work from the semester

“The 36th Chamber of Shaolin”…allegory for high art institutions?!

     Is the film “The 36th Chamber” an allegorical look at the institutions of art academia? Upon first glance, no. But delve into further analysis and the correlation to the way in which Tyler School of Art conducts their program. From the progression of foundations level courses, through 4+ years (most likely 5 or 6) of thousands and thousands of dollars spent, many years depleted from ones life after countless 48+ hours of little to no sleep, to the day of acquiring your diploma, one might find a plausible connection to the higher education of fine art academia and director Chia-Liang Liu’s “The 36th Chamber of Shaolin”.

     Similarities and differences between the film’s depiction of Shaolin temple in the film and art school… Martial arts as depicted correctly in the film is a process of learning by which, no matter which school of thought you train under, the student always starts out with the most basic techniques before moving on to more advanced forms of technique as they become more advanced. This parallels the way in which many schools of learning are set up, not just Art School. However, the intensity of the beginning “training” strategies are both highly intensive in martial arts and the institutions of high art education; and in this sense one can find a strong parallel between the two. It is not until the student passes the tests within these two schools that he or she will be able to advance to the next level of difficulty.

When comparing the two schools in question, the equivalent of being able to cross a channel with buoyant logs in order to eat and feel nourished is the ability to be able to cope with the level of work provided in the foundations department. In most cases, being able to stay afloat [get it?] in an environment that requires countless hours of laborious art making is a skill not learned by individuals entering the institution from a high school background.  Coming from the low work requirement of high school art courses to the high level of work expected by foundations students is, I believe, a way to train new students for a life of hard labor and hard times as well as deter those individuals who are not willing to put forth the effort of dedicating all of ones time to the creation of ‘art’. The ability for a Shaolin student to be able to cross the log-filled water to reach the dining hall, in the barest sense, is an issue of survival. If you don’t learn how to cross the waterway, you don’t eat. As is seen in art schools across the country, if a student is unable to handle the rigorous program developed for incoming students, the reality of the student being able to handle an existence, even a meek one at that, is almost null.

“it’s peaceful in this temple but outside is turbulent”. This quote can be directly related to art schools and strictly academic institutions alike. However, for the sake of the argument, we will use Tyler School of Art as the main subject here. Younger individuals entering their first two years and progressing in their subsequent years do not realize that Tyler is a bubble. A big bubble, but nonetheless a bubble void of many of the dangers that lurk outside of the green hallways. For some the realization does not become apparent until a few years into their art school career, for others not until the end their art school career when they are thrown out into the real world and try to fuel their lives through art making. Being within Tyler’s boundaries a student is safe from having to support themselves financially, for one, and safe from the critical gaze of the art community or lack there of on the outside. Critiques of ones work abound the weekly lives of a Tyler art student, which some may look down upon now, but when you get out of school, finding someone who even has the time to sit down and talk about your work can be a challenge. There are some groups of like-minded artists that have been able to initiate the the gathering of critical minds to analyze and discuss art work in a group setting, but most of the information received by the author (me!) leads him to believe that this is not a common occurance.

The protagonists invention of his 3-part nunchuck was in response to not having the correct weapon in which to defeat his opponent. In the sense of art school, the ‘weapon’ can be viewed as certain problem solving skills or traditional art making techniques that may have to be altered to defeat ones ‘opponent’, or the problems that arise from the process of creating.

The idea of the ‘master’. The protagonist must fight and defeat the master in order to be able to oversee any chamber of his choice. In art school, the student’s ‘master’ can be viewed, in the deepest sense, as his or herself. Individuals can hold themselves back from their full potential if they do not over their habit-forming human nature. Many professors throughout Tyler have recounted that their job is to challenge and subvert students to apply themselves well outside their comfort range, forcing their hand in exploring themselves as people and as artists.

My 36th Chamber? In the film the protagonists 36th Chamber is his desire to educate those deemed unworthy of being trained by Shaolin monks, and teach individuals how to defend themselves from tyrannical leaders. I suppose my 36th Chamber would be created around the idea of how the fuck I’m giong to support myself within the “big picture”…not simply the two years following graduation, but the rest of life which is waiting to be dealt with/pounced on/lived/not-lived/etc etc etc.

Personally, creating ‘art’ as it is deemed by Tyler’s standards was never what I had in mind when entering art school. My sole purpose when deciding to attend Tyler was to learn the technical side of glass blowing, never to create conceptual work that lacked in technical skills but was strong in conceptual nature. I have been grateful to be able to explore the conceptual side of art making, but have found that I would rather live out my days as a craftsman rather than an artist who creates work relying heavily on the conceptual nature of their work and less on the technical abilities that they possess.

Thoughts “To Be Determined”

1. John Armleder’s view of artist vs. audience relationship is not one that expects much from the audience in terms of perception of art work. Armeleder is completely understanding and fine with the fact that any given individual attending a show or exhibition will most likely be unaware of the conceptual content backing the art work. In his mind, knowing everything behind the work is sometimes unnecessary and detracts from the experience. This fact does not bother him, and he openly states that different interpretations of his work are what he finds interesting.

2. “Most important, I’ve never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself”                                                                                                      I think that when an artist chooses to express a certain idea through their preferred visual expression, the idea can be interpreted by an audience in a number of different ways due to the viewers own personal experiences. A viewer will always  relate a work and seek understanding in an art work through their own mind, which has been shaped and molded by their experiences and understanding of the world they live in. The artist specifically states that he himself does not contemplate his work extensively, because his interpretation of the work will change over time. I agree with this notion, and am intrigued by the fact that Armleder can be so honest and straight forward in an interview that will be read by a lot of individuals heavily involved in the contemporary art movement. In my own work, I express my conceptual content to the best of my own abilities, yet it is inevitable that others looking at my work will interpret the work with connections to their own experiences.

8. Armleder mentions that part of his work in one of his exhibitions is “psudo-intelligent”. By this he specifically states that he means that a work is “sort of trying and failing to be smart”. He is speaking in reference to his ready-made objects that are piled in corner in a manner in which one might believe they were to be discarded if they were not located within the context of an art gallery. I think that this is an interesting idea, but I do not agree with this form of art making. Or better put, I do not understand this form of art making. Although I have been in art school for four years, I still have yet to really understand a lot of conceptual work that I have seen. When I do not understand work, I usually do not like it. This might seem a little ridiculous, but how am I supposed to know if I like something on a conceptual level if I cannot comprehend the meaning of the work? I can definitely appreciate aesthetic values of work I do not understand, but that is as far as my appreciation extends.

9. I would most certainly not be interested in creating work such as Armleder does in the “dot painting room”. He is basically creating a show where he showcases a bunch of other artists work, with a small inclusion of his own dot painting and portraying it in his own show as his own work. A lot of big name artists in the contemporary art fields of today (Dale Chilhuly is a prime example) are involved in the making of their work only through providing the conceptual ideas, not the physical execution of the work itself. For myself as a maker and an artist, the physical process of making is one of the most important aspects of being an artist. I find it sneaky and fake, in a sense, for an artist to come up with an idea and be almost completely uninvolved in the physical execution of the idea. Obviously this is a common and accepted practice in the contemporary art world, and a lot of individuals support it. Professors in the fine art educational institutions in Philadelphia even suggest this practice to their students. The strong detest I hold for this avenue of art making does come from the fact that I am a maker more so than a conceptual artist, but this idea seems to be a cop-out in a sense.

11. I believe that there are always situations in which either explanation or confusion are viable tools for visual expression. Personally, I think explanation of work vs. confusing the audience is a choice that needs to be made in correlation to the work itself. If the intent of a work is to explain a phenomena and make the viewer question something, then confusion is a valid form of forcing the viewer to use their brains. If I am trying to express an idea to the viewer that is of a more serious nature, then attempting to explain the content of the work through the way in which the work is created is the way to go.

12. I think that John Armleder’s way in which he creates work in correlation to his audience is interesting, smart, and viable. He states that when putting on a show, he “does it first and foremost for [himself]…”, then for the person who is currating the space, followed by the individual who has absolutely no background or understanding of contemporary art, and finally for those individuals in the contemporary art world who have an understanding of what is being expressed/portrayed/understood in a work. I think the way in which one creates work should always be first and foremost for the creator. An artist should never be creating work to conform to the likes and tastes of those he or she seeks to please. Art is expression of oneself. Therefore, one should create, first and foremost, strictly for his or her own benefit. I believe the hierarchy following the creation of work for himself is really a personal decision. I do find if very intriguing that the artist puts the “uneducated” (in terms of education that a contemporary art critic holds) individual before people who have somewhat of an understanding of contemporary art. Although I do not know how a lot of other contemporary artists create and the hierarchy in which they like their work to be viewed, I find Armleder’s approach worth contemplating in terms of my own work.

[First] Second Visit

I have always been attracted to Constantin Brancusi’s sculptural work. I recall the first time I saw his “Bird in Space” I was very intrigued and needed to find out more. For this museum trip I could not return to the gallery in New York, so I visited the Philadelphia Art Museum and bee-lined for the contemporary wing of the museum straight to Brancusi’s work. A piece I had never really paid that much attention to caught my eye on that beautiful Sunday afternoon: “ Mademoiselle Pogany III”. The work is created out of a solid piece of marble, so it has the classic off white texture that is the material of marble. The color of this work was not really the main factor in my affinity for this work, although I feel that the material choice is perfect for this sculpture. As for the scent of the work..it does not really have a smell. Whatever marble smells like, thats it; moreover, it does not affect me as a viewer.

Other visitors who were walking through the museum were much more interested in the works surrounding the small Brancusi exhibit (mostly 2D work), so the conversation directed towards Brancusi’s sculptures was absolutely non-existent (which is kind of ridiculous, that people who seemed like/were pretending to be really into the ‘art work’ just walked by some of the best work in the museum). In comparison to the other sculpture surrounding the work in question, “Mademoiselle Pogany III” was on the smaller side situated next to “Bird in Space”.

All in all, I have not visited the PMA in a while, and being inside the building was very refreshing and being able to see Brancusi’s work up close once again was refreshing for myself and my work as I am always influenced by his forms when thinking about my own work in glass in relation to sculptural work.

‘The Revelation of a Serqet

 

Hunter College/Times Square Gallery

450 West 41st Street
(between 9th & 10th Avenue)
New York, NY 10036

URL to view work in question:

http://ambercowan.com/artwork/1695781_The_Revelation_of_a_Serqet.html (the artists website).

 

Amber Cowan’s flameworked glass piece entitled “The Revelation of a Serqet” was shown at the Vegabondage. a show that opened at the Hunter College/Times Square Gallery in New York, NY this past weekend. Amber’s piece features hundreds of flameworked glass pieces, as well as varied mixed media. The size of the piece is about three feet by three feet, quite a large square shape infused with hundreds of parts creating a whirlpool-like effect of glass that just sucks one in. A viewer would be hard pressed not to study the work intricately and obsessively for a long period of time; such is the nature of this piece. Hunter College/Times Square Gallery is a spacious gallery, the walls being adorned with work of MFA students from surrounding fine art programs.  Within the walls of the gallery, even though there was much work to be seen and contemplated, the piece in question was situated on a wall all by itself. The effect on surrounding work was next to non-existent. However, the tranquil pastels and high key tones used throughout most of the piece give one a calm feeling. When viewing this piece one will take note that there is a slight discourse in the piece from the bigger picture: the low key tones used in the lower left hand side of the work. Although the material and medium do not change, Amber uses color effectively to lead the eye to a focal point. In terms of viewing the piece and its effect on the rest of the room, I do not believe it had a profound effect on the gallery as a space.

The work was created late in the year 2010 leading into the new year (2011!). After months and months of work, all was finally complete. I feel that the work really stood out from the rest of the work in gallery because it really pulls the viewer in to investigate and contemplate the conceptual process behind the work. To this day, I still could not come to a conclusion on this topic unless I were to read a direct artist statement from the artist. When looking closely, one will notice a vast color palette of high tones and pastel colors, yet in the larger scheme of the piece all of the different colors seem to blend together to form a seamless narrative aesthetically. The individual pieces throughout the work encompass small spheres of glass all the way up to larger scale pieces that almost resemble feathers, but with much more action and life, even in their static, real-life state. While we’re on this topic… the piece is as lively and filled with motion (not literally of course, but if you just look at the work you could probably imagine being swept in and out of all the small cavities of negative space and all of the small niches and valleys created by the individual glass objects) and emotion as one could imagine.

All in all there is not much to dislike about “The Revelation of a Serqet”, unless the viewer completely dislikes fine craftsmanship, glass, and a beautifully choreographed color palette. Staying on topic as much as possible, one should also consider the craft of the piece. If one did not know how the piece was created (how it all goes together, without any of the glass falling out/off!) they would be hard pressed to come to the knowledge of how it was done. The craft within this work is top notch, so all in all I cannot find one thing that I dislike the piece (other than it not being in possession and on the wall of my apartment for years to come). Amber is an MFA student at Tyler at the present time, in her second year of grad school. Looking back at her work when she first came into the department, I feel like this piece is the most scintillating that I have seen since she arrived one and half years ago. Although not a hugely famous established artist, I feel that work created to this caliber should be shown to as many people as possible.

Quote response.

“The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. And it’s not a joke! And if it doesn’t, then it’s not art, it’s a commodity.” – Lawrence Weiner.

I do not necessarily agree with this statement. Different work has different effects on the psyche of different individuals. Personally it takes a lot for me to be highly affected by a piece of work, and I have been to a lot of shows/openings/and such. For me to adopt the attitude that the work I have seen since being at school (inside and outside of school) is all just a commodity due to it having no effect on me would be insulting to the maker or the creator.
I think this comment deals more with the super conceptual nature of artwork, which not every artist is hype about. If one creates work with purposeful and well thought out intent, then it should be considered a piece of ‘art work’. Moreover, comments on this topic could stray into the ‘what is art?’ area, but I don’t think there is a definite answer for a lot of individuals on this subject.
For me, as long as an artist creates work that affects his or herself emotionally, intellectually, etc, then it should be considered art and not be put down as solely being a ‘commodity’.