Art & Perception

In preparation for winter I painted a number of odd links in aluminum and hung them up.

In my lily pad post, and the waterfall one with Steve, I employed a stamping technique found in Photoshop. The process allows one to transfer bits and pieces between and around images. In this instance I chose a shot of the odd links and gave it the treatment. It ended up quite fractured and a bit Analytical.

I would so dearly love to get a like result in real life.

We might discuss the difference between what might and what can be.

Cosimo Cavallaro, ‘My Sweet Lord’, Chocolate, 72″ X 72″ X 24″

A while back we had a posting about a Jesus sculpture made of chocolate on this forum and the discussion that ensued was quite lively. Today is All Saints day and to commemorate the occasion Cosimo Cavallaro, (the artist behind the controversial Sweet Jesus) decided to build upon the original theme by adding a phalanx of chocolate Saints around a prone Jesus. I went by to look at the exhibit over at the Proposition yesterday. A delicious smell of chocolate pervaded the air in the gallery and if I were blindfolded, I might have guessed that I was in some kind of a Belgian chocolatier’s atelier. The atmosphere was almost church-like and had it not been for the fact that the chocolate Jesus sculpture was nude, this could pass for a religious tableau. The saints themselves were carved very intricately and were housed in little glass cases (the saints were fully clothed). 

This show is very different from the first which consisted of a single sculpture of the nude Jesus. That seemed to incite more controversy than any critical dialogue. The setup in this exhibit is a bit more intriguing – eight saints on pedestals that are connected to each other with white nylon cord encircling a nude Jesus supine on an embroidered silken round table. 

The nylon rope stumped me – was it meant to signify that the saints were in some kind of a ‘circle of trust’ or was it meant to keep curious onlookers from approaching too close to the prone Jesus… 

Cosimo Cavallaro, ‘Saint Jude’, Chocolate, 6″ X 12″ X 6″, ed. 400

Also, I was not sure why Jesus was lying down as opposed to being shown in the crucified pose? Was the weight of controversy of the first so much that he is forced onto his back…? One does not know the answers to these questions, but the exhibit was surely an interesting one. 

Of course, Cavallaro is best known for his quirky work with food as art: Efforts in the past include repainting a Manhattan hotel room in melted mozzarella, spraying five tons of pepper jack cheese on a Wyoming home, and laying about 300 pounds of processed ham on a four-poster bed. 

I will be interested to know your take on this… 

I’m maundering around Robert Irwin and the concept of perception. It was the Oct 14 NY Times article on Irwin that got me thinking — again — about what and how and why we perceive.

Irwin, in one of his exhibits, made a small but significant change to a San Diego Museum room that overlooked a wide view of the Pacific ocean. His exhibit consisted of cutting three rectangles into the existing windows. The Times quotes Irwin, “At first I didn’t realize the glass was tinted….So not only did my holes let in air and sound, adding another dimension to the experience, but they made everything seen through them appear in greater focus.” The reporter adds that Irwin “opened the window, that age-old pictorial device, letting in a cool rush of reality.”

Alternatively, I think I spend much of my time in reality. So, to reverse Irwin, I’ve been painting “stuff” around my neighborhood base. No sweeping views of vales and rivers, of volcanoes and archaic structures. Instead, I’m trying to perceive, in a painterly fashion, the place I spend most of my time. As usual for me, it consists of much that is “natural,” that is, growing things.

As usual, it’s outside, where I can enjoy the sun (when it shines) and the air and light.

Volkswagen and Horse Chestnut tree, 12 x 16, Pleine aire

more… »

When artists decide to pursue different specialties of an art form (like portraiture or landscapes or still life in the case of photography) or try their hands at disparate art forms (like sculpture, music, painting, photography etc), they may sometimes be admired for their versatility but more often be considered dilettantes – dipping their inks in one bottle and using the still-wet pen to delve to other pastures.

Some people believe that artists should aim for clarity, focus and depth in ones work rather than develop a host of talents none sufficiently honed.

What kind of an artist are you? Do you subscribe to the view that one must focus ones actions in a chosen, preferred form while sharpening and contributing to the same? Or – Are you the one who likes to dabble in multiple art forms because you would rather choose the best possible (expressive) mode that develops your idea to the fullest?

Sunil Gangadharan, ‘Untitled’, Charcoal, ink and ballpoint pen on Strathmore paper, 9″ X 12″

Some time back, I talked here on A&P about image appropriation and artists re-interpreting works of others to produce newer work. This week, I found myself in Gramercy looking over works of Sherrie Levine at Nyehaus. She has made a career that involves pure appropriation and raises questions on the nature and context around her appropriated perspective of original artworks. In her works, she transmogrifies an original, sometimes iconic piece of art into a somewhat exact replica subverting some form or theme in it to produce her own works. In a world of copyright protection, Sherrie’s works seems to be an in-your-face holler which screams that a piece of art once made may be the sole property of the artist and but it is available for further manipulation, exploration and expansion as soon as it is in the public realm. Although I will not quote the exact prices for the works at the gallery, I found most of the works that were priced in six figure ranges to be sold.

Sherrie Levine, ‘Fountain (After Marcel Duchamp)’, 1991, Bronze, 14″ X 24″ X 14″

Oftentimes, I use ‘found’ images on the web. Even if I hate the use of the word ‘found’, I guess it seems appropriate for this discussion. I download them to my hard drive and let it sit and simmer for a period of time. I then permit my mind to lose/forget some of the image identifiers like who the image refers to, what was being conveyed in the image or where the image was taken etc. Three or six months later, I look at these images, re-interpret a select few in a social context that I find appropriate and paint from the image. In most paintings the contextual underpinning behind the painted face and original image do not have any parallels save the fact that the features match each other (to a certain degree). I continue to do so because the plethora of ‘found’ faces that I find online and off (magazines, books, sometimes my photographs etc.) gives me a vast sea of moods, expressions, emotions and countenances that I can then subvert to develop new perspectives (which may not have been intent of the original). Recently, I found a comment on my blog on this practice that asked me a question: “Is that right? Is this allowed?”  Even if I can glibly point people who ask me questions like this to the works of Sherrie Levine, Joy Garnett and Richard Prince, the real truth is that I am still searching for the answer. Comments?

Of course, here I am reminded of a one liner I stumbled upon online:

“Some people do, others Duchamp”.

That Damien Hirst is following me into my own house.

I decided to follow him a little and cook up something for Halloween, based on his diamond skull. The party store didn’t have anything in hard plastic, so I settled for a hockey mask, derived from some scary movie. I then spent too much on plastic rhinestones which I glued onto the mask during hours of granddad babysitting. It ended up like this:

Then I made a poster to hand out to treat or tricksters.

So, what are you doing for Halloween?

I’m a pushover for powerful art. Are you?

Daniel Chester French. The Lincoln Memorial

And by “powerful” I often mean Big. Big in size, Big in ideas, Big in meaning, Big in its very conception.

more… »