Fam2final presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I am going to talk about the Turner prize shortlist, which may not seem immediately relevant to my own work, and indeed I had not anticipated it being so when I went.However, I hope to show during my presentation that all of the works turned out to be much more relevant and thought provoking than I had expected.
  • As you know I have been concerned about boundaries since the beginning of my undergraduate degree. Initially I was interested in boundaries between disciplines, particularly between arts and sciences; then I became more interested in boundaries between different forms of art practice, and the perceived hierarchies that exist. More recently I have been involved in the boundary between the viewer and the art work, whether this is physical or psychological. This semester I have realised that I am now becoming increasingly interested in the boundary between the self, and the image of the self that the art work reflects. Given my psychoanalytic background I suppose that shouldn’t be surprised to end up at this point.
  • The more that I researched Dexter Dalwood’s work, the more that it seems to me that he plays exactly on the boundary between self and reflected self. This painting is very typical; he presents us with a scene from which the main protagonist is missing, leaving us (as the quote says) to supply the necessary information.
  • This is a recent quote from Dalwood – I’m interested in his use of the word disrupted, which immediately makes me think about breaking boundaries. I interpret what he is saying as being related to the idea of an artwork reflecting back to the viewer a different image of the self. In Dalwood’s case the hidden violence of the image taps into that violent part of ourselves which we would prefer not to confront.
  • I’m interested in the ‘less is more’ aspect of these images – by moving on from the overt representation of blood in the study, to the more subtle references in the finished painting the work gains considerably in power.
  • I had been distinctly underwhelmed by the pictures in the papers of Angela de la Cruz’ work, and not expected to like it. However, this was definitely a case of finding an art work completely different in the flesh. She clearly transgresses boundaries in the production of her work, taking conventional oil paintings made on canvases, and then manipulating them in very physical ways to produce works which hover on the border between sculpture and installation.Then, like Dalwood, she leaves the viewer to complete the narrative. What I make of this, having worked with abused women, may be completely different to what an upper-middle class male wealthy art patron makes of it.
  • I haven’t seen this particular work, but apparently it strikingly resembles the colour of urine staining, and brings to mind a homeless tramp in a dark alley, peeing on a discarded mattress. Again it is the boundary between self and reflected image that is challenged – do we have the capacity to summon up the image that I’ve just described? Do we want to go there? What does all of that say about me, the viewer?
  • ‘agravic’ – pertaining to a situation without gravity; a state of weightlessness‘heterotopia’ – condition elaborated by Foucault; spaces of otherness, which are neither here nor there, that are simultaneously physical and mentalI’ve put this quote in because it sums up what I felt after watching the Otolith Group’s work - confused , frustrated and annoyed! I don’t often find two words in the space of one sentence that I don’t understand, and they are in the context of a whole sentence which feels to me to have a distinct air of the emperor’s new clothes about it!
  • I find a lot of film used in the fine art context quite difficult, and fully accept that this is to do with my own boundaries. However I have been persevering and finding work that I can relate to. I looked at some of the Otolith Group’s earlier work which made sense to me, but I am definitely still struggling with the piece on display in the Turner exhibition.
  • I haven’t got any video clips of Otolith III, but these slides show a couple of stills. In the Tate the viewer is presented with thirteen TV screens which all show clips of Indian film from the 1960s and 70s. The overwhelming feeling is one of confusion, but the work intends to be narrative, at least at one level.
  • In my researches for this presentation I have found a good article about otolith III, which clarifies quite a lot, but it leaves me feeling very uncertain about whether the work that I saw was a good work of art. It definitely pushes a lot of boundaries.
  • This brings me to the final artist on the Turner shortlist; Susan Philipsz. I was interested to see/ hear her work as by the time I went to see the exhibition I had begun to think about using sound in my own work in some way.
  • (Read the quote on the slide). It is perhaps important to note that Philipsz most often works using her own voice, and always singing. I am interested in the spoken word, and have also begun to address the impact of incidental sound.
  • Philipsz’ use of song again reflects back to the viewer/ listener a different understanding of themself.
  • I hope that I have persuaded you that each of the shortlisted Turner prize artists has helped me to explore further my interest in boundaries. Within the conventional boundaries of fine art practice Angela de la Cruz challenges the categorisation of painting, sculpture and installation; the Otolith Group offer a new interpretation of the ready made with their use of other peoples’ film footage, and Susan Philipsz questions the boundary between fine art and auditory media. I believe that all four artists very successfully challenge the viewer’s boundary between the self and the reflected image, and it is this that I am most interested in pursuing in my own work.
  • These are my aims for my work – and I accept that they may not all be compatible within any one piece of work, but I think that it is perfectly possible to work in different arenas with different aims.I am still keen to move away from the ‘do not touch’ mentality that is so prevalent in the art world (and elsewhere). I would like to produce work that people can physically engage with because I think that enables people to become freer and more receptive to new thoughts and feelings. Making this sort of work entails an acceptance of limited duration and transience which is in itself a challenge to the boundaries of the self.I hope that I can start to reach out beyond the boundaries of the art world through my work with the arts for health movement; this may be through making my own work, or perhaps more usefully it may be by using my personal cross-disciplinary skills to open doors for others.
  • To conclude, a typically provocative remark from Brian Sewell! I hope that I have shown that I totally disagree with him.
  • Fam2final presentation

    1. 1. Diana Brighouse FAM2 presentation 2010<br />
    2. 2. Boundaries<br />Between disciplines<br />Between art practices<br />Between viewer and artwork<br />Between self and reflected image<br />
    3. 3. Dexter DalwoodSharon Tate’s House 1998 <br />You, the viewer, do the rest. Just add blood and imagine the corpse. <br />http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment<br />
    4. 4.  I’m after how to make a deliberately disrupted image that makes the viewer think about that event, the violence of the image, how that image was made, and how it relates to the history of painting.<br />Dexter Dalwood in Interview 2010<br />http://www.twocoatsofpaint.com<br />
    5. 5. Dexter Dalwood<br />Trial of Milosevic I 2005<br />Study for Trial of Milosevic (detail) 2004<br />
    6. 6. Angela de la Cruz<br />Loose Fit (blue) 2002<br />‘Angela de la Cruz ...turns a repertoire of destructive acts into a creative process. <br />The series of punches, kicks and folds inflicted upon its surface make it into an animated sculptural object which hangs from the wall in a crumpled and dejected mess.’<br />
    7. 7. De la Cruz questions the status of painting -<br />- abstract works are disrupted physically; torn, broken, folded and taken from their stretchers. <br />- the works do not attempt to convey emotions but demonstrate the emotions they themselves are feeling. http://www.culture24.org.uk<br />Homeless, 1995<br />
    8. 8. The form of the essay film is employed to test the hypothesis that agravic space-time may be reconceived as a temporary heterotopia for concentrating the apprehension of disorientation that accompanies global crisis and their understanding of microgravity as a field of forces that immerses and extends subjectivity. http://despairingself.wordpress.com<br />
    9. 9.  There are more futures than we realize, and more failures too. The past is littered with the debris of these futures, while our present incorporates the unstable collective memory of hopes that have long since been abandoned. The Otolith Group doggedly investigates these temporal slips and Utopian dreams of ‘the temporality of past potential futurity’.<br />http://www.frieze.com<br />
    10. 10.
    11. 11. Otolith III 2010 Film still<br />
    12. 12. Otolith III 2010<br />Film stills<br />
    13. 13. Gallery view, Tate Britain, Otolith III, Turner prize shortlist 2010<br />
    14. 14. A work of art is only an installation if it makes dialogue with the surrounding space.<br />A sound installation is usually site-specific but sometimes it can be readapted to other spaces. (Wikipedia)<br />Susan Philipsz Lowlands <br />Glasgow / London 2010<br />
    15. 15. Susan Philipsz deals with the spatial properties of sound and the relationships between sound and architecture. <br />
    16. 16. Philipsz’s unselfconscious melodies trigger awareness in the listener, temporarily altering their perception of themselves in a particular place and time. <br />Surround Me, City of London 2010-11<br />
    17. 17. She employs her disembodied voice in unconventional settings, ultimately intensifying the listeners’ sense of self and connecting them to their environment. http://www.artpace.org<br /> Wild as the wind, Belfast 2003<br />
    18. 18.
    19. 19. Boundaries<br />Between disciplines<br />Between art practices<br />Between viewer and artwork<br />Between self and reflected image<br />
    20. 20. My aims<br />To blur/ transgress the boundary between the work and the viewer<br />To challenge and disturb the viewer’s assumptions and beliefs (the boundaries of the self)<br />To reach beyond the exclusive boundary of the ‘art fraternity’<br />
    21. 21. 'Most of the art that gets into the Turner Prize is some kind of extremely contemporary rubbish – assemblies of rubbish masquerading under important names.‘ (Brian Sewell)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317601/Turner-Prize-2010<br />
    22. 22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_kg_UZxxI&NR=1<br />