Juggling With Light

Shari Hersh Lecture

on wednesday afternoon i attended the Shari Hersh lecture in the library. it was actually a very interesting experience for me. as Hersh's talk started, i found myself highly disliking her. the entire thing sounded like she was trying to sell this idea of mural painting to us. facts, numbers...nothing to do with the art itself, or her process in making it. she sounded completely self centered about the whole thing -- as though this was all a big "i do it because it makes me feel good" scheme.

however, as she started to talk more about her process, and less about the statistics, i started to enjoy the talk a lot more. it was clear that she cared immensely for the communities in which she was working, the kids that helped her on her projects. Hersh has a group of students from the college she teachers at, which help her do some of the mural work. along with them, she stresses including all of the people (normally mainly the kids) in the communities in which she is working to come out and help paint and design.

when the talk was completed, i asked her a question about communities dealing with mural projects. Fall of '06 was when the idea to paint the construction wall was initialized, and my drawing class had a huge debate on whether any student should be able to put art up there, or whether a committee should choose, or a mix. i asked Hersh how she would deal with it, and i was very satisfied with her answer. she talked about gathering the "stakeholders" -- anyone who had any interest at all: faculty, students, the construction firm -- and they all get even votes, and they can all vote on whichever idea they think is best. this way it is a true community forum in order to choose how we want to deal with the wall.

i was considering asking Hersh if she considered her art to be installation art, and then i realized what a silly question that was. of course it is. the mural painting fills every category that we require for installation pieces: it changes place into space, it is entirely dependent on where it is put. having a mural put in a run down community means something completely different than having it put in an affluent one. plus, the buildings arent exactly mobile by any means.

overall, i felt it was a valuable lecture to attend.

p.s. i believe this is my 5th cultural event post.
4: American University Gallery
3: Chris Coleman
2: Patrick Kelly
1: Lance Winn

Juggler playing with light

Greg Kennedy:
this seemed relevant...

Long Overdue - Box Images

the rod is there because one of the girls working in the place ripped one of the sides off. . .

Official Proposal

so...my big proposal. after spending some time talking to Fareshteh on Saturday evening, i feel comfortable balancing the work between juggling and being human. each sketch features a center piece that will be a video monitor. this will play clips of me attempting to perform juggling maneuvers. i have not yet decided whether they will all be done in a darkroom with glowing apparatus, since i believe as of right now i only have access to three glowing balls, or whether it will be a mix of the darkroom and of juggling with normal lighting. around the central piece are pictures.

as you can see in the first image, there is the monitor. surrounded by 8 images. there is also a display stand at the front, which will hold 3 balls, and hopefully will be inviting the viewers to juggle themselves with me. there might be a sign there suggesting such activity. (you can also see some notes about juggling).

on the topmost sketch in the second image, the design is based around both the monitor, and the four large pictures of successful attempts at certain juggling tricks. there are also smaller images that showcase the failures of said attempts.

i then said to myself "maybe the successes aren't so important..."

and sketched the central monitor surrounded by four large images of the failures and then four small images of the successes.

i don't always think success, at least perfect success isn't really the point. the point is trying in the first place. it is fighting the fear of failure, and getting up in front of people and trying to do something, hoping that they will appreciate the effort regardless of the outcome.

juggling is a ridiculously precise activity. when someone is trying to juggle 9 balls, 7 clubs, who-the-heck-knows how many rings, consistency and accuracy are imperative. i know that i am no where close to any of those things. i have to concentrate super hard simply to juggle 3 clubs. however to document myself trying to do tricks that i have not mastered, or even tried, yet will be a very interesting exercise. on top of that, to share these moments with other people invites them into my life. when Baldassari shared his attempts at forming shapes by throwing balls into the air, he invited the viewers into the activity. into the moments of his life that were spent throwing the balls, and photographing them.

i am still thinking over where exactly i want to put this. one thought is along the line of "street" from where jugglers during the Renaissance where forced to perform because of the stigmatism against them. but if i were to place this in a hallway...what would it do to the space of the hallway. would it becomes clogged with people watching the video?

the placement will continue to be thought about.

Installation Project

Part 1: the subject that i would like to explore in my installation is the flight of balls in the air, specifically related to juggling. this line of thought is extremely appealing to me both because juggling is a hobby close to my heart, and because of the fascination that animals have with things that are flying through the air. not many acts are as impressive as juggling. if you place a good juggler on the street, he or she will gain attention, it is guaranteed.

Part 2: during my research at the library, i came across some of the work by John Baldessari. i was entranced by his attempts to create shapes with balls thrown in the air. the work to the right, from 1974, is entitled Throwing four balls in the air to get a square ( best of 36 tries ). during an interview, Baldessari explained a little bit about this type of artwork.

"I would play games with myself just to see what would happen. And using the 35 mm camera with a 36 exposure, the idea – I would posit for myself and see what would happen if somebody threw up 3 balls and I was able to capture, you know, an image. What I would presumably get – an equilateral triangle. And then I would just juggle the one closest to that. And I tried all kinds of – I would try to get a straight line with 4 balls." (source)

the idea of "playing games" with ones artwork, for me, really just hits the nail on the head. artwork should be fun. not a thing that you must slave over (unless you enjoy that of course). if you are not enjoying the work you are doing, then whats the point?

Baldesarri's combination of the randomness of throwing objects in the air, along with the static permanence of gravity makes for quite the dichotomy. holding four balls, and throwing them upwards in an attempt to create a square, or three and going for a triangle...the chances are on in a million (probably higher, i didnt do the math).

Part 3: as i mentioned above, i am fascinated by the movement of objects in the air, the complex patterns that juggling involves. when someone is juggling 9 balls, or clubs, or rings (which i cannot do)...take your pick it requires an intense amount of concentration and practice not to have a mass collision.

Possibility 1
to create a video installation -- two monitors mounted on the wall -- and to have footage of myself on both screens. the two different myselves would be aware of each other, as though they were separate entities. one would start juggling, and then he would pass the balls "through" the monitor to the other me, who would then start juggling. eventually they would be juggling back and forth to each other.

Possibility 2
to use time lapse photography and glow-in-the-dark juggling equipment in a dark area to record the patterns that the balls make in the air as they are juggled. one considering i had was to have a series of fiberglass sheets that could be attached in layers, and each layer could have a different part of the photograph printed onto it, and together they would make the pattern that was being juggled.

Possibility 3
my third possibility comes through as a combination of the first two. a melding of the video installation with a series of photographs that clearly show the patterns that the balls are making as they are being juggled.

there is definitely a sense of similarity between what Baldesarri did, and what i would like to do. following the patterns of the balls in the air is a connecting theme. however, at the same time Baldesarri was relying on the randomness of balls thrown upwards with no attempt at control, while i am relying on very strict control to create specific patterns.

Response to Bishop

Like a joke that fails to be funny when repeated, you had to be there.

-Bishop

For me, this is one of the truest quotes concerning installation art that I have ever read. Everyone can relate to that joke…the joke that the teller thinks is so funny, but no one else really gets it. Installation art is the joke that you had to be there to get,

Bishop talks about the word installation, let’s think about the root – install. From dictionary.com “to establish in an office, position, or place.” So does this mean that any art that is established in a particular place is installation art? A set of paintings? A display of photographs? Or perhaps we are more specific and limit it only to items that are permanently installed somewhere, and that can not be easily moved, for example Maria’s Earth Room.

But Bishop then goes on to talk about interactivity between installation pieces and their viewers. If we start to consider interactivity as a requirement then either the viewer must influence the artwork as with Chris Coleman’s Spatiodynamic, in which the viewer is the input for the landscape that is formed, or the viewer must be changed by the piece interacting with him or her.

I feel that this is simply another discussion of “what is art to you?” To some, installation art is any semi-permanent, well, installation. To others, there needs to be some sort of interaction; perhaps between the art and the space its in, or the art and its viewers, and the viewers and the space.

Maybe the key, as Bishop suggests, is simply that you have to be there.

So who knows? I sure as heck don’t.

for anyone who has not seen it already free hugs compaign.

totally awesome video!

Exhibit at American University

on Saturday, the 10th, i was lucky enough to be able to attend the current exhibit going on at the Katzen Arts Center.

This link leads to the page that lists the artists and the work that was on display.

i actually found some of the art to be rather disturbing. to such a point that i wanted to leave the exhibit. Duane Hanson has a display going on based off replications of real people. they are models cast from live people, painted with eerie accuracy, dressed in clothes, and then put in natural everyday poses. i literally spent 45 seconds watching the one at the entrance, a painter, to see if he was going to breath. i thought maybe it was performance art.

Stanley Lewis, a renowned landscape artist had a couple pencil drawings that i found to be absolutely amazing. he had layered up drawing paper, probably 6-10 sheets thick, and then carved away the images, and then drew in pencil over the carvings. almost like a relief carving. it lent an amazing level of third dimensionality to the artwork. his paintings of landscapes, mainly urban backyards, were a little less appealing to me. the color choice was riotous. they featured very neon greens and oranges, combined with the usual landscape colors, applied with a very thick stroke to create a canvas covered with up to a half inch of paint.

there were three other major artists on display, along with a few miscellaneous artists gathered in the glass work collection. Robert Brady's sculptures were fairly interesting, consisting of a very, in my opinion, africanish style of sculpture based around angels. Richard Cleaver's work was also kind of interesting. it was a lot of sculpture, box like art made with very shiny jewel/gold materials, and a lot of dot painting. finally Madeleine Keesing had a collection of her paintings on display, but i did not spend a lot of time looking at those.

overall it was nice to be able to visit a museum!

Chris Coleman

Along with being able to have breakfast with Patrick Kelly, I was able to both attend Chris Coleman's lecture, and have breakfast with him, just in reverse order.

Chris's lecture focused around a couple of his completed pieces, and also around a few pieces he is currently working on. While Patrick's word was based heavily around photography, Chris's work was based more around sculpture and video, often a combination of both. The first piece he showed us involved both a video display, and also the sculpture that created the video. As you entered the display, a video camera recorded you, and fed the image to a computer which, depending on your physique and the color of your clothing, determined a pattern that was fed to the sculpture. the sculpture was a large table set with ~144 computer fans, which were covered with a billowy cover. as the air blew up, it created landscapes with the covering, that were fed via a live feed to the TV monitor set in the outer hall where you entered. the pattern that the computer made triggered a sequence of on and off for the computer fans, so as you watched the TV monitor, the "landscape" that was being made was a direct reaction to you. viewers could then go around behind the wall that the TV was in, and witness the sculpture itself. this is a true installation piece: it reacts to the viewers and it engages the viewers.

Chris's work, for the most part, is a commentary on our current socioeconomic situation in this country. i felt that this theme became a little old after awhile. i am not sure how to explain it. Patrick's work dealt heavily with nature, but more from a "i am in nature creating media" point of view, than Chris's "this is what we are doing to ourselves" point of view. i definitely agree things need to be done, and that we arent in a good place right now...but somehow it just didnt jive with me all the time.

Deconstruction Art

Kaffe Matthew's Sonic Bed is a good example of what the introduction talks about in terms of a deconstructive installation piece. According to Bishop, it is paramount that there be higher level of interaction between the viewer and the artwork; well what is more interactive than laying down inside the piece of art, and being awash in sound and vibrations? The introduction also talks about Bürger's theories on deconstructive art. I feel that the Sonic Bed is incredibly representative of two of them. The first is thee inclusion of found objects. Now while the bed is not entirely a found object, it was built from scratch, it is modeled after something that can be found everything -- in homes, in the trash, in landfills. The second point Bürger makes is the integration of art with everyday life. What, I ask you, is more everyday than a bed? Billions of people around the world go to bed every night.

Thus, I feel that Matthew's Sonic Bed is really a great example of installation art. Plus it's pretty damn cool, and i wish they would build one over here!

Patrick Kelly talk...

I was able to both have breakfast with Patrick, and attend his talk afterwards. He is one of the professor candidates for next year to help fill the digital media section of the art department.

his talk focused around the evolution of his work, and how he developed as a digital artist. His photography started very young, and was centered around his living environment which was pretty much wilderness. Patrick loves the winter, and much of his early photo revolve around snow, and are absolutely stunning. He originally focused around undisturbed nature scenes, but gradually became encouraged to mess with the pictures he was taking.

his impact on the photos could be as simple as a stick laid at an artificial angle to the rest of the environment, so a complex pattern formed with natural ingredients. Even though Patrick was physically interfering with the environment, all of his alterations were very organic in their forms. the geometric patterns flow into the rest of the subject of the pattern, and there are times when it is difficult to tell what part of the photo Patrick has altered.

we didn't get to see a lot of Patrick's animation work. one piece he did show us was about the natural movement of a rock rolling to a standstill after being lifted up. the piece had video and sound of the rock's movement, but randomly the video clip would be an animated one, that had the shape of the rock, but the texture of the wood. the piece was very lateral, moving from left to right in terms of displays, and culminated in the actual rock sitting on a little stand, that you could lift, and watch the rolling movement in person.

overall i really enjoyed Patrick's work. his eye for natural photography is amazing, and his pictures of the rural environment really jived with my outdoor side.

Revised Hope Chest Description

Amour Platonicien

The nature of the Platonic ideal of love, which from its origin was that of a chaste but passionate love, based not on un-interest but virtuous restraint of sexual desire.

Platonic relationships – can they really exist? Can two people, whom given the opportunity to be attracted to each other, be companions without that attraction affecting their interaction? My box explores the transformations that happen to a relationship as feelings develop between two people. Starting with the most basic platonic shape, the tetrahedron with four facets, the relationship is a simple one of formal acknowledgement. As the relationship progresses through the platonic solids, it becomes more complicated; more facets are introduced, and the color changes from a neutral white, to a passionate red. As the box moves towards the icosahedron it visits increasingly complicated shapes which represent the two people as they move from a relationship of friendship to one of attraction and affection.

Hope Chest

So i have thought up three different shapes of boxes, and along with that three different themes.

1. Basic cube, might involve some fancy woodwork. this box will represent me. the outside will be my face to the world. it will show the good intentions that i put on for everyone else to see. being happy with myself, my work, my life. the inside will be my insecurities. my fear of not finding a job i enjoy, how i am not always as happy as i appear to be. my self consciousness. i think that everyone has two faces, their public face and their private face. most people never admit to their private face. our culture is so taboo about "being strong, being happy, being satisfied", especially for men. heaven forbid that men have emotions and not always be masculine, lumberjack types.

i think that i would try to create the box in such a way that it fit together as 2 halves (3 sides would form a "pyramid" and there would be rails installed that would let them slide together). the outside would involve pasting images that i felt represented the face that i put on for the public, and the inside would have images, possibly from my own life, of my insecurities.

2. my second box i was thinking of making a little more complicated, and created it out of some kinda of polyhedron shape (pentagon maybe). i wasn't sure what theme i wanted it to have, until i was doodling around the inside of the box, and accidentally drew a stick-figure type shape. i then decided that i would paste the constitution of the united states on the outside, and on the inside will be a model of a man who is chained (arms and legs) to the box. this represents the false freedom that our current administration tries to force down our throats.

i would have that one, or possibly more, of the panels will be installed on hinges, and will be able to swing outwards. i might also be very interesting to have a light set up that would come on when the panels were opened. i would print out a copy of our constitution and cover the outside of the box with it, and perhaps mingle in "patriotic" images. the inside would have a figure of a man that was chained from his arms and legs, and perhaps more, to the box.

3. the final box i thought up would be a tetrahedron. inside the triangle would be a cube, inside the cube a octahedron, inside the octahedron a dodecahedron, and inside that a icosahedron. these are the platonic solids, the only 5 geometric shapes in which all sides, angle, and edges are congruent. also you are able to move from one to the other (using for example clay) by simply pushing in the corners. Kepler used the platonic solids to demonstrate his solid model of the solar system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid). for me, they are about transformation and evolution, of the physical self.

each box would be decreasing in size, and would open along one or more faces in order to be able to see the box inside. if the lighting idea from the previous box is feasible, i might consider applying it here as well. the outside of the boxes might be covered with other images of transformation: a butterfly coming out of a cocoon, a human being in different stages of age. water turning into ice.


this is one of the first projects i have done in a long time where i really like all my ideas, and i am not sure which one of them i should pursue. normally when i am approaching a project i have one idea i really like, and just struggle to think up other tones to fulfill the requirement. but even though this sorta started out the same, i have ended up with three very different ideas, all of which appeal to me in different ways and for different reasons.

Sawhands

here is the link for my video on youtube if anyone is interested in watching it again.

my video

Lance Winn

i attended Lance's talk on Monday afternoon, and found his work to be quite interesting and refreshing. one of the first images we were shown was a light bulb illuminating darkness. the image was created by multiple stampings of a Luna moth stamp. i found this image to be particularly fascinating because normally you see moths that are attracted to light, drowning it out, but this time the light was defined by the moths.

Lance talked about the ectoplasm/goo that he felt was something along the lines of the dividing layer between thinking up a art and creating it, and how inside the ectoplasm art can be changed. he also spoke a lot about how art changes as it moves between dimensions. the lawn ornament that he made of the Buddhist monk who burned himself is one example. from the front side, the monks face is clearly visible, but as you move around the piece, it just becomes a sculpture of blazing light.

Lance was also heavily into language, and the creation of words, and how making those words and the errors he made when forming the letters created movement. these pieces had an incredibly natural feel, even though they were being created out of man made ideals - words. one of the final pieces he showed us, with the orange and pink plexi-glass was especially moving. it looked like a volcano of words was erupting from the sculpture.

Reponse to "Extended and Prosthetic Bodies"

i feel that this reading forces the question of "what is art?" to resurface inside me. obviously with the introduction of new technologies and materials, new forms of art will surface, but i feel that there are limits that sometimes are pushed a little too far.

take for example Orlan's performance surgery. there have been surgery shows on TV for years now. is the only difference that hers has crazier costumes and backdrops? or perhaps is the difference that she aired it with the intent of having it be viewed as art?

this then begs the question: "is art done for the artist? or for the viewer?" if it is being done for the artist, well then there needn't be any qualifiers at all. as long as the artist is happy with the work, all is good. however, if the work is aimed at the viewer, than is the artist considered to have failed if the viewers are not connecting with the work?

Stelarc's hook piece did not do much for me, except for invoke a grimace of pain. if that was his goal then amen to him, but i did not really vibe with the commentary of astronauts in zero-g.

so another thought that enters my head is "the appreciation of art linked to education?" can only people who have studied and understand these super modern, sometimes bizarro exhibits or performances really get them? does the fact that sure, i could lay myself in a pool of honey and pretend to be a fetus, or inhale my own excrement, but i just didn't think about actually doing it and someone else did, did make it art?

so then who truly qualifies the art? i find Horn's finger extensions to be extremely interesting. the idea of extending ones appendages in order to remove oneself from the object and the interaction is a spot-on commentary on rise of the internet and fall of interaction in modern society. does this mean that her finger extenders are art, but her giant red arm pillars aren't, because i am not inspired by them near as much?

i wonder if in hundreds of years, the things that people are doing today are going to be regarded in the same aspect as how we view the classics from the renaissance. are people going to talk about the 20th and 21st century and label our artists the next generation of Van Goghs and De Vincis? did people in their times, ever view their work not as revolutionary, but ever as odd, disgusting... not artwork?

Test

i am the king of the world!