Small Works

Recently I was given advice by Hank Willis Thomas to make my work bigger.  I have been advised to do this before by both my peers and my professors but have ignored the advice.  It isn’t that I am opposed to working big. When I was working more as a painter, I produced many paintings that were at least five feet tall.  I think the reason I have been so reluctant is because I feel as though the work might lose some of its intimacy.  In the case of Thomas’s work I think printing large images is appropriate because it draws our attention to the fact that the images are appropriated from magazines as we can discern a certain amount of grain in the image that tells us so.  Actually, I can think of quite a lot of photographers who print images large due to the content of the images: Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky, Marilyn Minter.  However, after I thought about it and went on a google search for photographers who print smaller than a standard print I could not find a single photographer who did.  So, then maybe bigger is better?  Are people more apt to find an image fascinating when it’s large?  I’m not sure, but I’m definitely going to give it a try and although my search produced empty results as far as photographers go I did find an interesting illustrator who works small. Jason D’Aquino creates his small works on matchbooks and other found materials.  I find his drawings amazing, as they are extremely tiny and detailed.  However, I’m not sure how the content of his images relates to the fact that they are so small or that they are on matchbooks.  Either way, he is worth checking out. 

 http://www.jasondaquino.com/matchbook_gallery2.html#page

Deconstruction?

Lately I have been engaged in the study of semiotics, specifically structuralism and deconstruction, for my art criticism class.  After multiple readings of various sources I am confident that I mostly understand structuralism, especially after stumbling upon this explanation by Daniel Chandler, if you are interested. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html    However, I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around deconstruction, especially when asked to write a deconstructionist analysis of a piece of artwork considering that deconstruction is not actually an analysis or a critique but more like a taking apart of another analysis.  So, I was thinking about my own work and how this critique and non-critique would work with a piece from my latest work.   Using the work I posted previously, depicting myself in a struggle against myself, I would say that the structuralist reading of the image is very straightforward.  The two selves symbolize an internal struggle which results in a killing of one part of the self, with the pillows being a signifier for the concept of suffocation and thus a sign or symbol of repression.  Thus a metaphor for the self being the only thing that stands in the way of ones successes is created.  So, the structuralist approach to reading a work of art is essentially just a way of putting meaning into a structure.  I think that this is a facet of human nature that is instinctual; we all want to put everything in an order or a category so as to make sense of the world.  However, when I attempt to take this same work and make a deconstructionalist reading of the work, I find myself questioning the purpose of deconstruction.  Deconstruction works by finding binary oppositions, placing importance on one and then reversing the meaning.  So, if the primary binary opposition is suffocation or repression vs. surviving or expression and emphasis is placed more on suffocation or repression when reversed the work is read to be about surviving or expression.  So then I suppose a deconstructionalist would read the work as two selves not in a struggle but in an agreement with the self that is lying down being in acceptance of the situation in order for the other to live?  After my own struggle with the deconstruction reading the only thing I can be sure of is that there are multiple interpretations to any work of art and that interpretations are not really right or wrong.  In any case I don’t really think it matters in the end, expect when I write my thesis. 

Framing

This week I have had to make choices regarding framing my artwork for the open studio show. I’ve always thought the standard was a white mat and a black frame and while I still believe this is the standard I don’t necessarily think it is the best or the only choice for some presentations.  So, this weekend I went to several galleries and while I was there I paid more attention to the presentation of the work to see what other choices I might want to consider.  I went to Ben Rollins show at Twin Kittens and was quite impressed with both his work and presentation.  Rather than using the traditional black frame, Ben opted for a white frame, which went well with his work, creating an overall sensation of being surrounded by white.  The adjacent gallery also presented nicely framed consistent pieces, although there seemed to be a wide variety of content among the work.  In stark contrast to these galleries, the work at the Granite Room in the Castleberry Hill district was rather inconsistently presented.  Their show, Exploring the Shadows, presented the work of five photographers all working in the same surrealist vein.  One artist, seemed more interested in selling his book than in displaying his work and had his work on what appeared to be foam core without any frame, giving the appearance of a poster rather than a piece of fine art.  Another photographer chose to hang their work unframed as well but in a strange hanging arrangement, which I think was due in part to the fact that the wall is rock. There was also calendars and other smaller prints for sale on tables throughout the space.   As a whole, the show seemed more like tables at an art fair than an exhibit at a fine art gallery.  Another gallery I went to this weekend was the Seen gallery, which had a nice presentation of professional quality work and framing. The only problem with this gallery was the presence of ceramic works and other artworks that had nothing to do with the exhibition and only served to clutter the space.  While I was there I was most impressed with the work of Thomas Hager, who not only produces amazingly large alternative process prints but also makes his own frames, which are well-made metal frames. His work can be found here. http://www.thomashager.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=5&a=0&at=0

This is a direct link to my personal favorite of his series: Catharsis.

Hockney

As I'm working I realize that my work is starting to resemble something close to what David Hockney does in his work.  I'm piecing together different views of the same pillow in order to have the illusion of several pillows. Hockney does something similar to this in his photo collages except he leave large areas of white in between some of his pieces.  I did not immediately think of him until after I put my pieces together but now that I do I question whether I should have so much weight at the bottom of my picture plane.  Maybe I should spread it out a little like Hockney, but then wouldn't I just be copying Hockney? Definitely not in content; furthermore, I plan to add drawing elements to his piece but then does it really need it? I actually started drawing a pillow, with plans to put drawn pillow among the photo pillows. It might be too much and I might just be asking myself a lot of questions that no one else can answer for me. I guess the only thing getting in the way is myself, which is kinda what this one is about.
On a side note about Daivd Hockney.  His work is worth checking out if you don't already know about him. http://www.hockneypictures.com/works_drawings_00_25.php
This link will lead you specifically to his recent drawings, which are a personal favorite.  I enjoy the textures he creates with his drawings of foliage.  I've always held a great appreciation for drawing and I think I should do more of it.