I will think of him as I enter into the next phase of this project.
I came upon the name of this artists while investigating how religious, or sacrilegious, imagery has been used in contemporary art, especially contemporary art that incorporates text. In this search I found the name of Prophet Royal Robertson.
Royal Robison was known for having covered the entirety of his Louisiana home and yard with hand-made signs and apocalyptic paintings. The painting and posters included imagery of “future cities, space autos, couples engaged in sex, and detailed calendars chronicling his daily woes.” (Relatable content). The work makes use of the Bible and pornagraphic magizines, classic science fiction text and religious sermons. How bizarre, but also rather relevant to what I am doing. I then varied source material for the work, made controversial by its odd and inappropriate combinations. I'm figuing out how I feel about the work, but I definitely drawn to the way Robinson uses his sources and inspirations and blends them together so bizarrely
I will think of him as I enter into the next phase of this project.
I went on one of those blue link hypertext adventures through the net looking at shrine related/inspired work and came across Yves Tessier on a shrine website. Yvess is a Canadian artists, who creates bright, flat illustrations that often depicting the female figure. Here is his artist's statement as I found it one his website:
“I use drawing and painting to bring out the salient features of what I've seen, to describe the essential qualities of human life, articulated in a formal language drawn as much from Archaic periods of art history as from the aesthetic of comic books. I propose to delineate, in as candid a vision as humanly possible, the spirit of humanity in our time."
Though I'd be lying if I said I understood all of what he was trying to communicate there, I love the line: articulated in a formal language drawn as much from Archaic periods of art history as from the aesthetics of comic books.”
I love the idea of work that is consciously drawing stylistic cues from “archaic” art history and a from pop culture/ mass media. I love his treatment of the female figure, the sort of conscious and sensual simpleness of a form made up a few bold contour lines. I also dig the color in his work. I hope to draw inspiration as I count our to include simple/abstracted female figures in my own work, and as I work to use color more effectively in both my digital and material pieces.
(And of course the way he plays with size! I love some of his very small, sometimes even postcard sized pieces! Until recently, with my digital work I though that the size of the presentation was kind of arbitrary but of course I was so very mistaken! I am learning.)
(^cool to learn how literary references inform her work! I should have read her artist statement more closely at the gallery)
I am sorry to say I was not present for the last class walking field trip. My disgust with Izumi, as well as a steadily rising fever, kept me occupied at home. From the reports I've heard, as well as the number of instagram posts I was witness to on that particular day, I understand 1708 had an amazing show. I am sorely disappointed I didn't get to see it.
I'll have to go back a little further for my art experience post. A month or two ago, our class took a walking field trip to see Natasha Boudin’s show at the Visual Arts center.
I really liked a lot of her work. I was especially drawn to the three moths in left hand room. I thought he uniqueness of her mar of her lines, as well as the use of this sort of, muddied assortment of combined bright colors marked each moth striking. I have thought out her work often recently as I've questioned how I can effectively use color in my pen illustrations. And I could only hope to ever have such a beautiful pen mark! The quality of her lines as stayed with.
[The pen work in the moth pieces also reminded me of the penwork on the distorted elderly man in Izumi’s most recent piece. It's cool to see how an outside artist might have influenced...]
I was not a fan of the sculptural piece that engulfed the gallery spaces though. Because it had been digitally laser printed cut out, i thought the lines lacked the beautiful quality the pen on paper[or even the smaller paper cut outs ] allowed for in her other pieces. I thought the way it used the space was interesting but I wish it preserved the raw feel of her other work.e
I'm excited to continue the evolution of her work going forward!
This week we had the opportunity to read two articles about public art; Rachel Cooke’s “Public Art is Powerful...” and the New York Time’s “Art in Public Spaces.” Of the two, I particularly liked the New York Times piece; it was like reading a more formal and organized comments section. Some of the responses felt arrogant, R. Frauenglass’’ in particular, but most of the other brought up concerns and questions I've had myself when I've thought about public art. Does the community have an opportunity to provide input about a piece of permanent public sculpture? If so, are those meetings/town halls/ conversations easily accessible? I don't want to sound like I don't like public art. Aside from the Truth and Beauty sculpture outside the VCU Hibbs building, I've liked a lot of public sculpture I've seen. I just think these are interesting questions and I don't think it's a bad thing that there a conversation happening. I just hope it remains a dialogue and public art doesn't get lost, in the process. Again, really liked the times piece,
This is not to say I didn't like Cooke’s piece. I completely understand how powerful(and fun) it can be to associate a space with a piece of public sculpture (something that wasn't really addressed in the Times piece.) Though I do not experience that as much in Richmond, I do associate a lot of the spaces I love in Chicago with public sculpture. I totally get the point Cooke is making and I think it is one of the best points when defending the creation and preservation of public sculpture. However, I think the article did assume a knowledge of her home city (or, at least it would have been a lot nicer to read if there were pictures to accompany the piece she described. I'm not a big fan of reading art articles where, I can't really see the art. I know the Times piece didn't include images either, but that article wasn't as much about specific sculpture/monuments as it was about attitudes towards public art.)
We had a really good seminar about these two pieces. Maybe you can help us out with this--- neither pieces mentioned murals--- is “public art” as it's spoken about in these pieces inherently sculptural? Is mural it's own thing? We didn't know.