10/10/18 VL Joseph Noonan- Ganley
VL Joseph Noonan- Ganley
https://www.josephnoonanganley.com/
I didn't like this lecture much but I did learn from it. I admired his dedication to a subject but that was also the reason I didn't connect with the talk. He talked so much about the artist that he has researched that we didn't get to know him and his full range of works. He only had a small amount of time I felt that it wasn't used wisely. It felt rushed as he was trying to end the lecture on time even though it started late.
Another point was that I felt it was a contradiction to argue that the artists' sexuality or lack of one should define him, then go on to mention it over and over, he also showed images of naked men that the artist had drawn.
He had us write on a piece of paper; someone's name who was also in the theatre and an interesting fact or observation about them. We had to give our slip to a stranger. This made me excited about how interactive the lecture might be and I enjoyed the energy of it. The task was then forgotten until the end. He explained how it was something that was in the DNA of his practice and rushed an explanation but I wasn't convinced and thought it was a little cliche, like something you might be asked to do on the first day of college to introduce yourself to others. I asked other people and someone said that the purpose was to create the beginning of a narrative, but in reality, it was the start and end as I don't think it's sensible to assume that people would have sought out the person mentioned on the paper.
I did not go to the Q&A as I didn't have any further questions. I had also decided that I would not do any research before lectures so that I can only have that very specific window to get to know their practice an body of work. I wanted to use it to critically examine what is successful so I could apply it to my own presentations. I think that while this could be a good idea, I won't do it again because I miss out on the opportunity to ask questions or have a tutorial as Artists tend to do all different kinds of work and the time allotted for a lecture is perhaps not long enough. There may be works, unspoken about which could apply to my work.
I remembered that I did really enjoy his video. I wasn't keen on the choices of voice clips, taken out of context ( as he had dissected the recordings and categorised them in themes. As he is a dead person who Joseph didn't know personally it kind of made me feel uneasy that someone was presenting his version of this person as truth. He is honest about his work and how it is made but for me, it brought up questions of morality. You have personal opinions about someone but when you present them to others in a very public way, you reframe them in peoples minds.
I asked my peer group about this and they thought that perhaps this ties into the task at the start, how we author a story about someone else. Perhaps not intentional but it made me think.
I noticed that he was introduced by his education, what he had been marked and where he'd studied. This made me realise I have absolutely no regard for education and formality. I don't care where someone went or what they got, I just want to get onto what they are expressing.
It could be fun to deliver a very convoluted introduction for someone and have that as the actual presentation/lecture. Just walking about how great the person is and that be enough, maybe the other person just takes a breath and bows out. Sort of making fun of how these things go. Like there's an expectation then, that after all the acclaim that the viewer automatically will give what lecturers more prestige and respect. Good work doesn't need that and it stands alone of the artist, I don't really care for that ego stuff. I guess it relates to the authorship topic we've been introduced to in HOA lectures. It was too much information to take in one go but I interpreted it my own way I think; that if you really want to fully explore a subject then unless that subject is you, why do you need to inject your own ego into it?
If you divorce yourself from the subject and look at things objectively the work will be more true, perhaps. I don't know.
Sometimes when I work on a project I feel so much pressure because I feel I am working for the subject rather than the other way around. I suppose this isn't any different to how JNG worked when he researched the work of the other artist. The jumble of authorship is interesting if I wanted to unpick it. If my grasp of authorship is correct in the first place.
Studio Time
I continued to paint, I had scrawled poly filler onto a board to give me more texture and perhaps fool myself into thinking some work was more developed so that it didn't overwhelm me so much. I painted over it, I became very aware of the shape of the brush, the way that it left square blocks of colour rather than something more organic. I also noticed the quality and sturdiness influenced the form, bristles coming loose and adhering to the board. If I wanted to paint properly I'd have to get new stuff. I was supposed to be collaborating with others so I asked someone to help out. They painted over the whole thing with lilac which was stressful. I tried to rub it off but it looks a mess. I will keep painting over it.
Update:
This is now my favourite of all the pieces of wood I've been painting on. I don't see my hand in the work and I love it.
https://www.josephnoonanganley.com/
I didn't like this lecture much but I did learn from it. I admired his dedication to a subject but that was also the reason I didn't connect with the talk. He talked so much about the artist that he has researched that we didn't get to know him and his full range of works. He only had a small amount of time I felt that it wasn't used wisely. It felt rushed as he was trying to end the lecture on time even though it started late.
Another point was that I felt it was a contradiction to argue that the artists' sexuality or lack of one should define him, then go on to mention it over and over, he also showed images of naked men that the artist had drawn.
He had us write on a piece of paper; someone's name who was also in the theatre and an interesting fact or observation about them. We had to give our slip to a stranger. This made me excited about how interactive the lecture might be and I enjoyed the energy of it. The task was then forgotten until the end. He explained how it was something that was in the DNA of his practice and rushed an explanation but I wasn't convinced and thought it was a little cliche, like something you might be asked to do on the first day of college to introduce yourself to others. I asked other people and someone said that the purpose was to create the beginning of a narrative, but in reality, it was the start and end as I don't think it's sensible to assume that people would have sought out the person mentioned on the paper.
I did not go to the Q&A as I didn't have any further questions. I had also decided that I would not do any research before lectures so that I can only have that very specific window to get to know their practice an body of work. I wanted to use it to critically examine what is successful so I could apply it to my own presentations. I think that while this could be a good idea, I won't do it again because I miss out on the opportunity to ask questions or have a tutorial as Artists tend to do all different kinds of work and the time allotted for a lecture is perhaps not long enough. There may be works, unspoken about which could apply to my work.
I remembered that I did really enjoy his video. I wasn't keen on the choices of voice clips, taken out of context ( as he had dissected the recordings and categorised them in themes. As he is a dead person who Joseph didn't know personally it kind of made me feel uneasy that someone was presenting his version of this person as truth. He is honest about his work and how it is made but for me, it brought up questions of morality. You have personal opinions about someone but when you present them to others in a very public way, you reframe them in peoples minds.
I asked my peer group about this and they thought that perhaps this ties into the task at the start, how we author a story about someone else. Perhaps not intentional but it made me think.
I noticed that he was introduced by his education, what he had been marked and where he'd studied. This made me realise I have absolutely no regard for education and formality. I don't care where someone went or what they got, I just want to get onto what they are expressing.
It could be fun to deliver a very convoluted introduction for someone and have that as the actual presentation/lecture. Just walking about how great the person is and that be enough, maybe the other person just takes a breath and bows out. Sort of making fun of how these things go. Like there's an expectation then, that after all the acclaim that the viewer automatically will give what lecturers more prestige and respect. Good work doesn't need that and it stands alone of the artist, I don't really care for that ego stuff. I guess it relates to the authorship topic we've been introduced to in HOA lectures. It was too much information to take in one go but I interpreted it my own way I think; that if you really want to fully explore a subject then unless that subject is you, why do you need to inject your own ego into it?
If you divorce yourself from the subject and look at things objectively the work will be more true, perhaps. I don't know.
Sometimes when I work on a project I feel so much pressure because I feel I am working for the subject rather than the other way around. I suppose this isn't any different to how JNG worked when he researched the work of the other artist. The jumble of authorship is interesting if I wanted to unpick it. If my grasp of authorship is correct in the first place.
Studio Time
I continued to paint, I had scrawled poly filler onto a board to give me more texture and perhaps fool myself into thinking some work was more developed so that it didn't overwhelm me so much. I painted over it, I became very aware of the shape of the brush, the way that it left square blocks of colour rather than something more organic. I also noticed the quality and sturdiness influenced the form, bristles coming loose and adhering to the board. If I wanted to paint properly I'd have to get new stuff. I was supposed to be collaborating with others so I asked someone to help out. They painted over the whole thing with lilac which was stressful. I tried to rub it off but it looks a mess. I will keep painting over it.
Update:
This is now my favourite of all the pieces of wood I've been painting on. I don't see my hand in the work and I love it.
Comments
Post a Comment