'its not working'.
no?
yes.
Its not working?! Whats not working?!
I did these paintings (see below) to start working with the idea of applying my hand as an artist (my artifice) to this natural aesthetic. I painted over top of photographs of sunsets, abstracts of flowing water, bird guts, afternoon light pooring in through a hole in the ceiling, and a couch in the middle of field of flowers.
Its not working.
Ok, why?
Well, you as the artist are painting over your own original work- you are trying to talk about class associations of certain aesthetics, but you are also taking about originality of those ideas and aesthetics and how that carries value. Painting overtop of your own original pictures (even if they are of this 'natural aesthetic') isn't working.
You're right.
So I looked to Shaw, Lawler, Levine, even Duchamp and his readymades. Their simple gestures of re-appropriation of work, ideas and concepts seemed to fit. There is something here.
So, inspired by the painting in my studio (which to me, epitomized this idea of layering artifice over this natural aesthetic-putting it in another context-the gesture of hanging it upside down, talking about it as art instead of living room decoration) I started collecting pictures and paintings to do this to as well.
Purple sunsets over incandescent waters...how divine.
I've been filming. Filming Filming FILMING. I have four hours of footage now. probably a full half hour of that being REALLY good- usable toward my idea. Thats just how it goes.
I even started playing with an audio track- to give some foundation to start layering video into it to give as examples.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!
It's been done. Kind of. Its been done by people I know even. It never occurred to me, until they pointed it out. Don't go there.
And its not working anyway...they said.
Whats not working?
I'll tell you later.
Presentation time. I present. I thought I was clear. Good examples Anna. Someone from the class said I made sense, so it must be working...right?
Its not working.
WHATS NOT WORKING?!
FOR GOD SAKES WHAT? POINT ME IN A DIRECTION DAMNIT!
Ok ok, heres a direction. You are talking about class. But you are talking about it incorrectly. You are talking about this aesthetic tied to the middle class (I wont argue with you on that- you have a point there) but you are trying to elevate this aesthetic to work within the world of high art- the intellectual critical realm. WHY? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. I don't think you are grasping the historical context of class struggle. Since the fall of the Aristocracy the middle class has dominated. Marx was determined to see the proletariat-the working class- rise up, but instead the middle class acquired dominance and has since dictated taste. Because of the majoritive dominance of the middle class everything is oriented toward the bourgeois. Historically the middle class even dictates taste. High art rose out of a reaction against this determinate view. They wanted something critical, intellectual, set apart. The high art world does not cast the judgement of 'poor taste' onto the middle class, but rather the the middle class has subjugated the high art world because the entire capitalist, industrial, commercial industry has been oriented around the middle class-everything is for the middle class. I mean artists have worked to bring the low brow taste to the high art world- but this works because both class have been marginalized by the dominance of the middle class- they had a commonality. SO I ask- why would you want to bring the middle class taste to the high art world- the middle class will reject it and the art world will reject. What is critical about doing this? Why is this interesting? Its not working.
I can't argue. But I'm not sure I wholly agree. I can't argue...yet.
So as much as you (addressing the professors here) want to see more work- I think I need to go back to the books. There is something here but it needs more research. sorry :(
No comments:
Post a Comment