Lucas Samaras did paintings at first after he graduated from Rutgers University with a major in art, but turned to using different media such as found objects, like many of the artists in his era. He was attracted to the Happening & avant-garde, both of which he took part in. What made him different from other artists was that he explored the theme of selfhood rather than social relevance and connection.
In his installation Room #1, he recreates his own room with things from his personal life, and in the center of it all is a single bed. The author feels that Samara's piece represented the gathering of pieces that makes up a person's identity, which needs to be done before being able to intergrate art and life together. The absence of the human figure emphasises the presence of someone that was there before. Many key symbols in the room such as the bed, where many intimate things take place, and the chair, which in early buddhism represents someone or a ghost who is no longer there, or “a sculpture base from which the real sculpture, the human figure, has escaped”.
This fixation with chairs led him to create more “chair transformations” in 1965 – 1970.using materials ranging from razor blades to wool and flowers, these symbolized the different aspects of human characteristics. Transition from 2 – 3d. For example, the monochrome painting functioned as “diagram of oneness/emptiness/ the void” in the fifties. About 1960, it became predecessor of Minimalist sculpture. Using the monochrome idea, Samara created a monochrome surface on which a nail sticks out toward the audience – instead of inviting people to touch, it is like a defensive armor, an outsider attitude that keeps people at a certain distance. More examples of his works that portray such a quality include pin-covered books & boxes. The author points out that boxes were “like a book” with information about things rather than simply just things itself. Important to flux artists as a break with aesthetic tradition because of its portability, its invitation to be found, and that it bypasses pictorial treatment. However Samara's box works have more in common with Cornell than with the Flux artists. Not about statements against easel painting or representation or the museum. Focus on inside & outside of box, suggesting secrecy & privacy, offering only a peek of its contents. Despite the prickly surface, they still invite the viewer to perhaps open the box, but only if they dare to take the risk – it is a take at crossing boundaries to find out more about the other party.
Showing posts with label age of doubt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label age of doubt. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Chapter 2 Summary
“Sculpture in the Age of Doubt, by Thomas McEvilley, 1999. Chapter 2 Summary
The descriptive word of “post-war” in the 1980s, slowly led into the idea of being “post-modern”, “post-human” – post-everything, disconnecting from its predecessors .
At the proclaimed end of the Kantian tradition, which valued form over content, the previous taboos of the old art school declared their spots in the newly opened field, becoming the exact opposite of what art had been before. This created fresh opportunities for the experiences that the previous age had avoided.
In Kantian terms, there are two roots of style: the visual/internal root, which is the link with previous art and aesthetics, and the social/external root which is the link to surrounding culture, such as social, ethnical, and political issues. Contrary to the past, the roles of the roots were now reversed in the new art age and the content of the social root took dominance over visual style. In other words, variety in style took over the unified body of an individual artwork and the category it belonged to.
Before, art was a quest to reflect the soul, portrayed by the physical perfection of the human form and flawless representation of the environment mastered by the Greeks, eventually evolving into pure abstraction of the soul directly in non-human form, until the World Wars happened. The destruction of the world was reflected in the changed views that art took – rejection of the tradition of the soul in artwork in the guise of soulless objects, slowly growing into deconstructiveness, or anti-art.
Even though painting and sculpture have similar principles, painting was considered more elite by the Greeks due to the manual labour sculpture involves, and this sentiment was passed on until the new age of doubt. The representational illusion gave way to the material presence of sculpture, aka “escapist fantasy versus directly dealing with the real world.” The two fields started to form separate ideologies with the arrival of anti-art. While the anti-art version of painting was going against the aesthetics of traditional painting, Duchamp's readymades are an example of the anti-art form of sculpture – instead of representing something, anti-art presented unpretentious objects that were nothing but themselves.
While the nature of paintings was limited to being only a picture of something, sculpture expanded to the possibility of being any “thing” as long as a label or designation is attached to it, as declared by Duchamp, to the extent that it can even be immaterial. This ideology has the upper hand where you could regard a painting as a sculpture, but not vice versa, and thus, in the author's eyes, the primary medium in the new age of doubt.
Thoughts % discussion questions:
To me, art is a reflection of our thoughts and a peek inside the soul of the artist, and based on the reading, this is an old school's traditional view. Personally I lean more towards old school thinking, in terms of aesthetics as well. What does art mean to you?
Would you consider our current generation as still post-modern, or have we moved on to an age of certainty without realizing it?
If a soulless object is declared as art, does it still hold as much meaning as an artwork with “soul”?
The descriptive word of “post-war” in the 1980s, slowly led into the idea of being “post-modern”, “post-human” – post-everything, disconnecting from its predecessors .
At the proclaimed end of the Kantian tradition, which valued form over content, the previous taboos of the old art school declared their spots in the newly opened field, becoming the exact opposite of what art had been before. This created fresh opportunities for the experiences that the previous age had avoided.
In Kantian terms, there are two roots of style: the visual/internal root, which is the link with previous art and aesthetics, and the social/external root which is the link to surrounding culture, such as social, ethnical, and political issues. Contrary to the past, the roles of the roots were now reversed in the new art age and the content of the social root took dominance over visual style. In other words, variety in style took over the unified body of an individual artwork and the category it belonged to.
Before, art was a quest to reflect the soul, portrayed by the physical perfection of the human form and flawless representation of the environment mastered by the Greeks, eventually evolving into pure abstraction of the soul directly in non-human form, until the World Wars happened. The destruction of the world was reflected in the changed views that art took – rejection of the tradition of the soul in artwork in the guise of soulless objects, slowly growing into deconstructiveness, or anti-art.
Even though painting and sculpture have similar principles, painting was considered more elite by the Greeks due to the manual labour sculpture involves, and this sentiment was passed on until the new age of doubt. The representational illusion gave way to the material presence of sculpture, aka “escapist fantasy versus directly dealing with the real world.” The two fields started to form separate ideologies with the arrival of anti-art. While the anti-art version of painting was going against the aesthetics of traditional painting, Duchamp's readymades are an example of the anti-art form of sculpture – instead of representing something, anti-art presented unpretentious objects that were nothing but themselves.
While the nature of paintings was limited to being only a picture of something, sculpture expanded to the possibility of being any “thing” as long as a label or designation is attached to it, as declared by Duchamp, to the extent that it can even be immaterial. This ideology has the upper hand where you could regard a painting as a sculpture, but not vice versa, and thus, in the author's eyes, the primary medium in the new age of doubt.
Thoughts % discussion questions:
To me, art is a reflection of our thoughts and a peek inside the soul of the artist, and based on the reading, this is an old school's traditional view. Personally I lean more towards old school thinking, in terms of aesthetics as well. What does art mean to you?
Would you consider our current generation as still post-modern, or have we moved on to an age of certainty without realizing it?
If a soulless object is declared as art, does it still hold as much meaning as an artwork with “soul”?
Chapter 1 Summary
“Sculpture in the Age of Doubt, by Thomas McEvilley, 1999. Chapter 1 Summary
In order to explain the difference in schools of thought between Modernism & Post-modernism, Thomas McEvilley used various examples of how ages of certainty alternate with periods of doubt throughout history, especially so in the Western culture.
The Great doubt, supported by groups such as the Greek school of skepticism and Buddhist Madyamika, is the positive view and belief in questioning the reality of everything, and as a result, free their minds from this world and find inner awakening/awareness of consciousness in a boundless realm with “no assumptions”. This idea is key to two ancient Greek philosophical groups, the Academics and the Pyrrhonists. While the Academics outrightly rejected all views and declared them as false, the Pyrrhonists simply suspended judgement by not declaring if something was for real or untrue. Everything is subject to a rational doubt. McEvilley mentions the Pyrrhonists many times throughout the chapter.
In great contrast, the search for certainty comes in many forms via religion such as Christianity and Islam, political thinking like the ideals of Democracy, or the scientific view as demonstrated by mathematical calculations and the observation of nature – the common factor in these ideologies is that they believe themselves to be the eternal truth, presuming themselves to have existed forever, and take turns to dominate the world. These ages of certainty always exaggerate the duration of their existence through the denial that their end is approaching, and when it finally does end, it comes as a surprise, followed previously by short periods of doubt. These can be seen in the examples of the Renaissance and Eurocentrism, where countries seek to be the ultimate ruler and invade other countries, ultimately leading to the World Wars.
At the end of World War II, as European colonies started to withdraw and the Western dream of “desirable culmination” which had turned into a nightmare came to an end, Modernism ceased to be, and a new age of doubt, Post-Modernism, quietly began. Despite the difference in technology and times, the underlying ideals of post-Modernism are highly similar to the reaction of turn in events at the end of period of certainty.
However, the theory that post-modernism is a derivation of skeptical thinking from a revival of ancient times is unacknowledged by the thinkers themselves, who are more interested in emphasizing the impression of innovation and undoubtedly the globalization of previous colonies, previously silenced through colonization, now turned into independent producers and exported manufacturers with voices. The first signs of doubt in art history occurred when the world was going through destruction, and full awareness of doubt blossomed in 1980s. In the eyes of a Modernist, this new anti-art seems to be the end of “real” art, but it has developed its own aesthetic form.
Thoughts & discussion questions:
Although I had to read through the text several times before I could fully comprehend the meaning, this chapter helped me to grasp the sentiments of the art movements mentioned.
The ages of certainty brought about great masterpieces based on aesthetic guides that work universally, while ages of doubt allows one to go in any other direction.
If you were to choose between a world of unity or pure freedom, which would you choose, and why?
What is considered aesthetically beautiful in a post-modern context?
In order to explain the difference in schools of thought between Modernism & Post-modernism, Thomas McEvilley used various examples of how ages of certainty alternate with periods of doubt throughout history, especially so in the Western culture.
The Great doubt, supported by groups such as the Greek school of skepticism and Buddhist Madyamika, is the positive view and belief in questioning the reality of everything, and as a result, free their minds from this world and find inner awakening/awareness of consciousness in a boundless realm with “no assumptions”. This idea is key to two ancient Greek philosophical groups, the Academics and the Pyrrhonists. While the Academics outrightly rejected all views and declared them as false, the Pyrrhonists simply suspended judgement by not declaring if something was for real or untrue. Everything is subject to a rational doubt. McEvilley mentions the Pyrrhonists many times throughout the chapter.
In great contrast, the search for certainty comes in many forms via religion such as Christianity and Islam, political thinking like the ideals of Democracy, or the scientific view as demonstrated by mathematical calculations and the observation of nature – the common factor in these ideologies is that they believe themselves to be the eternal truth, presuming themselves to have existed forever, and take turns to dominate the world. These ages of certainty always exaggerate the duration of their existence through the denial that their end is approaching, and when it finally does end, it comes as a surprise, followed previously by short periods of doubt. These can be seen in the examples of the Renaissance and Eurocentrism, where countries seek to be the ultimate ruler and invade other countries, ultimately leading to the World Wars.
At the end of World War II, as European colonies started to withdraw and the Western dream of “desirable culmination” which had turned into a nightmare came to an end, Modernism ceased to be, and a new age of doubt, Post-Modernism, quietly began. Despite the difference in technology and times, the underlying ideals of post-Modernism are highly similar to the reaction of turn in events at the end of period of certainty.
However, the theory that post-modernism is a derivation of skeptical thinking from a revival of ancient times is unacknowledged by the thinkers themselves, who are more interested in emphasizing the impression of innovation and undoubtedly the globalization of previous colonies, previously silenced through colonization, now turned into independent producers and exported manufacturers with voices. The first signs of doubt in art history occurred when the world was going through destruction, and full awareness of doubt blossomed in 1980s. In the eyes of a Modernist, this new anti-art seems to be the end of “real” art, but it has developed its own aesthetic form.
Thoughts & discussion questions:
Although I had to read through the text several times before I could fully comprehend the meaning, this chapter helped me to grasp the sentiments of the art movements mentioned.
The ages of certainty brought about great masterpieces based on aesthetic guides that work universally, while ages of doubt allows one to go in any other direction.
If you were to choose between a world of unity or pure freedom, which would you choose, and why?
What is considered aesthetically beautiful in a post-modern context?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)