04//10/18 HOA Authorship
A thought-provoking lecture in which we were introduced to 'Authorship'.
The lecture revolved around a piece of text by Barthes. Three paragraphs were read and the ideas were explained.
A lot of information to digest in one lecture but there was plenty of information provided to continue learning, away from uni. I will research the text and attempt to read and understand it. I will make a copy so that I can look over it again.
A video clip was shown from Youtube; 'Lust for Life', a film about Van Gogh. The showing of the film was to highlight popular myths people have about Art and Artists that are completely untrue. I have written about Gauguin so I am aware of his life. I have looked into Van Gogh so I know about his family, his brother and also know that he wasn't the 2D caricature that he is often portrayed as. What worried me was that this was yet another example of western altered history. It is concerning that most people actually believe these things when they are not true. I don't understand how people can be lied to and be okay with it. I know it isn't political(?) and no one is being directly hurt by being misinformed of art history but to me it is still serious.
I do not like art to be considered as something for the intelligent, 'cultured' or the wealthy. I don't like anyone feeling that they don't have a hand in it. I hate that gallery spaces don't contain the same cross-section of society as the people walking around outside the buildings. People do not deserve to be told a fairy tale about art, it only serves to damage it. If new discoveries are found in science the schools have to modify what they teach, why then has this not happened in art?
I don't feel this way purely down to the film, we were also shown the pay scales artists adhered to, how people saw trends and dealers bought art depending on the size of the work rather than what was on the canvas. This doesn't change my mind about the integrity of the Artists or their work, I feel sorry for them as nothing has changed -they had the same bs to deal with as any contemporary artist. I suppose it is a lesson that no matter how creative you may be, you need to adopt the skills of the 'left brains'. I need to be organised, practical, work to time/size restraints. I need to work with other people but most of all, I need to produce.
I began to read a book in the last term, 'Non Places' by Marc Auge. One part that has stuck with me is the space we live and move in, more so what that space is for. This term I picked up a book in the library about technology and fashion. I was hoping to be inspired to create something involving technology and textiles. In the beginning of the book ('Techno Fashion', by Bradley Quinn) refers to 'Non-Places' when explaining how the built environment influences how we live as a society. It regulates where we go and how we move there. Transitional spaces are more important than ever, giving rise to the 'Supermodern' style within fashion. Quinn even crediting Auge for the terminology. The streets are important to me as an artist and they always have been. Galleries do not need walls and they do not need a level of separateness that only serves to keep art a foreign language to most.
I spoke to my peer group about the possibility of creating an outdoor gallery in these transitional spaces. Unfortunately, the capitalist culture that has created these spaces will also ask that I remove any work -as we simply can't exist in a place for too long unless we own it. The peer group was receptive and it brought up some new ideas. I had planned to use a clear perspex to cover the artwork so that things could not be destroyed but an idea was to leave it as it was. Things would change with the elements, work could be drawn on or damaged- a collaboration with someone who perhaps had not thought themselves an artist. People could steal the work which I think would be the most interesting outcome. I would love to create something that someone would deign to steal! The work would be in someone's house, it would be just as if I had sold it without the token exchange. Pheobe had the idea that we could take photos of our curation and then reach people through social media. This would hopefully encourage more contributions and visitors..
On the way the out of the studio I saw Gwendolyn and realised this is an idea that has been done already- recently AND better. This will not dissuade me. I want there to be absolutely no walls, no barriers. I want to use a particular public space, for the public and hopefully with them.
I am a terrible painter so I bought paints recently. I took them into the studio and one idea I had was the 60-second painting. Everyone I was around had to come and spend 60 seconds adding to the wood/canvas. It was not a success but if we do enough, some may be.
I tried to work on the wood which I got from the workshop on LW floor. It needs to be primed before I paint directly on it and I also need to plan what I paint. I thought about taking photos while moving around, perhaps in a transitional space such as the staircase. I'd paint the photos I would create. It would be interesting to make something that is a fleeting experience into a more permanent physical object. I could record the movement by videoing it, but when the video ends it dies once more. It makes me wonder about some of the potentially beautiful/ interesting things I see but do not register because I'm not at my destination, just on the way to it. I suppose I could look at that in the broader sense if I wanted to but I won't.
Barthes, true to the title of his essay, defines his conception of an author by contrasting it with his conception of a writer. A writer is someone with a goal who uses language to convey his ideas, ignoring the properties of that language.
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cpace/theory/authorship/rowe.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
The Differences between Barthes and Foucault on Authorship (for comparison)
The lecture revolved around a piece of text by Barthes. Three paragraphs were read and the ideas were explained.
A lot of information to digest in one lecture but there was plenty of information provided to continue learning, away from uni. I will research the text and attempt to read and understand it. I will make a copy so that I can look over it again.
A video clip was shown from Youtube; 'Lust for Life', a film about Van Gogh. The showing of the film was to highlight popular myths people have about Art and Artists that are completely untrue. I have written about Gauguin so I am aware of his life. I have looked into Van Gogh so I know about his family, his brother and also know that he wasn't the 2D caricature that he is often portrayed as. What worried me was that this was yet another example of western altered history. It is concerning that most people actually believe these things when they are not true. I don't understand how people can be lied to and be okay with it. I know it isn't political(?) and no one is being directly hurt by being misinformed of art history but to me it is still serious.
I do not like art to be considered as something for the intelligent, 'cultured' or the wealthy. I don't like anyone feeling that they don't have a hand in it. I hate that gallery spaces don't contain the same cross-section of society as the people walking around outside the buildings. People do not deserve to be told a fairy tale about art, it only serves to damage it. If new discoveries are found in science the schools have to modify what they teach, why then has this not happened in art?
I don't feel this way purely down to the film, we were also shown the pay scales artists adhered to, how people saw trends and dealers bought art depending on the size of the work rather than what was on the canvas. This doesn't change my mind about the integrity of the Artists or their work, I feel sorry for them as nothing has changed -they had the same bs to deal with as any contemporary artist. I suppose it is a lesson that no matter how creative you may be, you need to adopt the skills of the 'left brains'. I need to be organised, practical, work to time/size restraints. I need to work with other people but most of all, I need to produce.
I began to read a book in the last term, 'Non Places' by Marc Auge. One part that has stuck with me is the space we live and move in, more so what that space is for. This term I picked up a book in the library about technology and fashion. I was hoping to be inspired to create something involving technology and textiles. In the beginning of the book ('Techno Fashion', by Bradley Quinn) refers to 'Non-Places' when explaining how the built environment influences how we live as a society. It regulates where we go and how we move there. Transitional spaces are more important than ever, giving rise to the 'Supermodern' style within fashion. Quinn even crediting Auge for the terminology. The streets are important to me as an artist and they always have been. Galleries do not need walls and they do not need a level of separateness that only serves to keep art a foreign language to most.
I spoke to my peer group about the possibility of creating an outdoor gallery in these transitional spaces. Unfortunately, the capitalist culture that has created these spaces will also ask that I remove any work -as we simply can't exist in a place for too long unless we own it. The peer group was receptive and it brought up some new ideas. I had planned to use a clear perspex to cover the artwork so that things could not be destroyed but an idea was to leave it as it was. Things would change with the elements, work could be drawn on or damaged- a collaboration with someone who perhaps had not thought themselves an artist. People could steal the work which I think would be the most interesting outcome. I would love to create something that someone would deign to steal! The work would be in someone's house, it would be just as if I had sold it without the token exchange. Pheobe had the idea that we could take photos of our curation and then reach people through social media. This would hopefully encourage more contributions and visitors..
On the way the out of the studio I saw Gwendolyn and realised this is an idea that has been done already- recently AND better. This will not dissuade me. I want there to be absolutely no walls, no barriers. I want to use a particular public space, for the public and hopefully with them.
I am a terrible painter so I bought paints recently. I took them into the studio and one idea I had was the 60-second painting. Everyone I was around had to come and spend 60 seconds adding to the wood/canvas. It was not a success but if we do enough, some may be.
I tried to work on the wood which I got from the workshop on LW floor. It needs to be primed before I paint directly on it and I also need to plan what I paint. I thought about taking photos while moving around, perhaps in a transitional space such as the staircase. I'd paint the photos I would create. It would be interesting to make something that is a fleeting experience into a more permanent physical object. I could record the movement by videoing it, but when the video ends it dies once more. It makes me wonder about some of the potentially beautiful/ interesting things I see but do not register because I'm not at my destination, just on the way to it. I suppose I could look at that in the broader sense if I wanted to but I won't.
Barthes, true to the title of his essay, defines his conception of an author by contrasting it with his conception of a writer. A writer is someone with a goal who uses language to convey his ideas, ignoring the properties of that language.
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cpace/theory/authorship/rowe.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
The Differences between Barthes and Foucault on Authorship (for comparison)
Comments
Post a Comment