Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DEPARTMENT OF ART AND ART PROFESSIONS
LINKS
SUNAIRI SUPER BLOG ARCHIVE
SUNAIRI SUPER LINK
- Aakash Nihalani
- aakash nihalani and his work site
- Aakash Nihalani projects
- Aakshi Nihalani Frost Free
- Ashley Martin
- Brent hallard
- center for urban pedagogy
- Emily Coxe in her own words
- Hrag Vartanian - A blog of art, culture, photography, writing and ideas.
- ISABELLE PHILIPPE and JULIA BURLINGHAM's films
- Lindsay Aikman
- Lindsay Aikman retouching portfolio
- Matthew Valia Photography
- ON EX-TIBET
- ON SATO SAN
- Pixel Pour (By Kelly Goeller)
- Pixel Pour by Kelly Goeller
- Pixel Pour by Kelly Goeller by 53TABS
- Re:Public, Masters of the Ephemeral - Aakash Nihalani
- Timur Civan Cinematography Reel 2008
19 comments:
there's something incredibly satisfying about tacking something to a painting. i didn't really care that the names were of artists or whoever or that they were dead white guys. that seemed, well, a little contrived to me. but i loved the idea of just "ruining" a painting by piercing it. i wish you could've taken that further and let us really tear it up - maybe some scissors??
again, quinn, taking the words out of my mouth.
but perhaps we dont have to destroy. although the violence is exciting, i would have liked to paint or draw on her. i know this has nothing to do with boyang's intention, because i am not sure what to say about his intention.
Oh, I see. Interesting! I liked what Quinn and Sam said about this work.
I thought it was very interesting that Boyang had people in a way disrespect and respect his painting. I am thinking everything in terms of that very painting as his past creation, if it is not this reading is not applicable.....
I felt the twisted humor of Boyang putting all these masters name tags onto his creation as a gesture of look at me I am as good as.......
But at the same time, he let people disrespect his work by putting things on top of it.
So these double wammy of respect and disrespect were nice aspect of this work.
It is bit didacticly political in a way, seeing the title, seeing that the woman painted is Black.
Now I ask you Boyang what you were thinking. Let's hear you.
I thought that was a really good painting and there was no need to violate it.Needless to say I stabbed a pin in it...I don't know why...because everyone else was doing it. You are a really good painter, and I respect that...so, the actual art piece is way more important to me that the pins and participations.
after putting up a master's name in the box i wasn't sure if we were allowed to touch the painting at all but the urge was tremendous and when i actually did pierce the painting, it felt so good! it's weird how destroying something so precious makes you feel so...uhh powerful I guess. it's like bringing out the little devil in you. i wonder how boyang felt watching us
i think it was funny how we didn't know what to do with the labels at first.we were just standing there looking at the painting.i actually didn't pin down any of them on the painting. i just couldn't do that on such a well painted piece.i wonder what his intention was with piercing the painting.
I didnt get the satisfaction of "stabbing or violating" the painting because i was too busy blowing bubbles. I agree with earlier comments about piercing the photo with the attached names seemed insignificant but the act of violating did seem to catch my attention.. Clearly some people loved the idea of destroying others work while others were upset when people pierced a pin through. I think this is a great place to start, and kind of reminds me of erased de kooning, and making the piece something different, in a way the act of erasing is no different than pin through canvas. However i still enjoyed the act of killing the painting, perhaps incorporating your title and maybe meaning?
I didn't get a chance to pin a name to the painting because of the mad rush, but I wasn't terribly interested in doing it anyway. I think the painters' names sort of pushed the piece from being an interesting action (of allowing the audience to physically destroy a painting) into a trite one, or an attempt to assign some sort of message to something that didn't necessarily need one.
I agree with the comments stating that the attached meaning may seem a bit didactic and obvious. I feel like the black and white elements were pushed too far (black and white text, racial divide of subjects, fame of subjects as a declaration of or dismissal of amateurish painting, etc.) stood too far on the forefront of your intention...consequently hiding the much simpler and interesting idea of destroying or fucking up a painting as well as the physical bond developed through/to one's work.
-Brenden
Immediately I was drawn to the piece simply because it was a painting. This piece brought about an interesting relationship between the artist and the viewer because it let the viewer interact and in a way destroy something that probably took the artist a lot of effort and time to make. I personally also could not bring myself to pierce the canvas however I was intrigued to see eveybody's reaction and confusion towards what was expected of us.
I'm not sure if tacking the names onto the painting was part of his intention (when I asked him if I could, he just kind of shrugged and said, "Sure"). But either way, it was really fun to do, as if we were breaking some unspoken rule. It seems horrifying to damage artwork, but really it was fun. Try it. Take that awful painting you did back when you were a naive freshman and show it who's boss.
By the end it almost seems like we were covering up the naked lady with these names. Hm.. The title makes me think that all these names were artists who painted naked women, yeah? So we plaster them all over one. It's almost as if we're saying, "hey, this is all these artists will be known for!"
I like that we ended up being the performance, rather than Boyang doing it.
funny how quinn was the first to comment on like...everything. hehe. anyways.
i felt like those that participated were censoring a lot more than piercing/destroying/graffitying the painting. i would much rather have seen it get destroyed than have 5 or so signatures of artists on it.
having the signatures of artists, especially so many, seems to make the original intentions that much more muddy. i would rather have seen a much more considered choice of artists or a much more considered choice of object to tack onto the piece.
i completely agree with addie's comment. that's exactly how i felt throughout, and therefore didn't participate in the actually act of tacking. if the object was something other than artists' names, then i would have been more intrigued...what could have replaced it? many possibilities i guess. i watched brendan as he tacked "rembrandt" on to the nude, and i became entranced in this moment of .... "oh. i've never seen brendan interact w/ someone's art before." ... and this 5 second moment was more interesting to me. why? don't know. there was nothing violent to me in this act by the way.
annie cho.
I like the fact that we could title the painting that we want to be titled. Everyone has different thoughts and interpretation to the Boyang's painting, therefore we could choose the name that we want to tack on.
Also, I like the idea of tacking on painting. It seems like names are part of the painting.
Again, I feel the tags were too obvious, and again, I feel that the "fucking up of" the painting was the more interesting part of the work. And yet again, I agree with Quinn's proposition - let's REALLY fuck up a painting. Pushing a piece in that direction could be really interesting, but also apply to the idea I think Bo wanted to get across in a less spelled out way. I am also curious to know how Bo connects to this piece personally, as someone who is not a famous, dead white artist.
yea i felt that the title, black woman portrait, and labels of the "dead white males" hit the viewer on the head a little too hard with what you wanted us to get our of the piece. but i did like how the performance aspect of it involved all of us, and again like many stated, enjoyed the interaction that we each were able to have with the painting.
It definitely surprised me when people started tacking names onto the painting itself. Personally, I couldn't bring myself to stick a pin in it... but I did pin a "Monet" somewhere. It kinda threw me that some of the names repeated, but it was interesting that you threw yourself in there (visually) with all those names. I do agree though, that the black nude woman, with dead white male name tags did come off a bit heavy, and in that respect I was confused about where we came in and what our role was in "destroying" the painting.
This reminds me of how I learned to paint. When i was little, I used to finish my grandmother's paintings she left in her studio before she died. i guess this is a way of destroying her work. Looking back, it is strange to have painted over and with her work, but I didn't think anything of it at the time. It think this work reflects that concept in that artists learn from the predecessors.
I was thinking more along the lines of authorship and interpretation of art. I do agree that in retrospect the title was a bit too much. Also, maybe if all of the names of painters were "cannonized" historical artists rather than just old-school painters. (ie, picasso, van gogh, pollock, rubens etc)
I think the original idea i had for the piece was lost the moment the painting was tacked, it became more a about destruction of the precious and almost this giddy-ness people get when the get away with something taboo. At the same time i wonder how it would function in a different setting. Most of the work in class had a very light-hearted foundation and so something heavier in the politics and concept of art might not have been ideal. Also i think the mob mentality changed the way it was viewed, rather than all rushing up and stabbing the painting b/c the person before you did, what if it was say viewed individually.... i dunno, it was an unexpected, but somewhat pleasant direction the performance took... thanks people
The inteesting thing about destroying or altering a painting is that the original image will always be there - no matter what. I feel like you could have taken this further and destroyed the painting even more - throw paint on it, rip the canvas, cut through it. Overall though, love the painting and the idea.
Post a Comment