Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Out the Carpet

11 comments:

wolfBoy said...

i feel like these two drawings have a bit of an escher influence. like 'em.

micro said...

You can't do a narrow staircase and an arch without someone saying that, but Escher was the furthest thing from my mind while drawing these. As a general rule, I'm more interested in what people think a drawing is 'saying', over what famous historical artist it reminds them.

jc said...

Well, there is a lot going on in this one.

I think what Wolfie might be referring to is the repitition in the composition in both the foreground and background, the hatching, the dwindling perspective in the staircases, and that feeling of dropping into a piece using optical elements that Escher is lousy for.

Both this drawing and the last drawing give me an inside/out feeling. Things spilling out of things and twisting into other things...again something Escher does...but these are different, more abtract in they're handling, not geometric like Escher's.

I like 'em too.

wolfBoy said...

it seems that whether i state my honest opinion/reaction to a work, try to say what i think it might "mean", or, as i've in this case, point out something it reminds me of on some level, i'm always told i'm wrong.

so perhaps it is my stating of any sort of opinion at all about art that you object to, dave?

micro said...

You're upset because I wasn't thinking about Escher while doing these? I'm not saying you can't think of that. I was trying to invite analysis to a further depth. Like what James was saying:

the repetition in the composition in both the foreground and background, the hatching, the dwindling perspective in the staircases, and that feeling of dropping into a piece using optical elements that Escher is lousy for.

Both this drawing and the last drawing give me an inside/out feeling. Things spilling out of things and twisting into other things...again something Escher does.

I have to agree with that. Also, when I survey people for meaning, asking them what they think a picture means, they are almost always "wrong". If someone throws it out there like the only possible answer, I 'm obviously going to reject that, especially when it is contrary to my own interpretation. I think of art as being a lot like the Rorschach ink blot tests. Everyone is "wrong" because there is no "right". But I don't think of it in those terms so much, I just look at it as a barometer to measure the range of imagination. When it comes to my own art, it is very easy for me to take an authoritative position, but that quite frankly, is because I am the foremost authority on my art. I'm never guessing what the artist was thinking, or what they meant, or even how it was done... when I was the artist who made it. Please don't take offense to this certainty. It only stacks up in a few areas, the rest is doubt.

jc said...

Hmmm.

The last part, about being the foremost authority on your own art....I don't think I can agree with that point. You may be the author but I'd argue that once it's created, the art has no authority.(does that make sense?) And although the artist may have had intentions/aspirations about what the art is supposed to do or mean it doesn't make those intentions any more factual.

You can make art and have no idea, really. What's even more bizarre is when an artist is delusional about what they're making. They think it conveys one thing and really conveys something else. how interesting!

wolfBoy said...

Good call, Knack-- if you read Tolkein's long-winded into to Lord of the Rings, he insists at great length that his books did not come out of his experiences in the trenches of the First World War, and that his books are IN NO WAY an allegory for 20-th century events.

Anyone who's read anything about WW I will recognize endless parallels between his book and the war, down to, at certain points, word-for-word quotes from important figures. (Gandalf's "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" being perhaps the most memorable example, an almost direct quote from the French general Petain that became a rallying cry for the French and Allies.)

Most historians now agree that Tolkien, like many veterans, was unwilling to confront the ways the war had affected him, and like many veterans, tended to downplay or deny its influence on his life and work. Most historians also agree that he's completely wrong in his analysis of his own work, since it quite clearly comes out of his war experiences and out of 20th century events.

Beyond that, me saying "I feel like these drawings..." is no way trying to "throw it out there like the only possible answer."

It's an opinion, and an honest first-look reaction.

I'm also not sure I'm under any obligation to provide analysis, am I? Posting your work invites people's honest reactions, it doesn't demand that they respond in a way you feel to be appropriate.

90% of what I post on here gets two comments and reactions:
1-- Carlos: Nice! 2-- Cara: Awesome!

And that's fine. I don't post work on here hoping for detailed, in-depth analysis.

If you do, that's fine, but I don't think (opinion) you can expect that every comment on your work will explore its theme, content, etc.

word verif: cholly

micro said...

JC:"The last part, about being the foremost authority on your own art....I don't think I can agree with that point. You may be the author but I'd argue that once it's created, the art has no authority.(does that make sense?)"
I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't it? and please check out the broad definition of this word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority
"And although the artist may have had intentions/aspirations about what the art is supposed to do or mean it doesn't make those intentions any more factual".
Are you saying the art doesn't make my intentions more true? I would say that it does. I would say that I'm making a physical object, and in a way a physical manifestation of my intention. Just like when I write these words here, they convey meaning with reasonable accuracy to people who know how to read. The same would be true for my own art, except most people don't understand the language of 'Dave's Art' the way I do. So that leaves me having to back it up with titles etc. That's not to say it can't be perceived differently,, because it most certainly would be. Still my intention is to communicate, and I feel I am able to do so (even if not 100% accuracy).
"You can make art and have no idea, really."
Agreed!
"What's even more bizarre is when an artist is delusional about what they're making. They think it conveys one thing and really conveys something else. how interesting!"
The work of the subconscious is not to be underestimated!

micro said...

LR:"...if you read Tolkein's long-winded into to Lord of the Rings, he insists at great length that his books did not come out of his experiences in the trenches of the First World War...
Anyone who's read anything about WW I will recognize endless parallels between his book and the war, down to, at certain points, word-for-word quotes from important figures...Most historians also agree that he's completely wrong in his analysis of his own work..."

I wouldn't be so quick to say "he's completely wrong in his analysis of his own work". I agree he may have been "unwilling to confront the ways the war had affected him, and like many veterans, tended to downplay or deny its influence on his life and work." If the intro is long winded as you say, and he goes out of his way to say that the story isn't inspired by WW1, I would think he was aware that people would make that connection and he is trying to circumvent this out of some reason I could only guess at (His friend Bill wouldn't be amused with being portrayed as a hobbit, or people looking for inaccuracies instead of similarities with WW1, bad memories).
His analysis isn't wrong, it's just affected by more (personal) information than historians/we have access to. In fact Tolkien trying to affect peoples perception like that is good evidence of his knowledge of the possible outcomes (language) of his art.
"Beyond that, me saying "I feel like these drawings..." is no way trying to "throw it out there like the only possible answer."
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you do/did that, I'm saying that's another possible thing I'd reject, when people try and sum it all up a little too much. I may have been getting off track there. What I was trying to say is that I didn't really feel like I was saying you were wrong in the first place, and that if you were 'wrong', it shouldn't be a big deal for either of us (we're just talking about a little silly drawing).
"It's an opinion, and an honest first-look reaction."
I appreciate(d) that. Thanks.
"I'm also not sure I'm under any obligation to provide analysis, am I? Posting your work invites people's honest reactions, it doesn't demand that they respond in a way you feel to be appropriate".
Agreed, but in turn I am not obligated to roll over and agree with everything (or anything for that matter)that they say.
"90% of what I post on here gets two comments and reactions:
1Carlos: Nice!2Cara: Awesome!
And that's fine. I don't post work on here hoping for detailed, in-depth analysis.If you do, that's fine, but I don't think (opinion) you can expect that every comment on your work will explore its theme, content, etc."
God forbid! detailed, in depth analysis would be excruciating, that's not what I want at all. I just want to talk to people about art and stuff (but be able to agree or disagree with them freely). My initial response to you was an invitation to say more, not a requirement.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I hope we can move on from here. How about those Rorschachs? What do you see?

wolfBoy said...

i think you should put 'em in ten individual frames and put 'em in your show. maybe.

micro said...

Well you're wrong. Lmao, I'm sorry, just f'n around. Really I would love to frame a ton of stuff, but can't afford it.