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!