Up to this point we have looked at mediums, material usage, artists, Formalism, and a broad understanding of our current perception of art and how it is defined. The second half of this course will deal with more complex and specific frameworks that involve contemporary art. We will also be reading chapter 4 of your text to further help us understand how we, the viewer, come to derive meaning from works of art.
On Monday we will watch Janine Antoni on art21 and she wonders if the viewer would be able to pick up bits of the stories, that she felt were embedded in the materials she used. She talks about her work and the underlying ideas and symbolisms behind them. When we see objects like Ms. Antoni's "Eureka",which is actually a bathtub filled with lard that she made an impression of her body in, we often wonder...what is this?...why would anybody do this?...and is this really art?! But, hearing her explanation and how it is related to a story about Archimedes, we understand the piece more and also accept the piece as what constitutes art.
Currently in Kipp Gallery, just outside our doors, we have an exhibition by Clayton Merrell. In Mr. Merrell's own words, he says the work is "landscape painting" and "hopes that the viewer will be a little confused and begin to ask questions". During my installation of this exhibition with Mr. Merrell and from hearing his lectures, I came to understand how the formal qualities of his work are tied directly to the content. I would like all of us to explore this exhibition, think about all the elements that make this work up, and use it as a point of discussion on the blog and also for some carry over into our class. As we talked about, meaning changes by the way we encounter art work, and for many of us, we only see art as images on pages or computer screens, so lets take advantage of this exhibition...please take the time to visit the gallery and look at the installation yourself and then respond to one or more of the questions below.
When you visited the gallery did you understand what the artist was trying to communicate, or what the art work was about...the content?
Does the written word add to the public's experience of art? What helped you in this specific installation?
Is something written that accompanies the art work necessary?Do writings, like an artist statement or explanation on a wall, limit our experiences in an exhibition? How?
Once you understood the content of the installation were you more interested?
What aspects of this installation did you find interesting...formal qualities?...content?...material use?
What aspects of this installation did you find interesting...formal qualities?...content?...material use?
Did the exhibit appeal to you in an aesthetic way?
When I attended the gallery the first two pieces I didnt quite understand. Once I got to the next couple piece I understood what the work was implying and was way more interested, I went back to the prior pieces. No, I do not think that the artist should give an explination of what their art is sayin. It takes away from what we see and doesnt make us think and stare at the work.It takes away from our experience.
ReplyDeleteI found the each art work to be very similar from piece to piece. In each one he used a wide variety of colors and included a lot of contrast. Some of the works had these golden mountains protruding outward towards the bottom. It made the work unique and was something I have never seen before. Altogether I thought it was very fascinating and different.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Arter
ReplyDeleteI would like to discuss art and what it means to me. I think it is important to have the freedom to interpret artwork as it relates to your own life. An artist, I think, should be able to convey their intended message through a piece without a written description. Of course, if they feel that their words somehow add to the art, then I think it is necessary. But in all other cases, the flow of the piece and the elements used should be thought out and placed correctly if the artist really wants their piece to speak in a certain way to people. (I suppose the only other exception would be in the case that people respond in a way completely different from what the artist intended. But still, the art should be developed enough the first time...I see a description as a correction or a compensation for the artist's flaws in conveyance.) That is just my point of view, if anyone else thinks differently I would be more than happy to listen!
If you squint a little bit I think it's a lot easier to see the landscapes in his work. I do like his work. However, i don't usually agree with "artist explanations". I think the idea is and should be for the viewer to have their own interpretations. Not just in visual art but in film as well. I don't like it when beautiful things are picked apart to the bare bone.
ReplyDeleteI went to the art gallery but i only stayed for a few minutes. I think that clayton Merrell's work were very similar. i think that they all had to do with the sky, moon stars, sun, sunsets etc. I found his art work to be very captivating to me. very peaceful and serine. The piece on this blog reminds me of a sunset or a rainbow over a mountaintop. And the colors remind me of a rainbow.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first got into the gallery my first thoughts were the paintings were all very similar. They all had to do with sky's and stars. He uses alot of lines, color and contrast in his paintings. I like how he used gold mountains at the bottom of some of his paintings it added a little 3D look to it and made it unique. The one piece of work really stood out to me the "Supernovaasteroidcometsuncliptic". I loved the colors he used. To me it looks like he painted two towns sideways and they were connected by the sky. Then he put all the stars,comets and asteroids in the sky. The colors he chose really made the whole piece stand out to me.
ReplyDeleteI visited the gallery opening night and the found the works by Clayton Merrell interesting. For the most part i understood what he was trying to say, but in the ones I didn't know i made up the reasoning behind them. My favorite was image #7 off the pamphlet, it was so full of different shades of yellows, and different ways to see the rays of the sun. I like artwork talking about the outdoors so overall this was a good representation of that!
ReplyDeleteWhen I visited the gallery I didn’t get the sense of what the artist was trying to communicate, yet I did get the idea of the works being landscapes. The written explanations of the art do help with pieces that I just don’t get at all, but I feel that often what is written will also take away what I feel and think about an art piece and impose what an artist wants me to feel or see in his art. I imagine that a great artist would be one who can communicate what he wants without the need of a written explanation. The actual work should be enough for me to judge a piece of art, strictly on what I see. Clayton Merrell is clearly skilled, his art just isn't appealing to me. I found a few pieces that I did not dislike, but the pieces with the gold, I did not like at all.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first went into the gallery I thought that many of the pieces looked alike in some ways. However, after looking at each one individually they each had their own characteristics to them. He used bright colors, contrast and lines in every piece and that could have been part of the reason I thought they all looked alike. Overall, I thought the exhibit was interesting and it was aesthetically pleasing. I don't really think that a written explanation is necessary because we can each make our own understanding of the pieces if we just take the time to look at them a little longer and think about it.
ReplyDeleteI liked the exhibition by Clayton Merrell very much. I loved the way he uses different types of colors, lines and shapes. Do I think something written is necessary to accompany the work? Not always. But with some of the pieces by Merrell, for example, I would have liked to know what he was thinking about when he made the piece or what it is supposed to represent. After something like that you can and will always think about what the artwork means to you, personally. But when it is obvious what the content of the work is, you don't need something written to understand it.
ReplyDeletewhat i liked about the exhibition was that there were two pieces that were almost similiar. the one was entitled "supernovaasteriodcometsunecliptic". these two paintings have the ground and trees on the sides of the painting, not the bottom like a normal landscape would have. in the middle was the sky with the bright yellow shapes depicting the "supernova", "asteriod", and "sun". it looked like to me a clash of two worlds. i enjoyed those pieces because it made me have to think awhile to interpret what i thought it truly was. i like Merrell's work because a lot of it contains warm bright colors that are very attractive and comforting to the eye.
ReplyDeleteWhen I visited the gallery the art caught my attention instantly. Clayton Merrell's
ReplyDelete"landscape paintings" are full of lines, colors and values. I liked his choices of colors and the values that applied to them. It was as each painting was a different season. The 3D mountains are one of the things I found very enjoying and it was like the painting was bringing me in. I can see me putting one of these paintings into my home.
I really liked The Rising Sun but that is not what it looked like to me. I saw older computer graphics like in an explosion in a video game. The geometric shapes(the triangles) coming out looked more like light coming off of an explosion rather than sun light. It also looks like there is a cloud of smoke and debris behind the focal point, slightly off to the right. I like the artist but there is too much of the same idea in every one of the paintings(the triangles).
ReplyDeleteI understood how it could be a sun but the title actually took away from my interest. As for what the artist was trying to communicate throughout the show, I have absolutly no idea.
When I went to the art gallory I really liked what i saw. All of Clayton Merrell looked like some part of the earth but he blended the colors very well to make it look more then an simple sun or moon. My favorite peice of his art of image #2 in the book, just the colors and the way the lines were formed caught my eye. i could see myself hanging a piece of his art in my house.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that an artist should be required to give a written explanation along with their work. I believe part of enjoying art is in examining it and creating your own view and interpretation of it. I also believe that if an artist blatantly has to give his audience a description of the work he is not doing his job.This is not always true because some great pieces of art are the most abstract things any of us have ever seen and we need that explanation. Overall I felt Clayton's work was very different and I greatly enjoyed the installation.
ReplyDelete(slonac)
ReplyDeleteWhenever I first began looking at Clayton Merrell's art work i did not really understand what he was trying to communicate. But, the more i really stopped to think about and examine his pieces, the message began to become more clear to me. A lot of his work is landscape paintings and i really enjoyed his color usage. In particular, i really enjoyed his Desert Sky painting and how he used color and shapes to convey his message. Overall i really liked Clayton Merrell's work and im glad i was able to see his pieces in the gallery.
When I first walked into the exhibit I had no idea what Clayton Merrell's paintings content was. It wasn't until I looked through his painting's booklet and realized they were landscape paintings. Once I figured out what his content was I really got into his work. His paintings were beautiful and abstract drawings of landscapes. Clayton's one landscape painting with the gold mountains which is image #3 in the booklet captured my attention from when I first walked into Sprowls hall. You could see the gold mountains from a distance because of how shiny they are! The landscape with the gold mountains is my favorite because I think it is cool how he carved the mountains out of wood blocks and then covered them with a gold sheet. I really enjoyed Clayton Merrell's landscape paintings and could see one of his landscape's in my house someday.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really understand alot of his art, because I felt he left alot of room for interpretation, although his title gave hints.
ReplyDeleteI think writing by an artist about his artwork can take away from the expierence, because then you only think what you read, and not your own thoughts. However, in the case of Janine Antoni, i thought it was helpful to understand the story behidn the art. I think maybe a background of the story would be nice, but not what it is trying to make you think. Clayton Merrell's paintings were nice, I liked the color he used together, and I would hang one in my house.
When i first walked into the room i had realized his paintings all had a certain simularity. I didnt realize that they were landscape paintings until i read his book to do my extra credit. I really enjoyed most of his paintings and loved the idea of having the content of landscaped and even the painted wooded mountains , there were also beautiful.
ReplyDeleteClayton shows to me with his paintings and gold leaf work, the majesty of nature. He is very actual in the painting of clouds and trees, but with the light he shows colorful bold lines that to me represent a very spiritual aspect for the painter. In these lines he allows you to be able to derive your own meaning from the colorful lines. Seeing the gold leaf work brings a whole different style for me, more bold. I believe the use of "gold" has the same purpose as the colorful lines. Also, his color schemes remind me of Frank Stella, and are amazing. Relaxing and empowering, I felt very at peace.
ReplyDeletei really liked the painting i although the paintings are similar they are not the same but you can tell they are all from the same artist. i liked vrtually evrry peice they all struck a chord emotionally. they all in some waybrought up a specific feeling. and this i feel was due to the way he used his colors. the way they either contrasted or complimented each other and the use of the 3-d prtions that looked kin of like mountain ranges i like. it almost felt like you were staring off into the horizon
ReplyDeleteWhile at the Gallery I felt like Merrells' work was attempting to make a connection between nature, the unknown, and how that connects to humans. We all see things everyday, we don't really wonder why we see them, or how the scenery got that way, we just know its there.
ReplyDeleteOften in art, especially contemporary, text will be incorporated, sometimes a full written explanation of the piece in question, this can add to the work, but it also takes away the idea of individual interpretation, which is a big part of art.
This exhibit was fascinating, the repetition of those long triangles (often appearing as parts of a sun or star, other times not) in each piece gave a flow to the whole gallery. I enjoyed the pieces very much, if I were a wealthy man I would hang New Particle Cascade and Golden Rain in my house in a heartbeat.
As soon as I walked into the gallery and saw all the paintings they all seem to be portraying the same thing to me. They all look as if they are depicting a sunrise or sunset on a horizon.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the written word does help with the experience of art work. In many cases it helps me to understand that the artist is trying to express in the painting or sculpture. I think that it was the colors that were used in the painting that helped me the most.
I would say that a written statement is not always necessary. There are times where without a written statement about the artwork we are able to see more and use are imaginations to create an explanation that may not was been known to the artist.
After fully understanding the installation I was not any more or any less interested. I for the most part just see art as art and nothing more. Art isn't something that speaks to me as it may to others.
I liked how the installation was set up and the choice of materials used to express each image was also really nice.
I would have to say that this installation did not appeal to me in an aesthetic way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought the exhibit was very interesting and unique. I really enjoyed all of the pieces because they reminded me of different scenes in nature. The gold mountains and accents on certain pieces really made them stand out, and it gave the piece more dimension. I would consider hanging some of these on my walls because of the vibrant colors and designs.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand what the artist was trying to show. I feel that all of his pieces somehow could be looked at as landscapes. The gold was like mountains. They all have blues and yellows that would symbolize sun and sky. One has many colors, could symbolize a rainbow.
ReplyDeleteI certainly enjoyed the exhibit, as well as al of the works on display. For someone who isn't into art that much, it did make me think long and hard about what landscape the artist was trying to capture. I can't say that I was able to figure it out on my own, so the written words helped me. Once I read, I looked at each work in a different way, and was able to at least get an idea of what he was going for. To me, the written word can only help, not hurt. I enjoy the vibrant colors used in all of the paintings, for no particular reason other than I think they look cool.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the exhibit because it didn't have any text to go with the paintings because it makes the viewer look at the artwork and get something more personal out of it. Sometimes when an artist includes too much text and description in the painting it takes away from what the viewer could get out of it on their own.
ReplyDeleteI liked the abstract use of color, coupled with things we see in everyday life in nature. By making the trees and the sky different colors, and putting shapes in odd places they wouldn't usually be it makes the viewer look at their surroundings differently.
As a whole, I liked the gallery with an exception of a few pieces. I found those pieces either to be to similar to others or too simple to be asthetically pleasing. Although when I viewed the gallery I tried not to judge by a painting to painting basis but as a whole. I found I liked the whole gallery and how he recreated nature in many different abstract ways as too please and appeal to as many as possible.
ReplyDeleteokay so i answered this blog already two times now... and i guess both times it decided to fake post on me.. so once again...
ReplyDeleteWhen you visited the gallery did you understand what the artist was trying to communicate, or what the art work was about...the content?
I believe that Clayton Merell's pieces all resembled a type of natural landscape. He used a lot of bright colors and shapes, especially flowers, leaves, trees, vines, sun/sunburst shapes, and star shapes. I especially loved the pieces that seemed to have 3-D gold piece at the bottom of the painting, followed by a burst/rainbow of colors behind it, as if the gold was reflecting off a rainbow from the sun. As i said before a lot of his pieces resembled a type of natural landscape. He not only seemed to use a lot of bright exceptional colors, but also used earth tones in the pieces with the tree and flower shapes. He seemed to paint objects of nature. Kind of like sunsets in his on sense, and woods or a forest after or before the sun comes up. I believe that is what the content was of each painting, I very much loved each and everyone of his pieces.
When I walked in to the gallery I thought the pieces were all very similar. Every piece had something to do with a sunrise and had a clear horizon. When it comes to the writings I believe these can be very useful when a person wants to know more about an artwork. You can always have your interpretation of the artwork, but sometimes it might be useful to know what the artist wanted to say with it. A written statement is not always necessary though. Sometimes the viewer just needs to have his or her interpretation of the artwork and that's enough. I believe there must be some space for imagination. After fully understanding the installation I was not any more or any less interested. I for the most part just see art as art and not much more then that. This doesn't mean that I didn't like the pieces, they were pretty facinating! I especially liked the pieces with the golden elements in it.
ReplyDeleteI found the art work in the gallery to be soothing and similar to nature. Not the the artist was trying to immitate nature, but that the artist was painting his version of nature or how it saw it. Not it all the pieces but it some. And all the different sections went well together.
ReplyDeleteWhen i the gallery the first painting that captured my attention was image number 2, in the little book that was given out. The painting was painted sideways. There are small landscapes painted on both sides. Also, in the middle of the painting is the sky with different sized images of the sun. I think that if the painting if flipped to the sides you could picture the earth at different times in the day, because of the different positions of the sun. I believe that was the content of the painting.
ReplyDelete