, could we see the same change for the arts? The key terms here are alchemy, unpredictable and alluring, it might also be worth looking up technology.
Alchemy means a seemingly magical process of transformation, creation, or combination. Which I think perfectly describes using only analogue processes to make art, it is a special process in which the creator is involved directly with every step. As there can never really be any major pre-planning of analogue art as there can be with digital the end result is usually at least a little different to what you'd expect which makes the process more of a journey. Unpredictable actually just can be defined as not predictable, but if we were to relate this specifically to art I would say also that unpredictability in work can sometimes mean it seems more organic and authentic. It also suggests to me uniqueness which is a valuable skill in art, no one wants to have the same work as someone else. However, these qualities seem to either set you apart from the rest and make work more sellable, or do the opposite and mean people struggle to identify with the work.
Alluring means powerfully and mysteriously attractive or fascinating or seductive. I agree that analogue methods of creating can be really interesting and much more engaging than maybe the routine of computerised work, but firstly, I would question if there isn't the same attraction about digital work. Especially if you still aren't fully aware of how these processes work then the experimentation involved with experimenting on different bits of software I'm sure can be just as rewarding and exciting. Secondly, I can see how if you wanted to make really experimental and varied work then analogue media would be ideal, but what if you wanted to create some more intricate, uniform work? Its also worth noting that this quote is from 2009, when maybe people were less enthusiastic and accepting of new technologies. However, these things are more commonplace in the arts now and digital art is a valid and accepted art form in its own right.
For instance this image below is by Igor Scekic a digital artist from Zagreb. For me this is no less thought out than any analogue process and I'm sure it was still a fascinating process to watch it develop and unfold. Its not just about the final method of production of an image either as although this was created on photoshop, I'm sure there must have been some detailed and thoughtful sketches and designs that came before this. If you can argue that something like photo shop isn't a skill and is impersonal, surely you can say the same for screen printing?
Also if you look at Rob Ryans paper cut works, although he cuts most of them by hand, he has also said that he uses some photoshop methods to add in shadows and to edit them slightly. This being said, that doesn't make his work any less beautiful or the methods behind it less exhaustive. Sometimes non-analogue methods can be used to fine time analogue work.
In conclusion although I do agree that there is something particularly cathartic about producing the majority of your work by hand, there is some instances where non analogue methods are necessary such as during mass production, or simply if the process will look better for it. I believe it does nothing to take away from the value of analogue work when digital methods are being used and they are on offer to us so why not use them?
The quote communicates to me straight away that its the journey involved in creating a piece of analogue art work that is so appealing to people, you never know how its going to turn out. I believe it fits into the theme of technology as in the developing world, particularly in fields such as illustration, technology is fast becoming something that is at all of our fingertips. If we wanted, we could now use software to create what only years ago we would have to collage or draw by hand. With new technologies related to the arts being created every month, we have the choice whether or not to jump on the band wagon. Where we can more or less collectively agree that advances in medical technology have benefitted everyone, could we see the same change for the arts? The key terms here are alchemy, unpredictable and alluring, it might also be worth looking up technology.
Alchemy means a seemingly magical process of transformation, creation, or combination. Which I think perfectly describes using only analogue processes to make art, it is a special process in which the creator is involved directly with every step. As there can never really be any major pre-planning of analogue art as there can be with digital the end result is usually at least a little different to what you'd expect which makes the process more of a journey. Unpredictable actually just can be defined as not predictable, but if we were to relate this specifically to art I would say also that unpredictability in work can sometimes mean it seems more organic and authentic. It also suggests to me uniqueness which is a valuable skill in art, no one wants to have the same work as someone else. However, these qualities seem to either set you apart from the rest and make work more sellable, or do the opposite and mean people struggle to identify with the work.
Alluring means powerfully and mysteriously attractive or fascinating or seductive. I agree that analogue methods of creating can be really interesting and much more engaging than maybe the routine of computerised work, but firstly, I would question if there isn't the same attraction about digital work. Especially if you still aren't fully aware of how these processes work then the experimentation involved with experimenting on different bits of software I'm sure can be just as rewarding and exciting. Secondly, I can see how if you wanted to make really experimental and varied work then analogue media would be ideal, but what if you wanted to create some more intricate, uniform work? Its also worth noting that this quote is from 2009, when maybe people were less enthusiastic and accepting of new technologies. However, these things are more commonplace in the arts now and digital art is a valid and accepted art form in its own right.
For instance this image below is by Igor Scekic a digital artist from Zagreb. For me this is no less thought out than any analogue process and I'm sure it was still a fascinating process to watch it develop and unfold. Its not just about the final method of production of an image either as although this was created on photoshop, I'm sure there must have been some detailed and thoughtful sketches and designs that came before this. If you can argue that something like photo shop isn't a skill and is impersonal, surely you can say the same for screen printing?
Also if you look at Rob Ryans paper cut works, although he cuts most of them by hand, he has also said that he uses some photoshop methods to add in shadows and to edit them slightly. This being said, that doesn't make his work any less beautiful or the methods behind it less exhaustive. Sometimes non-analogue methods can be used to fine time analogue work.
In conclusion although I do agree that there is something particularly cathartic about producing the majority of your work by hand, there is some instances where non analogue methods are necessary such as during mass production, or simply if the process will look better for it. I believe it does nothing to take away from the value of analogue work when digital methods are being used and they are on offer to us so why not use them?
Investigating Quotes
Today we had our first proper COP briefing with Pete where we were told about our first proper brief and what to expect. Our first piece of writing for COP will be a 1000 word piece of writing on Triangulation and Referencing. To make a start on this we were all given a sheet with quote on under the subject headings of social, political, history, culture, technology and aesthetics. From this we were then put into small groups and had to pick one quote and analyse it, I'm guessing in the way that we would be expected to analyse quotes relating to our ongoing work.
My group picked a quote from the society section
"In his studio the artist has no social responsibility. But when the artist displays his work the situation changes."
David Shrigley, (2015) Untitled, synthetic polymer paint on paper, Department International Prints and Drawings, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne. 153.0 x 111.0 cm
Then we had to answer these questions in regards to the quote-
What is communicated by the quote?
- The artist has the responsibility whether or not to be controversial.
- It also references that the audience plays a part in the artists work as it effects how the work will be received.
How does it fit within the theme? (society)
- It talks about how society will react to certain pieces of art work, possibly could be talking about political work or some things of a more sensitive subject nature.
- Implies that the artwork is your own when its not been shared with someone and is still on the drawing board, but as soon as it is put out into society then it becomes a social issue.
What are the key terms within the quote that can be investigated?
- Social responsibility, displays, society.
Define those key terms and link them to examples
- Social Responsibility: according to google definitions social responsibility is an ethical framework and suggests that an entity, be it an organisation or an individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. It is every ones duty to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems.
- Society: The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. But interestingly can also mean an organisation or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.
- Display: Put something in a prominent place in order that it may readily be seen.
In conclusion I think this quote is very interesting as its sort of saying that as soon as you chose to display your work, it takes a bit of the private ownership away from it and means it belongs to both the public and you to share your opinions on. But firstly I'd raise the question of whats meant by display and how does this effect who has a right to an opinion on this piece? Because you could argue that if this has been viewed in an exhibition in a gallery that has been purposely set up to display this work, and therefore ticket holders have some prior knowledge of the artist, then can they offended? Surely they knew what to expect when booking the tickets and they could take it with a pinch of salt in that case? Or does the fact they have purchased tickets mean that they then have more of a right to their opinion? Also would it be a different case if we were to talk about displaying work on Instagram for example, because anyone can stumble across any content there, which means that if you display your personal opinions on your account and then someone chooses to look at and comment on that uninvited, is that fair?
Also it is interesting to see what is meant by society, as from the definition it could very well mean just the whole of society and whoever may come across it. But it could also refer to a small society of art critics, who have the prior knowledge to make a fair and unbiased judgement about pieces.
My group picked a quote from the society section
"In his studio the artist has no social responsibility. But when the artist displays his work the situation changes."
David Shrigley, (2015) Untitled, synthetic polymer paint on paper, Department International Prints and Drawings, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne. 153.0 x 111.0 cm
Then we had to answer these questions in regards to the quote-
What is communicated by the quote?
- The artist has the responsibility whether or not to be controversial.
- It also references that the audience plays a part in the artists work as it effects how the work will be received.
How does it fit within the theme? (society)
- It talks about how society will react to certain pieces of art work, possibly could be talking about political work or some things of a more sensitive subject nature.
- Implies that the artwork is your own when its not been shared with someone and is still on the drawing board, but as soon as it is put out into society then it becomes a social issue.
What are the key terms within the quote that can be investigated?
- Social responsibility, displays, society.
Define those key terms and link them to examples
- Social Responsibility: according to google definitions social responsibility is an ethical framework and suggests that an entity, be it an organisation or an individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. It is every ones duty to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems.
- Society: The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. But interestingly can also mean an organisation or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.
- Display: Put something in a prominent place in order that it may readily be seen.
In conclusion I think this quote is very interesting as its sort of saying that as soon as you chose to display your work, it takes a bit of the private ownership away from it and means it belongs to both the public and you to share your opinions on. But firstly I'd raise the question of whats meant by display and how does this effect who has a right to an opinion on this piece? Because you could argue that if this has been viewed in an exhibition in a gallery that has been purposely set up to display this work, and therefore ticket holders have some prior knowledge of the artist, then can they offended? Surely they knew what to expect when booking the tickets and they could take it with a pinch of salt in that case? Or does the fact they have purchased tickets mean that they then have more of a right to their opinion? Also would it be a different case if we were to talk about displaying work on Instagram for example, because anyone can stumble across any content there, which means that if you display your personal opinions on your account and then someone chooses to look at and comment on that uninvited, is that fair?
Also it is interesting to see what is meant by society, as from the definition it could very well mean just the whole of society and whoever may come across it. But it could also refer to a small society of art critics, who have the prior knowledge to make a fair and unbiased judgement about pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)