This may be a long one,so I suggest that you top up your caffeine levels and settle in for the duration.
This was certainly not an easy experience for me, either physically or mentally which is why I refrained from writing this up straight away as I felt that I needed some time to truly reflect on it (and also the fine art workshop- all WILL become apparent, I assure you!)so as to assess any benefits that it may have held for me, otherwise this write up would probably consisted of approximately four letters and an unspecified amount exclamation marks.
It appears that the focus of these trips is to find artistic pieces with which to connect and draw inspiration from (although in some cases us media pathway students do have opportunities to do some filming). Finding inspiration in such an environment is no easy task for me I can tell you.
I went in with an open mind (or so I thought) however, on reflection my judgement was probably still clouded by the fact that I know what I look for in a piece of artwork (I know what I like and I most certainly know what I don't!)
I wandered around the exhibits (unfortunately access was denied to the premium exhibits - which would have held a modicum of interest to me) and the only thoughts that came to mind while contemplating the sights that lay before my eyes were quite literally 'WHAT?' 'WHY?' 'HOW THE ****?' 'YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!' and 'WHAT KIND OF MENTALLY RETARDED ****WIT DECIDED THAT THIS WAS ART?'
By the time lunch arrived I had decided that there were quite clearly 'only so many piss-pots in glass cases that I could take' and went out onto the docks to have my lunch. As I sat there looking out over the water at the old dock buildings it dawned on me that what was outside spoke to me more than what was inside. The surroundings,the history, the architecture. the LAYERS of time intermingled and built on top of each other, and the people enjoying it all. I drifted off into my own little world and began to photograph it all.
Travelling back home I began to wonder what exactly I had got out of the day (apart from a few nice pictures and a whole lot of pain) which is why I felt that I needed the time to reflect and meditate on it before posting my response.
After a great deal of contemplation about the trip I have realised that since the fine art workshop (I will explain in the relevant post) I have been faced with one burning question, 'WHAT IS ART?' or more to the point 'what is MODERN art?'
Frank Lloyd Wright cited in
Frank Lloyd Wright on Architecture, Nature, and the Human Spirit: A Collection of Quotations:
'Art is a discovery and development of elementary principles of nature into beautiful forms suitable for human use'.
Oscar Wilde wrote in '
The Soul of Man Under Socialism':
'Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known'.
Francis Ford Coppola said in an
interview:
'An essential element of any art is risk. If you don’t take a risk then
how are you going to make something really beautiful, that hasn’t been
seen before? I always like to say that cinema without risk is like
having no sex and expecting to have a baby. You have to take a risk'.
André Gide in
Poétique:
'Art begins with resistance — at the point where resistance is overcome.
No human masterpiece has ever been created without great labor'.
So What is Art? Is it anything someone wants to call art? Or are there some objective criteria, that not every instance of paint smeared on canvas or piece of rock knocked about with a chisel or chainsaw meets?
An old conception of art is that it was supposed to be beautiful or represent something in the literal sense (eg. in the case of a painting that it accurately portrayed the the subject hence Portrait). literally using various techniques and mediums to create something which was aesthetically pleasing, with the emphasis on the finished piece. But times have changed so what does it mean today?
Does the old conception still apply, and is it just the case that what people find aesthetically pleasing has changed in recent years? After all, as times change so do peoples tastes as with popular music for example. However maybe this is a poor example as this can be quantified by popular music charts yet WHO decides what art people like? Or has the whole concept of what art is evolved into something completely different?
One observation I have made is that the emphasis seems to have shifted from the PRODUCT to the PROCESS. Is it the case that rather than creating something pleasing, the focus is on using the techniques and mediums previously mentioned to provoke a reaction - good OR bad! If that is the case then how does an artist choose which reaction to provoke as people are individuals and as such each individual will react differently to the same piece. Or as an artist do you just throw something together (which it appears that most exhibitors in the Tate have done) and hope that it provokes enough reactions for it to become a talking point which in turn is picked up on by the media and subsequently reaches the attention of those people that decide what is art and because so many people are discussing it in whatever way it is decided that it MUST be art (my head hurts now!). If this is thus the case then my initial reactions to the exhibits were clearly justified and subsequently they have served their purpose by provoking those reactions. Furthermore, based on that conclusion I must have actually drawn inspiration from them as based on those reactions I was drawn outside and into an environment that I COULD connect with and so created my own artwork by way of the photographs and although MY intention is to work to the old conception of art just maybe I am beginning to understand the relevance of those that don't.
I need to lie down now before I tackle the fine art workshop I mentioned earlier, One epiphany a day is quite enough! .
