8/25 Reading Discussion

The discussion about the text and the ART21 artists was fairly insightful. I liked discussing the questions assigned to the group, and listening to the ideas and perspectives of the other groups and their questions.

I found that my opinion of Jessica Stockholder's work was reflected by a lot of other classmates in that I was not impressed. But Rothrock stated something like this: if we as artists, can't put in the interest and energy into observing and understanding other artists' works, how can we expect others to do the same for us? I can't immediately revise my opinion on Stockholder, but I feel that maybe I should try and give her and her works a little more thought.

Week 1

Daily Class Notes
The theme exploration of PLAY with the various sets of toys was quite interesting. Being years since I last touched any such kind of toy, it was refreshing to work with my hands on random things to create random things for no real reason.

I played with the Play-Doh and the toy connector set. The Play-Doh was soft and easy to manipulate. I could easily make basic forms of what I wanted to make, forming my own ideas for the materials rather than forming ideas from the materials. I ended up making a pig farm.

The toy set was a different experience. I ended up taking random pieces and making random things as ideas popped into my head while I was doing it. It was pretty opposite to what the experience with the Play-Doh was.

So, with the PLAY theme, I noticed that I was relaxed and could just do whatever I wanted within the confines of the medium, except that I felt no restriction due to the medium. This was likely because there were no expectations of anyone, including myself, and so it was a liberating experience. These days, my art and other activities usually have a clear, concrete direction and some form of stress and standard.

Text Notes
  

Thomas Kinkade

So, I'm reading the Chapter 1 text for In The Making, 7am and agonizing over how much text there is for my sluggish brain to read.

I don't know if it's a competitive rejection of his corporate attitude that I'm feeling, but when looking at Thomas Kinkade's work closely, I feel an unnatural vibe. I think it's the feeling that if these worlds, such as in his Everett's Cottage work, existed and I were to step into it, I would probably go insane. The artwork feels too "good" so to speak, where the colors are a little too saturated, the proportions and perspective is just slightly skewed, and the setting is a little too detached from reality in its perfection. It's kind of a trip down uncanny valley, in my opinion.

I feel a little conflicted about the first part of the reading, being about Kinkade's goal to have his art in every household, and how "pretty" is a component of art, and "pretty" being defined by a predictable set of qualities. I am less an intuitive, creative artist than I am a technical artist (which is one of the reasons I'm majoring in art, to unlock my intuition). I create computer graphics as a freelance/hobbyist artist, mostly for video games. So the pragmatism in Kinkade is sort of a resonance with my own, but it's a resonance that I do not want to agree with since I'd like to believe that art is more than just churning out artwork that makes the audience feel good. I do feel it's commendable that his mission is to provide hope to people in despair, and by putting his happy art everywhere it'll make people's spirits raise, but...yeah.

PLAY seems to be incorporated in the isolated perfection of each environment. There are no humans, nothing to really identify with personally, and in this there is a type of freedom. These insanity-inducing worlds can be your own with no stress induced by attempting to interpret the works as anything other than what it is.

I find it funny how page 23 sounds like an advertisement for Kinkade, and even includes an 800 number to call if the reader wants to learn more about it after going into some detail about Kinkade-style houses for sale in California. Reading up to this point, I feel that Kinkade truly was a master of finding an audience. Is it something I would like to emulate? Definitely not to such a degree. But making art that people like is the key to success in this world. There isn't much of a reason otherwise to create art except for self satisfaction. I make art as part of my job to make my clients happy, or as a gift to make friends and family happy. It's a smaller audience, but appealing to them measures my success in those endeavors.

So apparently I agree with Kinkade's mindset but would like to do more than just disseminate my artwork into the homes of everyone, which was Kinkade's goal. Kinkade had talent, compassion, and an admirable goal, and he pursued that goal through art. I am a different person with different levels of talent and compassion, and no real goal yet.

Charles Ray
Charles Ray is way over there on the other side of the spectrum. It's a little difficult to define what his audience is, due to the nature of his work. He seems to want to capture the attention of people in the passing but only in double-take form. If a person passed his Firetruck artwork on the street while preoccupied by something, that person may never notice that it was a scaled-to-life-sized toy truck. If I were to pass by it, likely I would glance at it, frown, look again, and then scrutinize it.

Charles Ray communicates to the audience by provoking interest through subtle differences from the norm. Once scrutinized, his work can take on whole new meaning, such as making subjective the objective element of time in his Clock Man. The audience has to deliberate and identify with each piece of art.

PLAY with Charles Ray can be interpreted a few ways. Firstly, you can think of Charles Ray as playing with the audiences' minds. Secondly, the subject matter itself is so obscure and freed from any norm that that freedom could be construed as an element of PLAY. Lastly, the audience experiences a form of excitement in the discovery of something new in something old.

Art 21 Response

Jessica Stockholder
The first segment I watched was Jessica Stockholder. Honestly, I don't feel a whole lot of "Play" with her work, even though the art itself is colorful and varied. Her art travels in the realm of abstraction, and it's hard to derive meaning or insight or any kind of connection with what she produces. When looking at, say, the plastic gas containers piece and the colorful basket/hose/whatever set (4:37), all I see is a mess. It feels as if she's only doing art for herself and the audience is just the select few that can find even the smallest things interesting. Granted, I did like her car piece (7:18). So, overall, I think the element of "Play" for Stockholder is completely one-sided, where she has complete freedom in her work without full regard for her audience.

Arturo Herrera
Next was Arturo's segment. I could identify with his work a lot more, such as with his cartoon/Disney collages. The pop culture references in his work, and the natural fluidity of his more abstract art helps me view his artwork with less criticism and more interest. Rather than studying Jessica's art, creasing my brow, and trying to derive any special meaning in her work, I can just enjoy Arturo's art and let any meaning come to me on its own; and if no meaning does come to me, I don't feel so bad about it haha.