(Get it? Shades?--nobody groan.)
Here is a link to a blog about the mural that the Los Angeles Police Department commissioned Birk to paint inside their headquarters:
http://superpunch.blogspot.com/2008/03/lapd-hired-sandow-birk-to-create-mural.html
Let's just say Birk deviated from the original sketch and treated topics the LAPD would never have OKed, ala Dante-style.
Are you attracted to art with an edge? In other words, does your aesthetic desire works of art, literature, and music that touch upon the controversial, the angst-ridden, the unsolved and disenfranchised? Or do you prefer art that soothes and calms--rather than instigates. Please comment.
44 comments:
I personally feel as though I am attracted to the more controversial pieces of art. I feel like these days people need a reality check and not be so polically correct. It just makes me think about that whole thing with Obama making a speech aimed at students about staying in school and working hard, and parents were throwing a fit. Its just silly. I think artwork, especially in the public sense like the mural for the LAPD is an excellent way to strongly inspire a controversial message.
After looking at the mural and reading the blog comment, do you have any idea, little fishie, what kind of controversial message Birk was going for? Also--what about the Obama speech? I'm not sure that I understand the connection. Was what Obama said controversial or were people creating controversy from nothing? Or hiding their racist agenda behind their objections?
First, I didn't see how the Obama issue connected either... but I do think that people created that controversy over nothing. I definetely think people were expressing their angst (either racial or other) through their rejection of his message. If the President of the United States wants to address public school students- then he should have the right to.
Second, as for the art, I typically go for more controversial or edgier artwork and music. While occasionally I feel the need to relax or be calm by looking at art, I usually enjoy more controversial topics that make me think and question my opinions. I took art history a couple of years ago, and I enjoyed the edgier, more profound work that could be appreciated best when looking through a psychoanalytic lens. While I am positive that there is plenty of merit in paintings of water lillies and deer, art that portrays something much more than meets the eye is more appealing to me.
It's the same with music. While a good beat often deems a song "good," the lyrics are just as important to me, if not more so than the rhythm. A song can send any message- one of change, love, confusion, hate, and joy. I prefer songs that teach me something or make me want to change or learn or think.
I really dislike art with a message. I mean it really depends but for the most part if the message is blunt and in your face, then I'm not a huge fan. I will use the new route that U2 chose to take to emphasize this. These are lyrics to U2's get on your boots
Night is falling everywhere
Rockets at the fun fair
Satan loves a bomb scare
But he won't scare you
Hey, sexy boots
Get on your boots, yeah
You free me from the dark dream
Candy floss ice cream
All our kids are screaming
But the ghosts aren't real
I get the message, but I just don't think conveying it in this way, especially if you have heard the song, is at all appealing. They just want a shocking message so people will listen to them. That is why I prefer the soft artist's edge who does art for themselves without drastically trying to change the world. Now U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday has a message, but the song is also beautiful and not forced. I also think putting political messages in art is a cowards way of adressing a problem without doing any labor to fix it. We understand there are problems but just saying there is a problem over and over does not make it go away. "Be the change you wish to see in the world." Not say the change you wish to see.
It depends on the medium, in painting I prefer soft art, as it seems to me to require a higher degree of skill then most controversial work I think of, while in photography i definitely prefer social or controversial themes. In painting I most like Sargent for his astounding ability to capture exactly how people look through his brush, while in photography I do enjoy the work of Dorothea Lange because of how moving it is and how it captures a moment in history so well. In response to above me i think art is not intended to change things, but to depict them as they are and it can immortalize the changes that do happen in the world. A notable example would be Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" exemplifies the 60's in an amazing way.
Birk’s work shows people a new way to look at L.A, just as literature or art may demonstrate opinions based on the onlooker’s beliefs.
When I look at art or literature I am drawn to pieces that possess information hidden beneath the words I read or the pictures I see. The different controversies a piece may contain inspire me to think beyond what most people see at first glance. Take the painting “She-Wolf” by Jackson Pollock for example. At first glance, a viewer may only see blobs of paint splattered all over a canvas. However, when I look closer and through different lenses, I see different symbols that tell the story of the painting. The various symbols could offend one viewer and excite another. It all depends. This is why I like controversial paintings! It creates discussion about different beliefs. Dante’s Inferno is a prime example of a controversial subject- Heaven and Hell. It let’s us in to each other’s beliefs about afterlife and allows us to agree and disagree based on what we believe. I also appreciate having the ability to voice things that may not have been seen before by others.
However, when I listen to music I prefer a completely opposite approach. I like to be able to understand what the music means just by listening to the lyrics rather than depict what each single word means using the author’s past or core issues. For example the song by the White Stripes can be picked apart into its true meaning but I just like listening to the beat and musical instruments. Not having to pay attention to every little detail is relaxing to me. Others may get more out of music but I value music for its ability to calm me.
Birk’s work shows people a new way to look at L.A, just as literature or art may demonstrate opinions based on the onlooker’s beliefs.
When I look at art or literature I am drawn to pieces that possess information hidden beneath the words I read or the pictures I see. The different controversies a piece may contain inspire me to think beyond what most people see at first glance. Take the painting “She-Wolf” by Jackson Pollock for example. At first glance, a viewer may only see blobs of paint splattered all over a canvas. However, when I look closer and through different lenses, I see different symbols that tell the story of the painting. The various symbols could offend one viewer and excite another. It all depends. This is why I like controversial paintings! It creates discussion about different beliefs. Dante’s Inferno is a prime example of a controversial subject- Heaven and Hell. It let’s us in to each other’s beliefs about afterlife and allows us to agree and disagree based on what we believe. I also appreciate having the ability to voice things that may not have been seen before by others.
However, when I listen to music I prefer a completely opposite approach. I like to be able to understand what the music means just by listening to the lyrics rather than depict what each single word means using the author’s past or core issues. For example the song by the White Stripes can be picked apart into its true meaning but I just like listening to the beat and musical instruments. Not having to pay attention to every little detail is relaxing to me. Others may get more out of music but I value music for its ability to calm me.
I think that any artist expressing a problem in thier work is a great way to give the problem more attention. This way maybe a different type of peolple would here the issue and understand that something needs to be done about it. If a problem is that important the more publicity it gets the better. I don't think that many artists put world issues into their pieces just for attention.
I enjoy my music with an edge. It releives me of any anger or stress that i have built up throughout the day. I also use it to get pumped up for my games. But at the same time it relaxes me. This might not be normal. Am i allowed to say HaHa, or is that not for blogs?
As an aspiring artist myself I take a great deal of knowlegde from what others can portray on such pieces like this. For an artists to hide his or her issues into their work gives it more depth and allows others to try and figure it out themselves.
I like the concept of hiding the true purpose in the art. It makes you think well should I be angry, happy, or sad? Should I make a public scene about how it's so stupid or offending? No. What I trying to say is instead of how the meaning can cause a controversy, it could just be a spark of creativity.
But if that artist chose the meaning to start a problem, to have that art express it that way is just what makes that kind of art interesting and more influencal that people will look at it and try to resolve it.
lol, I'm pretty sure you can say "haha" or whatever on this blog.
I like artists to "stir the pot" and create controversial pieces of art/music. I agree that it gives the problem or issue more attention. Someone might become interested in a problem they never realized existed if it's represented in a song by their favorite artist. Using these controversial issues in music also gives a very strong expression of the artist, and that's what art is, an expression of self.
Oh and the user, between the bars, I was confused by your post. You say you "dislike art with a message", but I assume your username is a reference to the song by Elliot Smith.(or maybe I'm wrong?) Elliot Smith puts a lot of messages in his music, or to the say the least he would definitely be "edgy". Most of his songs deal with some pretty dark issues too like depression and drug addiction. He's an amazing musician though, one of my favorites.
In reference to my earlier post, I was refering to people making controversy out of nothing. Much like the people did in the news stories I read linked to this mural. A woman was offended because a women "was drying clothes on a bush". Is this really such a huge deal?
so i think i see the connection with the obama speech...it seems people are making a big deal out of nothing lately, with the obama speech (which my uncle is huge on the "anti-obama" thing, so i heard ALL about it) everyone made a big deal that he was talking in schools well just because your the president does that take away from you first amendment rights? quite frankly who cares...
and when i look at something im not a big fan of things where the message sticks out i like more of something that you to "read between the lines" to understand, something that makes you have to really think about it before you understand what the person is trying to get across
froggie frog--can you give us an example of a work of art or literature that you have enjoyed or respected--one that you had to read between the lines to understand? Can you explain?
I lean towards the idea of nonobjective painting, paintings that don't secure any meaning, I like to view art as an energy, an energy that dispels all of the hype about what art should or has been about, I want to look at the painting and not know what I see, because in a world where nothing is certain, this painting should reflect that, each medium used is brought together in synchronicity, not meant to be together, but not meant to be apart either, expressing the confusion and mayhem that every second of life produces, I am not a beatnik, nor an art enthusiast, but I believe art falls into two categories, pointless art that has all the meaning in its uselessness, and worldly art that has meaning to a certain group for a certain time, a predestined expiration date of purpose.
"pointless art that has all the meaning in its uselessness"
im sorry, but there is some pretty dumb art out there. I really don't think that the "Red Blue Chair" at the St. Louis Art Museum is really something to behold. And yes, it is a chair that is painted red and blue. here are some nice excerps of art babble obout the significance of this amazing piece of work.
"This semiotic object, the actual design product, contains in itself as a sign many connotations such as the intentions of the designer, the commercial and social implications, etc.. It is however, unlike what one would expect, not the central, pivoting, sign of the semiotic tree because the main organizing factor is reserved for the fifth sign, the diagrammatic representation of the designers argument"
I have no idea what that says. Here's another.
"As often in semantics, our search for meaning in Rietveld's formal expressions reveals an apparent traditional social pattern suggesting that the fundaments of human culture are reducible to a few schematic polar categories. This, by the way, is also my fundamental critic to current marketing: to reduce variety of phenomena's of reality"
To relate to our critical theory book this is a perfect example of language being use to exclude those who do not understand it. The red blue chair is a chair, not art, no matter how many schematic polar categories it involves.
Here is a Calvin and Hobbes strip that goes along with this.
http://s883.photobucket.com/albums/ac36/advlitsurpics/?action=view¤t=scan0014.jpg
I got those excerpts from
http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/4217/red_bluechair.html
in case you were wondering play-doh
Pretty amusing display name, Display Name. Ummm, I'm not going to pretend that I understand the excerpts you quoted--but I do have an idea about what they concern--and I think that I could probably decode those excerpts with a little time, effort, and help. They have to do with semiotics (did you look this up?), signs, symbols and signifiers. I'd be a little careful about scorning that which you don't immediately understand. That kind of attitude can come back to bite you in the butt--as it has me many times before. Just because you don't understand it now, doesn't mean it wont' click later.
In regards to display name, How can that which has no intellect be classified as "dumb"? What I merely stated was that I saw potential meaning in the meaningless, I'm not sure what you meant by "dumb" art, also why do you quote me then apply irrelevant points? I am confused as to you criticism of me, please explain, I enjoy seeing myself from another standpoint. I also agree with play-doh, maybe if we decipher these excerpts before we post them sporadically there might be a better understanding of them.
I 100% agree with Chrisse! I thought censorship was a thing of the past. I understand Obama and Dante arent really related at all, but he is the President and I think that if he feels he needs to address America's young people, then he should be able to. Black, white, conservative or liberal, these issues that he speaks to us about affect EVERYONE and we should be educated on them, rather than live our lives in ignorance.
art will not save you from starvation, you can not eat it, you can not drink it, some could server as shelter but most cant, so art is useless in a phsical sence. its only value is in the viewers emtional reaction. if art elicits no reaction at all, if the view finds no value in it then it is dumb, worthless, useless without meaning. this means I am agreeing with paradigumdude above me. that art can have meaning in its uslessness, but its useless only ina physical sence, only if the art has no emothional value is it useless. and dispaly name, do make relevent points, it makes for more interessting conversation
Art is art. It doesn't matter if it is controversial or an issue that is getting publicity. People think that what they believe is the right way. No piece of art is going to change their minds. For me I like art that has a story behind it. I like to know what the artist was going through at the time to create their piece of work.
On the contrary goonie, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't writing an art?, How about speech craft? So you mean to tell me you have developed an opinion about everything without ever using an external source such as a book or talking to someone? If you have then, I pledge my awe to you, you are amazing, but if you are like the rest of the world, then someone through written word or speech has influenced you, and those my friend, are works of art, so may I suggest you evaluate your view point before ignorantly sharing it with the blog?
With regards to anonymous, I like your interpretation of my viewpoint, I believe that in general, we do share the same outlook, intriguing, no?
With regards to all, I don't mean to negatively criticize the posts on this blog, but I enjoy my ability to reveal my true finesse behind this mask I use to identify myself here, and I take prolonged caution in every post, being as nonobjective as possible, but when someone posts as a casual hobby, giving no form of readable intellect, I become irate, because I give a piece of myself in every thing I create, I want to see some new thoughts, not just general overstatements and vague ideas that have no viable source. But indeed, I do apologize beforehand for any feelings damaged, by the viper that is my tongue.
Thank you for your perspective, anonymous. You always provide a well thought out, valid and often overlooked point.
Goonie, you make a great point about liking to know what an artist is going through when he/she creates it--that would be the psychoanalytic viewpoint we've been talking about. And also--there is also a way to approach a work of art where you remove the artist as a person from the equation.
Yo--paradigm, I'm going to have to identify everyone early and close the blog to anything unpredictable if you don't observe the proper blog etiquette. If you're going for a sort of 18th century voice "the viper that is my tongue", it's kind of amusing, but remember to try to get to make your point clearly. I'm not really sure that you explained how art is meaningful in its uselessness. Anonymous kind of helped you out. You do raise an interesting question--how do we tell whether something is art or not? And goonie touched upon an attitude that is starting to prevail in our culture--there are no set objective standards. "Everyone is going to believe what he/she wants to believe."
Personally, I like when art is screaming with controversy. I used to not understand it at all. Now that I have looked past the art and into the true meaning, it makes a lot of sense. Many people may look at it judgmentally and take it for granted. I, however find peace within the controversy of art. On the other hand, I like more soothing music. Music that has softer tones and the words are loudest, not the instruments.
Play-doh thank you for understanding where I am coming from. I also do look at art without the artist back ground information, it is just a preference. As for paradigm, this is a school blog, take a chill pill.
Very well, I do not wish to destroy privacy in the blog, I will oblige and tone down my outspokenness, I apologize in all my entirety.
Within pieces of art you find puzzles and questions that make you think, I believe that these visual stimuli are the most provocative.
As for music, I love soothing music with beats that are more noticeable than vocals. Such as some rap songs specifically by Tupac Shakur (yes great man), also Raphael Saadiq. Although soothing music can calm the nerves and help you "chill out" everyone loves a fast paced song, loud and obnoxiosly pulsing through your headphones or speakers.
I agree with doggie dog, that art should be a puzzle. That's kind of how i interpret the idea of "controversial" art. It's not so much a political thing as much as a controversy between viewers and partakers of the art. how someone sees the background of the art and interprets its meaning and purpose is where the controversy comes from. Art and music with boldly apparent or hiding controversy is wonderful.
It would be interesting if those commenting used examples of songs/paintings/writing to illustrate their points!
Personally I tend to like art pieces that are more contraversial and tell a story or the struggles or triumphs of a people, country, or even the artist themselves. I think it gives good insight to what was going on at that time or how a person or a group of people felt.
I like art that doesnt always tell you exactly whats going on in the piece right away and makes you think about it for a little bit.In Spanish last year, one of my projects was to look up a famous Spanish artist and I chose Joan Miro. I think his art is very abstract and could be interpreted in many ways.
Some of his pieces depict specific things like a dog or a chicken, while others show scenery or a mix of random things. I like that kind of art that can be interpreted for each person based on their own views and ideas about things. Maybe one person sees a painting one way, while another sees a different thing.
I think sometimes artists can also leave pieces open for interpretation to the viewer and other times they are trying to send a certain message reflected through their own life or things that might have been happening at that time in history.
Sometimes simple things such as a chair or a dog might really mean something to an artist or may have had a great impact on their life. For example, they might have painted a chair because it was handed down to them as a child from their grandfather, or a dog because it could have been the artists favorite childhood friend, etc.
take Kathe Kollowitz's "Death Seizing a Woman"
I would consider this piece controversial. One could say it is death of her true self or identity. It could also been seen as if she is protecting the child in her arms. It's pretty open to interpretation- and i love it. Why did she draw this, and why is it in black and white? All of these things make this work of art a "controversial" piece.
Play-doh as for art I believe it applies to every piece. Although, one example is Bathers with a Turtle. The three figures seem to be focused on the turle, why?
As for songs an example for Raphael Saadiq is "love that girl" and Tupac both "Dont You Trust Me" and "Ghetto Gospel". All four references fantastic pieces of work
I love that you guys are providing examples--also small explications or explanations would be useful to--or even links to the paintings/songs themselves. That makes for developed ideas and good writing! This blog is starting to get really interesting.
has anyone taken into consideration that art is also an exhibition of a persons talent. whether through painting, music, writing, art is a way for people to show what they have accomplished. its not only about what the artist is trying to convey but how well they convey it.
I agree with uhh...whatever that name says...the guy above me. But I think that art is not just in is the sill of the presentation but also the originality of thought that led to the presentation. Because many people have skill and can copy someone elses work, but few can come up with a truly original masterpiece, and I think it is the thought as well as the, as you say "conveyance", that is what makes art.
I don't know what semiotics are, but I do know that when you inspect things too much you completely miss the big picture. I do know that people will always do what they are told. If someone says something is great, everyone else follows. If there is a piece of art in the art museum, it has to have meaning. I disagree. You can put all of the words you want on this chair and say all you want about it and decipher it for hours. The truth is trying to figure out the meaning of a chair is trying to figure out what x+1=. You honestly have no idea. You could come up with 2 trillion ideas but who knows what the artist was thinking when he did that. So whats the point of trying. I looked up semiotics and all it says is its the relationship of symbols and meanings. Nothing about red and nothing about blue. So who really knows and whats the point of art if it really has no point?
I love the way Powdered Cellulose piggybacked his/her blog post off of Symbol Dude(ess). Original message and skill. . . hmmmmm.
between the bars, I would ask, once again, why author's intent is so important. My basic understanding of semiotics is that things in themselves are not their signs and symbols. For example you, your essence is not between the bars. It's just your screen name. Same thing when we look at a piece of art. So we all agree-that's a chair. We all agree that chair, in English, signifies what that blue and red thing is. But then it gets interesting--because is a chair the same thing to all of us? If you take a chair away from a table and you put it in a museum, how does it change?
Also--I think the point is that there isn't one point. There are many points--that doesn't mean, just because there isn't one answer or interpretation, that the whole point has been missed!
between the bars you have said exactly what i have been wanting to say but have not been able to find the right words thank you so much. That explaining something does not make it art is what i was trying to get at with my previous post. though after much interpretation, looking up words and research it appears to me the red blue chair uses symbolism extensively on purpose eg. the red back represents the vertical and is more masculine. thought i can not find why this symbolism was used, i now look more favorable upon this piece of art, though i still feel that if the explanation is so obscure it takes away from the pieces meaning.
also, this has kind of gotten onto the topic of "what is art" we know it when we see it, in front of a building, on a wall, in a garden, but its definition is hard to pin down. there are many things considered art, from the art of baking to painting. personally i think art has to include three things.
1. skill
2. purpose
3. originality
the skill is of course the artist ability to show their thoughts and bring fourth a specific reaction, though not always in a direct way.
purpose is the artists intention of the art, whether to entertain, express thoughts or ideas, or as a show of skill.
originality is simply the fact that it is a new thought and has not been done before, though it can be inspired by a source, it is not copied.
please post any additions or things that you see wrong with this.
yo, i dont see the meaning in the red blue chair at all, i mean cmon, its a chair, wheres the meaning in that i see none. oh, unless apparently there is symbolism in the colors, but why make a chair if its not going to be sat in? why not give it to some poor person instead of making some critique on the meaning of symbols in life?
just thought of an example of something i would not consider art, but would love to use to make money by calling it art, i would call it
"thoughts and impressions on the point of nothingness"
it would be a 15'x20' wooden frame, with nothing in in it, just a frame, i think i could convince someone to buy it for a fairly hefty sum even thought it took pretty much zero effort and thought and anyone could do it.
the point is, if the artist doesnt consider it art, but others do, is it art?
Well, you know what I'm going to say, Display Name--if your empty frame causes someone to contemplate the meaining of life, the universe, and everything--or even if your empty frame causes someone to question, "what is art"--then it's art, baby, by my definition!
Post a Comment