05/12/18 Luminary lecture- Peter McLeish
I was excited about this one, the coming together of art and science interests me as I think fundamental physics and technology are vehicles to push art into brand new directions.
The lecture advertised a film about Red Sprites accompanied by a particular group of singers. The poster had an amazing image:
The first thing we noticed when the artist walked through the studio was that he was in a suit. I thought he was some kind of inspector that Jai was placating. The suit was a big deal. It was so strange seeing a lecturer wear one. Later on in the lecture, I found out that Peter is constantly having to legitimise and prove himself to scientists and people he wants to work with. When he wanted to work with one guy he was ignored then sent sciencey questions for months. He went on about his scientific background and credentials like he had to prove it to us. His opinion is that it is imperative to study a masters degree as it furnishes you with a professional language and gives a credibility that people take seriously, they then will see you as their equal; enabling you to have conversations with people in more conventional fields- academic types. Maybe that's why he wore a suit, it's that old-fashioned language of clothes determining your position in life. For me, it was interesting that he'd wear that because I then knew this would be unlike other lectures I'd been to. It was different- but I was pretty unimpressed.
I read his CV online and he explains family emergencies preventing him from working for a time- like he works in a call centre.
He was professional and kept it tight but his work is so functional and so formulaic.. It serves no purpose for me.
Peter's audience are the science folk, the people who marvel at someone being able to visually represent data (this is an actual anecdote Peter mentioned) I guess it's easy to forget some people cannot see in their head, they know things.. they have memory etc but they cannot visualise something and then turn it 360 degrees in their imagination. The scientists are made up that someone is looking at photos and using their imagination to make an impression of how these red sprites are formed.
I do not understand how he has managed to be awarded so many grants and to have such acclaim. I don't understand it. His portraits are great and one work- light through water is fantastic. He obviously has great skill.
But then there are other paintings of light. When I opened one online of light on water; Google lumped it in with pictures of wolves howling in front of giant moons. In my opinion, a terrible painting. I can't paint but if I mastered this level I'd be just as gutted.
My biggest peeve with Peter is the size of the work. He blows these pieces up to massive proportions, some have been projected onto a building's domed roof. However, what he's painting is a measly 6x6. He is painting a postage stamp, uploading it and using the light of technology to illuminate and improve his work. I'm not keen on that. One of my questions was about the sizing- I wrote down some but other people asked each one of them before he got to me. His explanation was that as he paints in great numbers (200, although only choosing 26 for the film) he likes to be able to see them all together in a series. I don't think that's a good answer.
Peter doesn't make his own films. He paints and then with a grant pays a company to produce the film. The fonts used were absolutely terrible. They remind me of the kind you'd see in a film- the type you'd be made to watch on a TV your teacher would wheel in when they didn't have anything prepared for the lesson. He showed a long section of a pre-existing documentary about red sprites and it was ridiculously American at times.
I found out after some research that this video and Peter's, 'Lightening's Angels' were made in 2003, this is why the font dates it. Writing spins at times, questions fill the screen as the narrator says them out loud. I am surprised that an artist would be content with rehashing work from so long ago. I think it's the logical part of him, it does make sense if it earns a living. (I couldn't find the other film he used as it's $100 to use and show)
If I were Peter and were keen to keep this work alive I'd start again and redo the whole thing. I'd use new data and new images as I don't think Peter has realised somehow that normal people with access to better cameras are now recording Red Sprites all the time, you only have to look on YouTube to see that. There are much better images available from people like NASA online too. I'd choose music that was perhaps more relevant to the work.
Another of my questions was; why this music? But at the end of one of the films his work was shown alongside, the music came on so I realised he'd done that to tie the two works together.
It makes me think about art and worry about it, to be honest. There's no self-expression apart from the media he uses which is cold encaustic painting using rags and paper towels. I can't get my head around how the work has become successful but I am very grateful to have come across someone who has shown me the other side of the art world. I bet he's a dream for associations and institutions. Maybe the middle ground is the best place to be.
His professionalism and confidence have inspired me to be more industrious, it made me think a lot and that in turn has made me write this post- the first one in a long time.. so I'm glad I went even though I don't rate his work. He is a nice enough man, I just couldn't relate.
Notes:
Each time we have a lecturer that is super professional it reassures me that it's okay to be rough in those scenarios as walking about, looking at people, talking passionately rather than from a script is preferable even if the content isn't as full.
Maybe it's down to the suit?
https://vimeo.com/15535137
The lecture advertised a film about Red Sprites accompanied by a particular group of singers. The poster had an amazing image:
The first thing we noticed when the artist walked through the studio was that he was in a suit. I thought he was some kind of inspector that Jai was placating. The suit was a big deal. It was so strange seeing a lecturer wear one. Later on in the lecture, I found out that Peter is constantly having to legitimise and prove himself to scientists and people he wants to work with. When he wanted to work with one guy he was ignored then sent sciencey questions for months. He went on about his scientific background and credentials like he had to prove it to us. His opinion is that it is imperative to study a masters degree as it furnishes you with a professional language and gives a credibility that people take seriously, they then will see you as their equal; enabling you to have conversations with people in more conventional fields- academic types. Maybe that's why he wore a suit, it's that old-fashioned language of clothes determining your position in life. For me, it was interesting that he'd wear that because I then knew this would be unlike other lectures I'd been to. It was different- but I was pretty unimpressed.
I read his CV online and he explains family emergencies preventing him from working for a time- like he works in a call centre.
He was professional and kept it tight but his work is so functional and so formulaic.. It serves no purpose for me.
Peter's audience are the science folk, the people who marvel at someone being able to visually represent data (this is an actual anecdote Peter mentioned) I guess it's easy to forget some people cannot see in their head, they know things.. they have memory etc but they cannot visualise something and then turn it 360 degrees in their imagination. The scientists are made up that someone is looking at photos and using their imagination to make an impression of how these red sprites are formed.
I do not understand how he has managed to be awarded so many grants and to have such acclaim. I don't understand it. His portraits are great and one work- light through water is fantastic. He obviously has great skill.
But then there are other paintings of light. When I opened one online of light on water; Google lumped it in with pictures of wolves howling in front of giant moons. In my opinion, a terrible painting. I can't paint but if I mastered this level I'd be just as gutted.
Peter doesn't make his own films. He paints and then with a grant pays a company to produce the film. The fonts used were absolutely terrible. They remind me of the kind you'd see in a film- the type you'd be made to watch on a TV your teacher would wheel in when they didn't have anything prepared for the lesson. He showed a long section of a pre-existing documentary about red sprites and it was ridiculously American at times.
I found out after some research that this video and Peter's, 'Lightening's Angels' were made in 2003, this is why the font dates it. Writing spins at times, questions fill the screen as the narrator says them out loud. I am surprised that an artist would be content with rehashing work from so long ago. I think it's the logical part of him, it does make sense if it earns a living. (I couldn't find the other film he used as it's $100 to use and show)
If I were Peter and were keen to keep this work alive I'd start again and redo the whole thing. I'd use new data and new images as I don't think Peter has realised somehow that normal people with access to better cameras are now recording Red Sprites all the time, you only have to look on YouTube to see that. There are much better images available from people like NASA online too. I'd choose music that was perhaps more relevant to the work.
Another of my questions was; why this music? But at the end of one of the films his work was shown alongside, the music came on so I realised he'd done that to tie the two works together.
It makes me think about art and worry about it, to be honest. There's no self-expression apart from the media he uses which is cold encaustic painting using rags and paper towels. I can't get my head around how the work has become successful but I am very grateful to have come across someone who has shown me the other side of the art world. I bet he's a dream for associations and institutions. Maybe the middle ground is the best place to be.
His professionalism and confidence have inspired me to be more industrious, it made me think a lot and that in turn has made me write this post- the first one in a long time.. so I'm glad I went even though I don't rate his work. He is a nice enough man, I just couldn't relate.
Notes:
Peter pursued grants for the things he wanted to do and he applied for opportunities. He didn't just wait for things to happen by themselves.
Peter aims to create atmospheric work. Mist and fog came to mind when I thought about clouds and space. Fog is pretty semiotic to the things I've been writing about and trying to work on. Confusion basically. Fujiko Nakaya is an artist who uses fog to create 'sculpture' and to reimagine spaces. I have used steam before but not fog. She uses a machine her father created so it's perhaps beyond my capabilities. Smoke machines aren't though, neither are ways to create steam or thin jets of water.
I wondered why he had bothered with genuine scientific research and going to the bother of working with a scientist when his work was mostly based on his imagination. He said that he had made his intentions were clear to all from the beginning.
Each time we have a lecturer that is super professional it reassures me that it's okay to be rough in those scenarios as walking about, looking at people, talking passionately rather than from a script is preferable even if the content isn't as full.
THE ART OF DE — A FILM BY A. SAUVAGE
https://vimeo.com/15535137
Comments
Post a Comment