Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Sir Breathy the toilet, is broken.
Ok, I'll come clean. I think I may have provided the catalyst for our clogged toilet. With paper towel. And I'm sorry! I'm really sorry!
But enough amnesty... I had a bizarre moment yesterday in my art history 256 class where I realized something sort of contradictory had occurred in my head and caused a short circuit.
I have no written proof, but it is rumoured on the nerd-vine that Jackson Pollock produced some fractals in his time. Now, given that Pollock was one of the biggest forerunners of the Abstract expressionism movement, it was striking me as odd.
But first, some review: Abstract expressionism, is (and this is a really shitty general summary because it's more than this) a basic abandonment of figurative qualities in art, and a signifier (*cough* this is somewhat heresay) of the slow death art is undergoing. When I say figurative qualities, I mean that abstract expressionism is a rejection of naturalism, which uses figures from nature which would refer to fractal also. Not only that, but you could almost argue that a fractal is like 'square one' of the building blocks in the natural world.
I've fully accepted though too, that I could just be making an immense ass out of myself with all this, because if you asked me about the math behind a fractal at this point, I'd still be at a loss for words somewhat.
Finally however, there is the question of how Abstract Expressionism is interpreted by the viewer. There are six possible "voices" one can take upon themselves when considering these works.
storytelling: Try and think of the story this painting is offering us (the story that you think the painting holds)
searching for figuration: This is basically what it depicts, except it is still pretty subjective, as what I might consider to be a figure (that is, from the natural realm) may not appear as a figure to someone else. In the case of Pollock, you have the license to invent your own "Magic-Eye."
feeling the spiritual: Let the painting stick it's fingers into the pants of your soul, and then tell people how that made you feel. Subjective. Actually seriously, Kandinsky used to propose that the point of abstract expressionism to the reader was to help them overcome a particular habit of mind.
responding to effects: Overcoming the habits of your mind in regards to storytelling, searching for figuration, and feeling the spiritual in a work of art, and actually looking at formal characteristics and effects of the painting (eg: how painterly is the work?). This is actually the primary mode of looking at Abstract Expressionism.
uncovering meanings: This supposes that the paintings hold meaning to begin with, and endorses the idea that there is a process of social interpretation going on (social/political events) in the time of the artist's conception and production of the work.
playing with texts: This...as far as I can understand it, has something to do with interpreting a piece of art in relation to a canon. Seems strange, and not very straightforward.
All in all....I guess I'm wondering which mode of interpretation that whoever decided Pollocok was painting fractals, was using. Because they are incredibly subjective for the most part. Or, if they were even using one of these modes of discourse. ¶ 8:35 PM
Ok, I'll come clean. I think I may have provided the catalyst for our clogged toilet. With paper towel. And I'm sorry! I'm really sorry!But enough amnesty... I had a bizarre moment yesterday in my art history 256 class where I realized something sort of contradictory had occurred in my head and caused a short circuit.
I have no written proof, but it is rumoured on the nerd-vine that Jackson Pollock produced some fractals in his time. Now, given that Pollock was one of the biggest forerunners of the Abstract expressionism movement, it was striking me as odd.
But first, some review: Abstract expressionism, is (and this is a really shitty general summary because it's more than this) a basic abandonment of figurative qualities in art, and a signifier (*cough* this is somewhat heresay) of the slow death art is undergoing. When I say figurative qualities, I mean that abstract expressionism is a rejection of naturalism, which uses figures from nature which would refer to fractal also. Not only that, but you could almost argue that a fractal is like 'square one' of the building blocks in the natural world.
I've fully accepted though too, that I could just be making an immense ass out of myself with all this, because if you asked me about the math behind a fractal at this point, I'd still be at a loss for words somewhat.
Finally however, there is the question of how Abstract Expressionism is interpreted by the viewer. There are six possible "voices" one can take upon themselves when considering these works.
storytelling: Try and think of the story this painting is offering us (the story that you think the painting holds)
searching for figuration: This is basically what it depicts, except it is still pretty subjective, as what I might consider to be a figure (that is, from the natural realm) may not appear as a figure to someone else. In the case of Pollock, you have the license to invent your own "Magic-Eye."
feeling the spiritual: Let the painting stick it's fingers into the pants of your soul, and then tell people how that made you feel. Subjective. Actually seriously, Kandinsky used to propose that the point of abstract expressionism to the reader was to help them overcome a particular habit of mind.
responding to effects: Overcoming the habits of your mind in regards to storytelling, searching for figuration, and feeling the spiritual in a work of art, and actually looking at formal characteristics and effects of the painting (eg: how painterly is the work?). This is actually the primary mode of looking at Abstract Expressionism.
uncovering meanings: This supposes that the paintings hold meaning to begin with, and endorses the idea that there is a process of social interpretation going on (social/political events) in the time of the artist's conception and production of the work.
playing with texts: This...as far as I can understand it, has something to do with interpreting a piece of art in relation to a canon. Seems strange, and not very straightforward.
All in all....I guess I'm wondering which mode of interpretation that whoever decided Pollocok was painting fractals, was using. Because they are incredibly subjective for the most part. Or, if they were even using one of these modes of discourse. ¶ 8:35 PM
Comments:
<< Home
1. you should have taken 256 last year with stephen harris. He was good. My friends tell me that the new person is not nearly as good (in particular that one abstract expressionist class was bad I hear or something. All showing photos of the people rather than their work. all showing dubuffet's work in black and white.)
2. It's entirely possible for pollock to do multiple types of painting, despite what he is known for. For sure he made other work before that, and possibly afterward. In any case, fractals are not the abstract expressionist work that he is known for. So you don't need to apply the same rules to them.
3. Not all possible fractals appear in nature and in any case their presence is not of the kind normally referred to in "naturalistic" painting. Of course, if you have the background, they make a reference to certain kinds of theory.
4. I disagree with yr "voices" business. 1 and 2 are not applicable at all - except possibly #1 if you look at historical context rather than content, something which abstract-expressionist thought and the schools that it spawned are more-or-less totally against. Yes, formalism is the basis of abstract expressionism, based on how it has become the central method of critiquing art (and the only one universally applicable, at least to painting). Meh. There is a lot of emotional/intellectual rhetoric that goes along with that too. Much of it is bunk, midcentury modernist thought. Don't let the fact that you live in alberta, the canadian capitol of a certain kind of backwardsness and closed-mindedness about art (peter hyde and graham peacock have something to do with this, but it's not all them). Re: the last one, art is just as intertextual as writing.
5. But what am I actually saying here?
Um. Fractals are nice to look at. They have strong formal rules. They reference various things depending on how much you know. How much does working what exactly out really help you to appreciate them?
Look at art. Maybe do some research. Don't waste time on "voices" when you could be deciding whether something is good or bad art.
Holy crap I just wrote a lot of rant about nothing. I don't even have a vaguely coherent thesis in that whole thing. Geeze.
2. It's entirely possible for pollock to do multiple types of painting, despite what he is known for. For sure he made other work before that, and possibly afterward. In any case, fractals are not the abstract expressionist work that he is known for. So you don't need to apply the same rules to them.
3. Not all possible fractals appear in nature and in any case their presence is not of the kind normally referred to in "naturalistic" painting. Of course, if you have the background, they make a reference to certain kinds of theory.
4. I disagree with yr "voices" business. 1 and 2 are not applicable at all - except possibly #1 if you look at historical context rather than content, something which abstract-expressionist thought and the schools that it spawned are more-or-less totally against. Yes, formalism is the basis of abstract expressionism, based on how it has become the central method of critiquing art (and the only one universally applicable, at least to painting). Meh. There is a lot of emotional/intellectual rhetoric that goes along with that too. Much of it is bunk, midcentury modernist thought. Don't let the fact that you live in alberta, the canadian capitol of a certain kind of backwardsness and closed-mindedness about art (peter hyde and graham peacock have something to do with this, but it's not all them). Re: the last one, art is just as intertextual as writing.
5. But what am I actually saying here?
Um. Fractals are nice to look at. They have strong formal rules. They reference various things depending on how much you know. How much does working what exactly out really help you to appreciate them?
Look at art. Maybe do some research. Don't waste time on "voices" when you could be deciding whether something is good or bad art.
Holy crap I just wrote a lot of rant about nothing. I don't even have a vaguely coherent thesis in that whole thing. Geeze.
LOL...yeah, showing dubuffet's work in black and white was definately a high point...LOL.
Anyways...several good points man, thanks.
As for the "voices" thing, you're right. I also think that all other ways of looking at AE are bunk, other than a formalistic approach. Like, seriously.
And yes, thanks for the clarity in regards to the fractals. I never fully think these things out before I rant on them, methinks.
Post a Comment
Anyways...several good points man, thanks.
As for the "voices" thing, you're right. I also think that all other ways of looking at AE are bunk, other than a formalistic approach. Like, seriously.
And yes, thanks for the clarity in regards to the fractals. I never fully think these things out before I rant on them, methinks.
<< Home
