Ryan Trecartin, A Family Finds EntertainmentReadings:
http://kohbunny.com/shamim.html
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/ryan_trecartin.htm
Question:
Consider the two following artists' quotes from this week's readings:
"Caspar David Friedrich once wrote 'the painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him. If he sees nothing within himself, however, then he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him.'" - Swallowing Time
"'We consume and consume and puke, more than fetishise the objects and information we use.' Ryan Trecartin explains, 'We don't act inside or outside of consumer culture, entertainment, or art culture, we consume and translate, we're a by-product of it.'" - The Saatchi Gallery
Assuming both artists' perspectives are correct, what inevitable conclusion must we draw concerning the type of work it is possible for contemporary appropriation artists to make? Use examples from the Saatchi site or examples from your own personal knowledge of contemporary appropriation artists to explain.
http://kohbunny.com/shamim
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co
Question:
Consider the two following artists' quotes from this week's readings:
"Caspar David Friedrich once wrote 'the painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him. If he sees nothing within himself, however, then he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him.'" - Swallowing Time
"'We consume and consume and puke, more than fetishise the objects and information we use.' Ryan Trecartin explains, 'We don't act inside or outside of consumer culture, entertainment, or art culture, we consume and translate, we're a by-product of it.'" - The Saatchi Gallery
Assuming both artists' perspectives are correct, what inevitable conclusion must we draw concerning the type of work it is possible for contemporary appropriation artists to make? Use examples from the Saatchi site or examples from your own personal knowledge of contemporary appropriation artists to explain.
65 comments:
If both artists are correct, and we can assume they are, then any artist who creates contemporary mixed media art must not only be aware of himself and his own feelings, but must also realize that his feelings are a result of his circumstances and the culture around him. Friedrich is correct in saying it is pointless to draw what is front of him. Anyone can do that, and in fact a camera can do it better than any person can. The whole point of art is to put yourself into it. However, as Trecartin says, basically we are a result of the culture around us. Therefore, anything we create is basically a remix of culture we experience, entwined with our own personal demons. As we read in the article, Koh made some extremely thought provoking and reflective installations, but at the same time, his works were not created in a vacuum. His installations were based off of the thinking of the times (scientific discovery) as well as other artists' trends (Minimalist art, baroque). He took from other artists' works and made them his own, meshing their ideas with his own perspective. The result is yet another cultural piece, reflecting the world around it, yet personal as well, and unique because no one could give a project the same spin that Koh has given it, nor combined arts in quite the same manner.
~Jackie Bentley, Group 3
Lydell Peterson
Group 1 (Emir)
If under the assumption that both artists are correct, than we can conclude that anything (in the sense of the type of work) is possible. Anything that can be absorbed by the artists mind can be used to create whatever the artist sees fit. Whether it is remixing advertisement campaigns or imitating/mimicking other pieces of art, the realm of the possible lies squarely on the shoulders of what can be absorbed by the artist’s mind from his/her life and experiences. Ryan Trecartin “conceives of his exhibitions as akin to theatre productions: the actual art work is the show, his sculptures exist as props, memorabilia, or spin-offs representing their contributions to the event.” This (along with the examples of the pieces to the show from Koh’s article representing parts to a whole) shows that these interpretations of one’s envision and culture’s influence around us can be used and pieced together to create a whole new meaning. The artist created a piece, which was taken from personal envision/experience along with culture’s influence recreated and made to send a whole new sense of feeling and expression. To go along with Friedrich’s quote, the painter must paint from his experiences and not just copy what he sees. If there is no personal experience and input from what he/she has absorbed from culture than the painter is merely doing the work (as Jackie from a previous post pointed out) that a photocopier, scanner, or camera can do. If the artist digs from his/her personal experiences and creates and remixes what was absorbed in his/her mind, than virtually anything imaginable is possible.
Michael Schafer Group 3
If we assume that both artists are correct, then I guess you could say we are what we eat. Like Trecartin says, “We consume and consume and puke... we are a by product of it”. Meaning our environment makes us who we are today. Trecartin says that we are a “generation both damaged and affirmed by media consumption”. So we are a by product of the media. We see our beloved celebrities on t.v. smoking, drinking and partying all night and kids watching believe that’s what they should do. We are so heavily influenced by the media that we become programmed by the media. We believe whatever it tells us because we rely on it to heavily.
On the topic of modern art, this brings me back to the blog we had on originality. Just like technology, art is the same. Every invention and piece of art has just been a more improved/evolved form of the original. It just satisfies different needs. We as humans in the year 2007 are all experiencing the same events but in different ways and that’s what makes the new art different. For example, someone who had their house destroyed by hurricane Katrina will have a different take on that whole catastrophe compared to someone who lived in New York while the event took place. Most art is a response to something that is going on in the world but from different perspectives. Because of artist’s personal beliefs and affairs that original art form is taken to a new place it has never been before.
We are what we make. Artisits make work of what they see but add their own ideas and feelings to it. for example an artisit who paints an landscape paints what he sees, the trees,sky,clouds, but can add colors that aren't there to give a feel he got or to present a mood he wanted to. We take what we know of an object and reillistrate it not only to what it exactly looks like but how we know it could be and want it to be. No work of art can be consider original. we pull all of our ideas from something even if they don't mess we they artisit can make it work because it is our vision, eventhough it is derived from other ideas or cultural things. So anything we can conclude new artisit to make will be based off of other work or other ideas. Things in real life. on saatchi site he states that he works with other artist to createhis art. he takes from then as they do from him and create toghter noth their ideas.
Caspar David Friedrich is stating that one cannot simply depict what is in front of him in a painting, a photograph or a film. If it simply is, it would be nothing more than a representation of an event or scene from the past. It would be no more a work of art than the scene itself. But if an artist puts more than what is in front of him; more than representation; a part of himself - what others cannot simply 'see', it then offers as art what other works can not.
Ryan Trecartin is stating that we are not co-existing with our culture, our society and our environment. We are the result of what has happened to us, where we have been and what we have done. Everything that we have ever experienced has shaped us in one way or another. As hard as this is to grasp, society itself is also shaped by our experiences. We are constantly molding our culture, and our culture is constantly influencing us. It's a series of remixes that cannot be separated. In short, we are what we see.
Just to add, I found it particularly interesting that Trecartin finds how people view his works as much of an art form as the art itself.
-- Eric Fritz, Group 3
If the painter does not have the notion to paint his work of art, then there is no way that he should even start because he will not perform at his best and complete his project like he wants them to look. Not to paint what he sees right in front of him but what isn’t seen at all. Consumer products make up our generation and its what we see all around us. When we see others art work we see what they made but don’t translate it into our own ideas. It doesn’t mean as much to us as it did to them on a personal level. Media tends to affect how we act and the things we talk about in our everyday lives. It predetermines your perspective without giving you a real chance to know the truth. Like how we gossip about celebrities, artist, musicians, even political figures in our world today. The news isn’t news anymore is all about the drama in with starts and who is dating who in Hollywood.
Aja Gray
Group 4
Hayley Schneider
Group 1
These articles were extremely interesting but at times difficult to follow. After reading the articles the conclusions that I have come up with is that art comes from within the artist. Without inspiration and the desire within the art will not art but just a drawing, a dance, or whatever the art form is that they are doing. In the article, “Swallowing Time”, when the article states, “If he sees nothing within himself, however, then he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him.” This is because if an artist is not putting themselves into the art then the art is not really art. For example, the art of dancing. If the dancer does not feel the music and do not express themselves in the dance, the dance is just simply a dance. The dance has left the form of art and falling into the category of just dancing. Using an example from the Saatchi Gallery, Ryan Trecartin shows in his work that he has included parts of himself and the visions that he had to create his work. The colors, the shapes, and the all around interpretations that are opened to the artwork are amazing.
Well, assuming that both of these artist’s perspectives are correct we can draw the conclusion that we are just building and rebuilding on our current media that is being produced in this day and age. All of our ideas for creating new media comes from our surrounding weather we know it or not. Koh stated that, “A reflective surface lies…pretending to send back the same, it pollutes the original.” Koh was referring to the culture of remix and how he feels that it is polluting original ideas but I believe no matter what you do if your making effective art people will recognize it and it will inspire them. Saatchi stated that “we consume and consume and puke, more than fetishise the objects and information we use.' Ryan Trecartin explains, “We don't act inside or outside of consumer culture, entertainment, or art culture, we consume and translate, we're a by-product of it.” We keep on taking things in again and again and then we puke. By puke he is relating to idea of new art being made from all these different places. The media had turned us into these types of people by programming us with different ideas, one big example of that is TV. Lots of people base things off and get ideas from watching TV; therefore it is a great factor in their life when consuming new media which eventually will be “puked” out to.
Colin Sytsma, group 3, 115
Nacia Schreiner group 1
Art made by appropriation artists can only be created through the sculpting of reality into the imagination. Appropriation artists take the world and mold it according to the expression contained within them. It is a way of improvisation and, according to the Saatchi website; it is “an experiment in theatrical production”. In Ryan Trecartin’s work especially, we see the ability to present the world as an “uncanny reflection of youth culture, presenting a Gen Y zeitgeist of commodity anxiety, spiritual nihilism, and community value.” Without the sense of expression and the artist’s own inside imagery, art in appropriation can not take place in its purist form. The quote by Caspar David Friedrich expresses this idea by saying, “…if he sees nothing within himself [then] he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him." Art in this kind is not realism because there contains no room for imagination. Instead there is a surrealistic, expressionistic quality to appropriation artists. And so they should not create unless they have no inspiration from within.
Understanding that "the painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him." Then we are expecting a lot out of our artists, to put every part of yourself out on the line for every piece of art you create is a large task. Exposing yourself and opening yourself to ridicule and mockery is not something people are willing to do very often. I do agree with him however, realistic and still life paintings are dull unless there is a deeper meaning, some reason for us, as the audience, to get engaged. Not only with paintings as Friedrich was writing about but in every aspect of art, including film. Just recording your surroundings is nice...for a while but, not nearly as interesting as incorporating your ideas and feeling into it. Same goes for culture, according Trecartin, "We consume and consume and puke..." If this were literally true there would be a bulimia epidemic! With everyone watching their MTV and oogaling at their beloved celebrity role models. We, as viewers, need to filter what is obviously crap and what is and should be considered 'culture'. More importantly what types of art and entertainment portray OUR culture, as Americans.
~Kurt Sensenbrenner
group 3
If we assume that the opinions of both artists are correct, then it's obvious to suggest that the only room for good art is, personalized art. Art that comes from a specific person's perspective, from someones dark twisted mind, or innocent imagination. The artist specific perspective add uniques to their art, adding their own originality. Thats what seperates the artists eye, from say a camera's eye.
David Ebner, Group 3
I want to compare drawing a picture to playing the blues. The blues are all around us but only those with 'soul' on the inside can interpret these feelings. The same with drawing pictures or taking a photo or directing a movie. We are all influenced by our settings, only few talk back to them. When a guitarist wails into his first note of a song he has his hardship, and heart behind it. When Koh set all of these pieces up in a room setting, the room absorbed the world around it. The room was almost like an outline, a world summed up in just a few sentences. The space, the settings, the objects, the colors, the white dust that was everywhere. This is how this room depicted the universe and its habitat. Like every piece of art work this room had a soul behind it. Koh brought this statement to life with his own two hands. Some of the pieces, when first glanced at, look like anyone could have set this up. The fact that Koh himself did this changed the meaning. If just anyone did this it would not of been the same. The piece of art would not have the soul, or meaning behind it. The artist is the spine, the life stream, the law, and interpretation behind any piece that they do. The wild fashion that these pieces depicted may not even look like art to some, the surrealists were never accepted either. However, his explanation, his ability to interpret, and his soul is what people understand.
-Tony Lopez, Group 3
Some might argue that art has progressed to this point. The point of painting whats within himself or his objects self; and that to a degree is what Trecartin is doing. Not only is he expressing and commenting on himself but he is commenting and expressing the views and affects put on him by the popular culture of right now. "we're by-products of it." as he says. But this is nothing new. You can argue that the Mona-Lisa, is a by-product of it's time and culture. Her beauty; classic of that time. And Da Vinci's style: very much in-tune to the time, and as to painting to with-in his subject and his self, just look at her smile. Certainly with our multimedia productions of this re-mix culture, Trecartin and other appropriation artists are able to go into other realms with ease, that other experimental artists in the past have not been able.
What I believe is possible is an ever growing pallet for artists to use in whatever ways their means allow. It brings up Wikipedia. If enough people believe it's true, than according to Wikipedia it's fact. In 2007, appropriation artists can indulge in a sea of historical culture bring it forthright and right a new text for new generations to consume. It's in large part the pin-ball effect.
If we paint what is in front of us without what's inside of us, we're merely recreating what's in front of us with less quality and detail. Putting our thoughts into the work creates more meaning or depth to the work. It is possible for temporary appropriation artists to make anything as long as they can conceive it. As far as Trecartin's work, though rather abstract sometimes, he uses normal things. The lady with the cat and his film on tuesday seem to be more like parodies.
Eddie Roberts group 2
Assuming both artists’ perspectives are correct I would have to conclude that every artists has to add their own twist to their artwork not just paint or sculpt what they see in front of them. A part of the artist has to be put into their artwork. Like Caspar David Friedrich said 'the painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him. That’s exactly what an artist must do is see his artwork within and add that to what they are creating. It is pointless for an artist to just copy what they see in front of them. Then Ryan Trecartin is saying that we are by what society has shaped us to be. Everything we have been exposed to in every day life has made us who we are. But by creating art and remixing it with our own style it separates us from others. Trecartin’s film shows how our generation is damaged by media consumption. It shows his style and how he isn’t going to conform to the rest of the media but expose it for what it really is.
-Judith Marker-
Group 1
Jon Phillips
Group 3
Assuming both points of view are correct, we can take from them that the artist's perception of consumption of the world around them is instrumental in creating art. Since the artist must “paint” (although here “painting” can refer to any type of creation) the world around them and their internal self, and the artist absorbs everything around them, art must be a representation of the artist's internal perception of the world around them and how it effects them personally. Trectarin's instillation follows this by showing his reaction to his displacement from Hurricane Katrina from a very subjective viewpoint after being “consumed” and “puked” back out by him.
If both Friedrich and Trecartin are correct, then contemporary appropriation artists have a specific guideline to work with. Friedrich says that there is no point to making art at all, if you don't put a bit of yourself in it. Trecartin says that what we are is a by-product of consumer media and culture. So in the end, contemporary appropriation artists must put their own personal ties to this consumer culture into their work.
I agree very strongly with Friedrich's statement because art isn't art at all if it lacks individuality. Many artists look at their work and see something totally different than the rest of the world. I also agree, slightly unwillingly, with Ryan Trecartin's statement as well. There's no way that people today are not shaped by consumer media on some level. However, this leaves appropriation artists room to remix what previous artists have considered their ties to media culture. To add, this topic directly relates to our discussion of copyright infringement, and can limit contemporary appropriation artists.
Above comment: Devin Smith, Group 1
If everyone was told to look at a person and draw only what they see, you would have a lot of similar pictures. I agree with Friedrich when he says you have to paint what you see within yourself as well. It’s like putting your own feelings and views into the picture. Trecartin also makes sense, saying how we are a byproduct of our culture. Yes, it’s true that artists should paint not only what they see in front of them but also what they see inside themselves, however what they see inside is a result of our culture. It’s a result of our family, our community, our school, tv, magazines, movies, etc. Miltos Manetas uses appropriation in animations in the field of internet and video games. In his “Super Marios Sleeping”, it shows Mario in a video game basically lying down to sleep. It actually looks as if you are in the middle of the Super Mario game. The whole time you’re kind of waiting for Mario to start walking and do something.
-Sarah Myszewski Group 3
Assuming that both views are correct, we can assume that the art world shows infinite possibilities in the creation of product. If an artist can’t make something original, they can use other works or parts of them to create something entirely different. This can easily explain the description of “consuming and consuming” then “vomiting” something out. However, an artist can illustrate his or her feelings or the ideas they need to convey but using or changing the meaning of works before them. The work of Ryan Trecartin illustrates this point. He incorporates many narrative structures in his movies and artwork but presents them in a way that creates a mish-mash of ideas old and new. It is hard to follow, but there is some structure in the cuts and characters of his artwork. His collaborations with his friends also incorporate some things they contribute themselves in his artwork. He isn’t using his ideas one hundred percent of the time. All of this give his work a bewildering feel that both invokes feeling and thought
Friedrich's statement is saying that an artist should not merely recreate a scene in their art. An artist should put their own touch on it, put a part of themselves in their art. Meanwhile, Trecartin is saying that "we consume and consume and puke". Basically, everything we put out is a product of what "came in" and that is popular culture. So if both artists are correct, it means we must put our own touches and experiences in our art, yet these experiences and additions are results of our immersion in popular culture. This goes along with the remix culture we are in. Everyone wants to put their own spin on something, yet this new look is just a product of our culture.
Joe Simanis (Group 2)
Assuming both artists are correct, then the possibilities of the contemporary appropriation artist are limitless. When Friedrich says that one should not paint what they see in front of them if they see nothing within themselves, Trecartin counters by saying that it is precisely what is in front of us that makes us who we are inside. He seems to be more in tune with the idea of media archeaology than Freidrich, and this is obvious when looking at the body of work he has accomplished, which not only contain a remix type quality, but also seem to have a personal element to them. To quote a line from Trecartin's film, A Family Finds Entertainment: "What you want isn't what you need. What you need is right in front of you. But you have to feel it."
-Brian Dunigan (Group 1)
Timothy Sienko, group 4
Trecartin's attitude of the artist and consumer as vomitorium of Roman excess lends itself to the reflection of one's self in his or her art. Likewise, Koh's quote of needing to paint from within in order to paint that which is without puts the artist at the center of the world which is being critiqued and commented upon by the art.
Trecartin's use of photos from the Katrina disaster in his installation eulogy to New Orleans suggests the artists role in making art is not just that of third-person commentator but also suggests that the artist lives out his art. And that everyone who lives is in a way an artist. The very act of having emotions gives one the capability of being an artist.
In "I-BE AREA" Ryan Trecartin plays a number of roles, both male and female, that struggle against gender roles in popular American existence. He is not only commenting on the existence of such people but also recognizing his own existence as these people.
Veronica Mosley Group 04
The conclusions that I drew, are that the type work has to mean something to the contemporary appropriation artists and that we are what society tells us to be. Reading both statements, there seemed to be this pulling force for being oneself and staying true to what you want to create. To what you want to make, and realizing that people might not get it, but it needs to be done in order for it to count. Whereas with Ryan Trecartin seems to be saying “We are the product of this. We need to look around at others and point out what’s going on. We need to realize that we are the very things we hate.”
Ryan Trecartin seems to take what he said to heart, and has created several colorful pieces that sum up some of society. “Abraham with the long arm” is a piece he made, with the stereotypical white male with a long arm “bred” for grabbing women. However, I do believe that Ryan Trecartin does look inside himself and make things that have some significance to him. Look at the “World Wall”, which he made after being relocated due to Hurricane Katrina. He made it to be therapeutic, and it shows as you see the eye gazing at you silently.
Both are correct in that being an artist is open ended in terms of where to start or where to find inspiration.
Jacob Feiring- Group 2 (Emir)
Assuming both artists' perspectives are correct, we must assume that every artist is a product of their culture. Every artist has absorbed other ideas, medias, arts, etc.. and turn it into their own. As a result, it is possible for contemporary appropriation artists to make any kind of art they choose fit, combining the different influential perspectives of society.
As Caspar David Friedrich stated “the painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him.”
This makes sense. What’s the point of art if it doesn’t come from the artist’s ideas and perspectives.
As Trecartin states, however, We don't act inside or outside of consumer culture, entertainment, or art culture, we consume and translate, we're a by-product of it.'"
According to Trecartin it’s impossible for the artist to strictly generate original work from within themselves but rather, art is a result and is inspired by culture.
Koh’s work demonstrates the same idea of the inevitable cultural remix despite a slightly different perspective than Terecartin. As stated in Shamim Momim’s article, ‘the artist has said that he cannot perceive his works as discrete sculptures but rather “in relation to a set of situations and actions, often too ephemeral or subtle for anyone but myself.”’ Although perhaps Koh’s pieces strive fore a more “personal” artistic expression, the artist still relies on pieces of culture to create a new piece of work.
As Trecartin’s and Koh’s works show, anything is possible when combining different influences and an internal perspective about these influences.
It is my belief that contemporary artists and contemporary art have strayed from the tradition works, and even while that is what contemporary "anything" is SUPPOSE to do, I feel the newer generations have take that sliver and made something bigger of it, ignoring the importance of it's slight effect and indulging in careless freedoms of what they believe to be expression. Nowadays, culture and media influence, not only art, but the other aspects of expression and life. I feel this situation reaches deeper than explained. The technologies, some of which can be found in class discussions, are eliminating individuality and expanded thinking outside of the box. Some factors of society have completely limited our way, and desire, of thinking, providing only meager room for expression, which has also been limited by the technologies that take over our lives and our experiences. This is the conclusion I reach, and to support it with examples, I will generalize by asking that you recall the countless works of "art" made known through controversy around them. An example may be the painting of Jesus on the cross covered in urine, or David Cerny's "Shark." The motivations of many artists now seems to be concerning how much trouble they can cause or how many rules they can break instead of relying on the original aspect of art, and while some contemporary pieces have done for society what we may have only wished for back in the day, it is inevitable that, with this freedom on art, it is crucial that we consider where it will all end. What will happen when all the other controversies are worn out? What will the next fad or genre of art be?
-Matthew Balz Group 3
Braulio Garica group 3
I disagree with Friedrich. Of course a camera can capture life extremely well, but to say that anyone can draw whats in front of them is absurd. There are people who can and people who cant. Plain and simple. I strive to be able to capture what is in front of me, spend countless hours perfecting it. To say that I have not put myself into my art just because I draw what is in front of me is very crude. I like to agree more with what Trecartin has to say. Everything that we create is a remix because of all the experiences that we have. These experiences will eventually come out in our art, no matter what we do. Going back to drawing from life, I do it to one day be able to create by own scenes with the same sense of realism that I tried so hard to achieve before. These newly created scenes are a result of my experiences and so there for a remix of the culture i live in.
Assuming that both statements are correct, we can only assume that the inevitable conclusion of what kind of work contemporary artists will make is that, it will be internalized feelings or opinions portrayed into their art forms. As Casper David Friedrich said, “If he sees nothing within himself, however, then he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him” infering that if you don’t know what your inner feelings and opinions are you won’t produce as well of artwork as you would if you had a grasp on those ideas. Ryan Trecartin acknowledges this by also saying, “…we consume and translate, we’re a by-product of it.” This statement kind of also infers that we’re not so much, creating new and original artwork as much as, just putting a different perspective or spin on something that already exists. I think that overall, these two statements show what really is expected to become of contemporary art of this time period.
Max Larsen
Group 3
Emily Sherman
Group 4
In the opinion of Caspar David Friedrich, it would be pointless if an artist were to replicate what was visibly in front of them. A camera or other recording device could do the work much more efficiently and accurately. The essential building block of art progression is ones imagination. Using this unrestrained tool there are no limits or boundaries as to how or what art can be produced. Each person has unique life experiences and perceptions of the world around them with will unavoidably result in a plethora of interpretations. This idea of art reflecting ones personal experiences relates to the idea that Ryan Trecartin is presenting. He conveys that we are an outcome of the culture around us. We will absorb our surroundings, interpret the information, and than reproduce it in some form. The way we translate our surroundings is how we develop opinions and our outlook on life. Therefore our environment makes us who we are today. Going back to the concept of remixing, any art form that we create is fundamentally a remix of our experiences combined with the society we live in.
These artists cannot do what they do if they do not realize that the art they are trying to create is a direct result not only of their feelings but also of the culture they experience. The cultures we experience ultimately get mixed up with our personal experiences and feelings and come out as our unique art. Trecartin is essentially bringing up the same concept as Friedrich. Trecartin says we are a by-product of our culture and Friedrich says we can't just paint what we see, we need to paint what we see mixed with what we feel, which, in the end, is influenced by the various different art, entertainment and consumer cultures we live in and witness day by day. There is no point in painting what we see if we don't feel one way or the other about it. Trecartin created "World Wall" because he was forced away from his home due to Hurricane Katrina. That work of art expresses both what he sees in front of him and how he feels about it. Both of these men are correct: we feel things different ways because we've been conditioned to not only by the people we deal with but with the cultures we experience.
-Benj Gibicsar Group 4
Both of these quotes state that there is an internal processing of the media before it is (re)appropriated into the art. In a sense, all of the cultural stimulation both good and bad is funneled into us and then regurgitated or as Ryan said "puked" into our own recreation of those ideas, a commentary of sorts that is in direct response to our experiences. So it seems that the art of the appropriation artist, or possibly the work of all artists is a reflection of their inner self which has in turn been affected by their experience with the world, and so all their artwork is a criticism or confirmation of the culture around them. Ryan Trecartin's movie, I Be Area, is a prime example of 100 minutes of pure extrapolation of culture. The movie explores many facets of culture, its influence on the individual, and the individual's reactions or reinterpretation of that cultural influence. It addresses ideas about technology, sexuality, individuality, and many more through this pathway of internalization and then re-expression out into the medium successfully critiquing these ideas. It is all about the expression of our internal reactions to the culture around us.
Group 4
While worded quite differently, what Trecartin and Friedrich are trying to say through their respective quotes is essentially the same thing. Both are talking about the process of the artist as they experience culture and then relate that back to their art. In contemporary society, where pop culture rules and image bombardment is a daily ritual, there is certain inevitable imagery that seems to come out in the work of appropriation artists. It is inherent in the artists nature, and the nature of our current media obsessed society, that the imagery which the artist is exposed to everyday, will be the imagery with which he/she creates/uses in their art. It seems that now is a very good time for artists who are using appropriation to appeal to a mass audience. More and more, the concept of copying and reusing is becoming prevalent in society, not only in a creative sense. From downloading movies and music, to being able to find any conceivable image on the internet for your own use, this idea of appropriation is no longer foreign to the average viewer. In this way, these artists have the potential to push the boundaries of what they can reuse and how they can reuse it. They also are in a position where regardless of the message intended, this idea of easy accessible, reproducible culture is always going to be in the minds of the viewers.
Kristen Gibb Group 3
Personally, I don't nessecairly agree with Friedrich's quote. I don't believe that there are people who don't see anything within themselves. However, I do agree with his statement that the painter should not merely paint what is in front of him. I think that the artist paints his/her own perception of what he/she sees. The painter's image should differ from camera's image, the painter paints the object in his vision and it is unique to that person.
Ryan's statement is more along the lines with my point of view. The things that happen around us, in our culture, in our minds, are the things that affect who we are not only as artists, but as people.
Right now, the contemporary artists, like Ryan, create artistical remixes of the world they see around themselves, they don't duplicate the image that they see, they portray the print that the collective of images leaves in their mind. Ryan's art is the proof of that, especially with World Wall, which seems to be a collection of images in Ryan's head.
Gleb Sergeyev
Group 1
Because we are a by product of consumer culture, that which we see in front of us may also be within us. In this sense consumer culture is mirrored inside ourselves redefining who we are as we translate its reflection in our minds. The environment in which we live is very much a part of us, it effects and stresses us. The maturation of our minds is dependent on our environment. That coupled with our genetic predisposition defines how we will react in certain situations. Therefore in a sense our environment defines our state of being, but only partially. I conclude that these two statements cannot work alone but must be combined in order to be fully accurate. One mustn't narrow the scope of their art work purely based on a single belief that we are the result of our environment, nor should they fail to take into account that around them which may effect their being.
-Brian Shea 4
For contemporary appropriation artists they take everything around them and almost recycle it and create their own art. The type of work they create is based on their life experiences. Friedrich said that we should "refrain from painting" if we "see nothing within ourselves" which directly relates to this kind of artwork. If we haven't experienced much and don't have a lot "inside" of us then we have to inspiration towards recycling and recreating ideas from the past and pop culture. However if you have experienced many things in life starting even as a child then there is no limit to what you can create. If you grew up watching Pee Wee's Playhouse, which seems like could be a great possibility for Ryan Trecartin, somewhere inside of you then it has an affect on your life. Whether we're aware of it or not, the things we watched, owned, etc. as a child determine the type of person we are today. Growing up I never much cared for children's mystical and magical movies and now as an adult I can say I have never watched any of the Lord of the Rings movies and really have no interest at all in that sort of genre still. Not only then are we inspired in our lives internally by the things we watched and experienced but externally we're also affected. Clearly in Ryan Trecartin's work he is "consuming" and "puking" as he states these objects from contemporary and past culture. We see dvd and tv remote controls and car tires. The famous quote even comes into effect here where "the things we own end up owning us." Inspiration can come out of nowhere especially if a contemporary appropriation is chuck full of borrowed thoughts, visuals, ideas, and creations from the past and pop culture. The more you know and have experienced, the more readily available inspiration you'll have.
ryan fox.
group two.
Are both artists correct about what they see and what they are saying? This is a hard truth to think about. It seems that both these artists are correct our culture indeed influences us on what we create, what we use to intensify our feelings in what we create, I believe Jackie called it when we our facing are demons to help us influence our selves in what we create. Is the privilege and glory of originality gone it seems for the moment. Because every thing has been done already, any original idea you think you have many other people have had that same idea or variation of that idea at some point or another. Even if it is crap or excellence, we have already seen the man sitting along on the bench, the weird and strange character in black with sinister intent, and the oddity of what just looks cool or the beauty of simplicity. It is a harsh reality we have to wake up to but for the moment it seems that originality is dead. Is this true? I can not say if it is completely true or if I am just an idiot but it does make me think about one of our past blog topics when we were talking about are perception and reality, the reality of a virtual reality. “Immersive Environments, Part II”, I guess it is important to consider how valuable the re-mix can be. What is originality anyway, the possibilities are endless when it comes to finding something new to create or re-create. Just because I have seen a certain piece of art work doesn’t guarantee that someone else some where else has. Shamim Momim/Koh starts his writing of with this, “… One could well say of the event horizon what the poet Dante said of the entrance to Hell: “All hope abandon, ye who enter here.” Anything or anyone who falls through the event horizon will soon reach the region of infinite density and the end of time.” , Why start of with this excerpt from Dantes Inferno? This seems like support for the idea that originality is dead, however when you the article through it implies much more then that. Not that originality is dead but that more can be done, more new originality can be found, we are not in a time when our creativity should be abandoned. It is true that a scanner, printer, or camera can do better work then a person can but it takes a person and the creativity that they have to use the camera or other tool to make the new creation, re-mix, or original piece.
Matt Gonia - Group 1
Assuming that both of these different reasonings are true, than it seems as though modern art can only be highly personalized works. Although, these two quotes are slightly contradicting each other. Friedrich is saying that artists should only create work when they have inspiration from within themselves, regardless of their environment or culutre. Trecartin says that we, as artists, are by-products of our society (that includes environment and culture) - so our work is influenced by these external factors. Friedrich says only create work from within while Trecartin says artists are by-products of society and other outside influences. Although, there is a personal element to Trecartin's work - even when an artist is shaped by his surroundings, he or she can still craft something that comes from inside them, but there is still that factor of outside influence. So I don't think that you can say that both of these statements are true at the same time, because they don't really line up. What is more likely is that these ideas can be true and appicable in certain cases. There are always exceptions to theories and ideas - always and forever. The challenge for an modern artist is to know when a situation calls for one of these exceptions.
I hail from Group 4.
Artists must throw themselves into their work. All artists do. If you do not put yourself into your work, you have no place in the art world. Being an artist is all about making it personal. Ryan Trecartin survived Hurricane Katrina, and he puts that physical and emotional wreckage into his sculptures. Painters like Frida or Van Gogh clearly splatter their emotions on the canvas. Filmmakers like Wes Anderson and Clint Eastwood put their heart into a film. If they didn't, the films would be distant, the audience couldn't relate, and it would be bad. It would not be art. For someone like Ryan Trecartin, his art is lost to many people. He puts so much of himself into the piece that he forgets to leave behind a trail of understanding. Consider writing poetry. A poet writes for themselves, what they need to get out. And even though a poet is never supposed to directly explain what their poem means, they should inject some clues and form to lead the readers in a specific direction. Even then, however, misinterpretations fly.
-Julianne Arnstein G4
The type of work that will be made will be personalized, integrated views of consumer culture or life in general. When combining both statements you get an artist, which could be anyone indulging on consumer culture, whose artwork is the result of that culture which they've consumed. They look inside themselves to see what they have consumed, analyze it in their own way, and "puke" it back out how they see it fitting into the world.
One example is Trecartin's own work, I-Be Area. I recently saw this film and apart from being presented in one of the most bizarre ways I have ever seen, it fits these ideas perfectly. The way I saw it was that he pretty much summed up his idea of internet personification and basically what they internet is doing and will eventually do to our culture. He has some scenes of children being put up for auction or putting up their lives for auction because they are sick of it. All of the characters seem sort of like an image of a person that could only be on the internet because the makeup he uses is, well, excessive. Most of the dialog is hard to follow or random outbursts of sound. Most of these are examples of internet lingo and freedom. There are many more examples throughout the film, but what I am trying to stress is that in this film Trecartin takes what he sees in front of him, looks at it within him, and then almost literally pukes his ideas into his film and onto the screen.
Derrick Markowski - Group 3
Peter Holzinger
Group 1
If both artists' are correct then there is infinite possibility for the type of art that can be created. We are immersed in an endless stream of media, advertisement, products, and opinions that provide an endless well of artistic materials from which to draw from. However, simply regurgitating what is thrown at us is not art, but replication. As Friedrich says, an artist must paint what he sees in himself. Art is only manifested when we filter the infinite stimuli through our unique and individual selves, picking out what has meaning to us and, by virtue of choosing one thing over another, give a specific meaning to what we produce. In this way the contemporary appropriation artist creates remix art. Trecartin's World Wall is an example of this. A clutter of objects and colors shaped into wall form, the piece would mean nothing if Trecartin had not been through something (hurricane Katrina) which inspired the work. The experience has prompted Trecartin to include objects in his work that bear meaning to that particular moment in his life. Even if there is not an easily explained, concrete thought behind each object, it retains meaning simply because Trecartin chose it.
The conclusion that I make from the input of these two articles is that any contemporary appropriation artists' work will inevitably be thier personal reaction to the media, art, and cultural identities that surround them. When reading about Koh's work, (which seems especially disturbing), one can easily recognize his personal touch, (white powder and mirrors?), but that it goes deeper, in some cases he is physically involved in the art. It is more than personal to him, it is part of his identity. His piece that demonstrates this most effectively, I feel, is his most recent (or soon to be) installment of his own funeral. Not only is it centered around him, but his friends and family will be there, and anyone who sees this work will be touched by his presence even without his physical being there. Trecartin puts a little different spin on it, but says the same things- his artwork isn't objective at all, it's rather a rendering of himself in his artwork based on his personal consummerism of the media, and he makes it apparent that not only artists but viewers alike display the same mentality. His films as well as his sculptures show the same attitude, he will now probably become synonamous with his work.
ashleigh brown group 2
If by any chance both the views of the artists are correct, that would infer that art is only created through the translation of the world around them, with a combination of what the artist has inside themselves. it
If we assume that both artists are correct we end up with a mysterious relationship between our inner feelings and the culture we live in. We should produce art based on the feelings we have inside not on what is popular or mainstream at the time. Yet, it is this environment that creates the feelings inside of us. We end up with a sort of chicken-and-the-egg question; which comes first. Our culture is made upon the inner personality of artists, but these artists were affected by their own culture. Trecartin is right when he says "we consume and consume and puke" we take from other artists and create our own art. This implies that art has never been completely original but has always been affected by the artists before them. I believe it is okay to look at other artists work for inspiration, however, Caspar David Friedrich is right. We should look into our inner-being as deep as we can to create something new, something unseen, something that encompasses the perspectives of both the artists mentioned.
Both artists are getting at the same idea, that we create our mixed media through our own feelings and also we must take into consideration that these feelings that we are biased towards are derived from the circumstances in our lives and our society's culture. When you think about it our lives revolve around the media surrounding us, and so we take in our interpretations and develop our own remix. These remixes as Trecartin states are our own by-products of what we consume and interpret. In order to fully comprehend we must be in touch with our emotions and our surroundings. The result of this comprehension is what molds ideas into a piece that reflects our perspective because we look at what is around us and develop our interpretation. Remixing is a constant because as others view our works and derive their own perspective, yet another variation has been created. Remix continually remains because it is technically the medium that we exist in. As we are bombarded with consumer culture, mass media, and developments in which we cannot control, we are aware of our experience and of our personal stances. These are what Trecartin's installations can represent, he viewed the surrounding world, and than derived his own interpretations and developed pieces that reflect his awareness of his consciousness of his surroundings and his personal views, creating a piece that has their ideas with a personal perspective that develops from the film maker.
--Nick Reindl, Group 2
Ryan Laing.
Group 2.
Both Friedrich and Trecartin are bascilly saying that art is meaningless until you work your own views / ideas / interpretations into it. Makes enough sense. If a group of people were told to paint a house, you would probably get a lot of boring pictures of houses, but the one that would stick out would be the most abstract or unique rendering of this house. This is exactly what Friedrich is talking about - art is much more about the personal ideas and creative new perspectives on the world and not simply being able to paint or draw realistically. These ideas are the fundamental basics of film. Film is capturing images what we see around us, but its not going to be any good unless the filmmaker puts their own creativity into it and uses the images to provoke new ideas. You can have the most beautiful compositions and exposures, but ultimately if there is no inspiration behind the images then its pointless. Another quick example using Ryan Trecartin's work on the Saatchi website could be any of his sculptures. They clearly have recognizable objects, brick walls, tires, flags etc; and on their own it wouldn't mean anything, but the way he juxtaposes all of these objects and mangles them together is what forms the ideas. Exactly like Friedrich's quote, art isn't about taking whats in front of you, but about your own interpretation of it all.
Trecartin's assertion that we are ourselves, a by-product of our mass-media culture is both interesting and a little disturbing. The very idea is that we have become so immersed and occostomed to our culture that we ourselves have become part of what we create.
The Friedrich quote puts an interesting spin on what Trecartin is saying though. Trecartin's work seems to be a reaction to his very words here. A celebration and denouncation of our media-filled society. What Friedrich says about creating art, is that if one cannot create art that says something about one's self, one shouldn't attempt to create art that says something about the world outside. Trecartin's work seems to speak to the individual (seemingly himself, as well as the viewer) that lives within the culture he invokes in his work.
Moments in Trecartin's I-Be Area read like the trascript to some DADAist chatroom. However, the personal way in which the characters deliver these lines seems to echo the youth culture of now. Trecartin's work seems to be the answer to this week's blog question. This is the very kind of art that appropriative artists should make.
Another fine example of this, lies within the widly growing field of Machinema. Red vs. Blue is a wildly popular Machinema series that uses the various entries in the Halo series of videogames to create its hilariously bizzare world. The creators use the system not only to be irreverantly funny, but to also poke-fun at current trends in videogaming culture.
Both Trecartin and the creators of Red vs. Blue use imagery or ideology of our society (or artifacts within it) to say something not only profoundly personal, but also somewhat global.
well, if both artists are coerrect in what they're saying, then all artists should NOT be aware of their own feelings when creating art. They must that feelings are merely reflections of culture and media. I agree with eric when he says that Trecartin says that we are not co-existing with our culture, our society and our environment. We are just living out our lives as by-products of this culture and media. We see something on T.V and we think to ourselves "I need that" when we really don't. Society shapes who we are. It's one big cycle. We are influencing our culture and our cuilture is influencing us. Just look at past generations and the ways that they did everything; from music to clothing style. It changes every generation. On the subject of art and technology, basically, they are both the same. Somthing is created and it affects our culture.
"'We consume and consume and puke” says Ryan Trecartin. “The painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him” was said by Shamim Momim. The importance of these two statements lies within how they relate. Momim believes that what we create should come from with ourselves. Ryan Trecartin explains that we are created by the society and culture we live in. Therefore the inevitable conclusion we must meet is that our art is a reflection of our society and culture thru the mind of the artist. Ryan Trecartin’s piece called I-Be Area demonstrates the conclusion above. I-Be Area is a film that consistently comments about the digital age, commercial traditions, and the formation of self image in today’s world. I-Be Area is Ryan Trecartin’s reaction to being displaced by Hurricane Katrina and such the work is as chaotic and powerful as the hurricane. This is an excellent example of the aforementioned conclusion.
Matt Smaglik
Group 1
Both artists create art by their feelings of their surroundings. Because their art isn't realism, they look into their own selves to find something to mix their perception of reality to create this are. By adding a community atmosphere, one must again look inside to see what they feel would contribute to the collective art. When Trecartin says we consume so much then puke, it's true with everything. He explains that pop culture is what we usually consume, and that's very true. We can act by creating more pop culture, or by making counter culture. Counter culture does not exist without popular culture, that's a no brainer. Trecartin's art is not pop culture, or perhaps some would say it is, but it is definately influenced by pop culture, because he consumed and consumed it and made something his own. I guess his puke is his great art. It's pretty good stuff too. I never thought i'd say someones puke was great, hahaha. So basicly, for this style of art, as with most art, the artist consumes what they see, looks inside to see how they feel about all of those things, or just a few or one thing, and uses it, not neccessaritly intentionally, to make a new work of art.
Noah Therrien
Group 4
Contemporary artists must look at themselves to see what their art is going to be about. We live in a rapidly growing technology world. It seems like we learn new words everyday based on new technology. We are part of this world and we are conumed by it. Cell phones and computers are now must have items. Everyday life depends on such things now. Today's technology has consumed us and is a part of us. It is part of our culture. If we need to look inside of ourselves to see the art that we produce, we cannot ignore our current culture. As essential as our culture is, we cannot let it go. We base almost everything on our culture, so why should art be any different? Trecartin shows us that it shouldn't and that we need to change what we base our culture on (including our art) while our culture changes.
Jon Hillbo - Group 1
The essence of these articles comes back to themes touched on earlier in class, that everything created from human minds is in some way a remix of previous ideas, that even the most unique and interesting forms of art only exist because the artist was already influenced by previous works and experiences. All works of art then are essentally previous works of art re-worked inside the head of the artist, combined with different life views.
Caspar David Friedrich's quote follows this line of thought as well. He is essentially saying you should only create art that you feel has effected you deeply, that you think you can re-work into new ideas and present it. When he says "If he sees nothing within himself, however, then he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him," he is asking that you not attempt to create art unless you can use your own personal experiences and thoughts to shed new light onto a subject.
Trecartin's quote fits with the previous quote quite well, for they are both emphasizing that while we can and should attempt to use our innermost feelings when creating art, we also need to aknowledge that those inntermost feelings are just a remix of the culture we grew up in and are currently living in. His sculpture "The World Wall" is a very blatent example of his quote, as the work in its intirety is a mix of subjects, built up together to represent current views and ideas that he holds.
The inevitable conclusion we must draw from both of these artist’s, assuming that they are both correct, is that contemporary appropriation artists must not only be aware of themselves when recreating art through mixed media but be aware of the culture around him in which they are creating this art form. These contemporary appropriation artists’ works encourage the viewer to recognize an arrangement of flesh, mind, and spirit as a source of creativity in which the mixed media art is formed. Caspar David Friedrich has a valid point in stating that the painter should not paint just what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him. The artists must go further then just using mixed media to create art, they must use their creativity inside of them to mold the images together which then creates the art that appropriation artists are producing. Ryan Trecartin also has a valid point in which people are a by-product of the consumer culture, consuming and translating all the information that is fed to us opposed to acting inside or outside of the consumer culture. Artists are using mixed media and translating it into a different form of art, using it to show another point of view on the consumer culture that we all live in.
Mike Terrill
Group 4
Assuming both artists are correct, there is no originality. Everything has its influence on everything. We are what we eat, and we regurgitate that into more collaborative elements. Trecartin says we don’t act within our culture, I feel that the artists ARE the culture, which is ever so changing. Artists are not a product of culture, culture evolves around the artists. There needs to be a sense of creativeness and inventiveness to be an artist. To paint a picture is one thing, but to realize its elements and meaning (both in regards to its visual representation and inner artistic though) is another.
Appropiation art is one of the most perplexing dilemmas artists have come upon. Many musician's believe that all music is derived from an earlier form of music, and that originality is merely a measurement of deviation from the previous artists that the creator has studied or has been inspired by. One of the most famous examples of appropiation art comes from one of the most famous modern artists of the 60's and 70's. The Campbell's Tomato Soup can, "created" by Andy Warhol, is simply a stolen icon and logo. But, for some reason it is also one of the most famous paintings from the "pop-art" period.
The parody, and satire are usually taken from other forms of art, as well as many movies. The Departed, last years winner of Best Picture Oscar, was based on a movie from Hong Kong. Even film itself is non-original, we get our ideas from what we see in front of us, film is clearly not an "original" form of art.
"If he sees nothing within himself, however, then he should refrain from painting what he sees in front of him."-Swallowing Time
Of course, it all comes down to how we interpret, or reinterpret our art. The Campbell's Soup Can is not merely just a portrait or an advertisement, but an interpretion of the soup can from Andy Warhol, although it is quite a literal interpretation.
I think any artist is inevitably going to be effected by his or her surrounding environments, thus creating work that encompasses what is around them. One can sometimes see it as living within their work. A majority of the time an artist is almost directly effected by what is constantly around them, be it the people, the land, the politics, or even the conceptions of life. An artist is able to embrace these factors and create something that is near and dear to them, because they experience it most everyday. One is able to produce art or work more intelligently or more creatively when they are familiar with their surroundings, often putting a contemporary artistic spin on it.
Often times a literary students will be told, write what you know. This applies to art as well. Create and work with what you know, and even take some aspects of your knowledge and explore new things, constantly improving or expanding your artistic template. For example, I feel most comfortable painting my artwork because at a young age I was submersed in the environment, having my dad constantly practicing his painting around the house. I got to know the in's and out's the the hobby and became fairly good at it.
Tyler Hudson Group 1-Emir
All an artist can create is from what he experiences around him. An artist needs outside substance or ideas to formulate any relatable thought. One cannot imagine something that does not have some basis in the real world. Internally, though, these "givens" of the outside are uniquely interpreted and applied in every human mind. Therefore, we don't render, as a computer would, the outside world in concrete data, even if we are trying. Friedrich is right; we shouldn't try to simply copy and paste our bare senses into an artwork, even though it is naturally impossible. Our daily activity within our consumer culture warps are consciousness of reality and so we are, in a way, a by-product of it. However, the reality of our consumer culture is essentially an illusionary structure of life, in the sense that it isn't naturally existing. If we live within that illusion, we can only create and do what is part of that reality. Koh, it seems, has taken the materials from our culture and let his fog of internal expression take them over. In the article about Koh, "Koh and the Fifty Most Beautiful Boy" is compared to an underwater shipwreck, but instead of being within water it is within the physical abstraction of Koh's state of mind and his emotional relationships to his materials. Essentially, Trecartin is doing the same thing, except he utilizes other people's perceptions and creations from our consumer culture to create a grand encapsulation in the form of a wall. He is creating an atmosphere, although a communal one, rather than a personal one. We are by-products of our time and culture, and what we invent can only be expressed through the materials in that culture. However, the basic emotions and thoughts our wholly ours and we can go anywhere with them, we just need something to apply them to.
Roger Bergeron - Group 2
If by any chance both the views of the artists are correct, that would infer that art is only created through the translation of the world around them, with a combination of what the artist has inside themselves. The art of the artists in the combination of the world they perceive and the nonsense and dark, twisted mind of the artist. A window into the soul of an artist is shown through their art creations, as they put themselves into their art for the public to view and "enjoy."
Oh and Group 3
Troy Key
Group 1
Film 115
If both artists are to be considered correct in their statements, then contemporary appropriation artists must create art which stands as an outward projection of their personal perception of the world around them that is aware of the reactions it will generate in being created. That being said, every single piece of art must be contrived, which some may see as a fault but others see as meaningful. If our perceptions are radical, then the art will be radical thus generating a radical reaction as is the case with much of Koh's pieces. Yet if art work is radical but irrelevant to the world around us, its questions/concerns, concepts, then it will not generate much more than raised eyebrows so the modern art is fully effective when it is not only a radical perspective of the world that shapes us, but also an effective representation, contortion, or caricature of some form of its pop culture.
All artists are affected by their environments and experiences; this is portrayed through all artist's work. That's why it is sometimes easy to identify an artist's work without previously seeing it before. It is easy to pick out a piece by Picasso because of its easily identifiable cubistic aspects. I totally just made that word up. Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that any artist will inevitably include a part of themselves into their art. By doing so, they become part of their art and vice versa. Regarding contemporary appropriation, artists can equally be influenced by other artists work.
-Andrew Huggins, Group 1
Theresa Ennis
Group 2
The idea of an artist painting something just as they see it can be rather dull. It is the imagination of the artist that gives the image its personality. So the artist is taking in a image and putting out another version of the image but through their eyes. This is the main theme in the re-mix culture.
I think when talking about our lives and them being affected by media, we must not be as ignorant to use terms such a ‘we’. “WE consume and translate, WE're a by-product of it” Though Trecartin may have been raised by television and feel he is helpless to resist no matter what he does, there are others who are conscience and above the reign of pop-culture and media. Some feel it is so dominating that it even has spread like disease into the work of all artists, both main-stream and abstract. However, there are people immune to its rasping hold. People who though may be similar and live similar to others, are still producing original thoughts and scenarios. The world and its existence can be thought of like music. Though it is limited to certain and constant octaves, frequencies, and tones; and though its rhythms have been recycled and re-mixed, new songs and sounds will always be born into existence.
Assuming both artists are correct can either take a massive stretch of the imagination or a lack of internal monitoring. One should never assume anything when it comes down to something an artist is presenting as fact...
With that said, if you accept what they both say, it leads to a depressing conclusion. One should examine within themselves when they create art, instilling into the piece something more than what is already in existance, a mere reproduction. Good, point A. However, Trecartin seemed to be saying that we are culturally and artistically unable to contribute more than what we observe or take in. Consume consume puke. Add that to observe within before you create and the statement consume and observe the consumed then regurgitate it back up comes forth.
If that is what "remix" is about, I am not looking forward to seeing what is spewed forth...
Luckily, I don't believe what I wrote above to be the truth of how artists are able to create and work.
A. Robertson
Section 4
F 115
Post a Comment