Richard Orjis

Richard was very into creating his own little world and cult/religion. His photography for the series Welcome to the Jungle is quite interesting and in his mind is the cult of Christchurch. For this he did a piece of performance art involving a kind of ritual to the coal as if it were a god. He also invited people to come and coat themselves in coal soot and then have their photo taken. It struck me as a little odd when he first told us all about this in the lecture, however it made sense when paired with the actual works that came from it.

There is an Australian artist called Patricia Piccinini who does a similar sort of thing in terms of back rounding her works. Piccinini does quite a range of art including photography, sculpture, drawing and painting. In her series Nature’s Little Helpers Piccinini makes weird and wonderful silicone creatures that seem to make you feel quite disgusted. They all have quite ape and human like features, yet have a very creepy, alien ugliness to them, as if genetic modification gone wrong. In an essay Piccinini writes about how certain things cannot be undone and it becomes apparent that she is talking about the environment and the extinction of certain creatures. This doesn’t surprise me as Australia has a lot of endangered animals. Piccinini’s work is founded on this idea of technology vs. nature, and the possibility of technology fixing nature. Her sculptures are incredibly detailed and uncannily real. She says this is because she wants it to all seem believable and I think she completely succeeds in this. The viewer has no choice but to be pulled into this world and see her judgements about today’s society and environment.

I think Richard has succeeded in this too, but has done it in quite a more direct way.

Performance art is quite forceful in this sense. To fully understand Richard’s work (and most other performance art) you have to let go of reality and let yourself participate in the piece. Along with his performance piece go a series of photographs, mud drawings, and ‘Photoshop flower people’ images that all add to the Welcome to the Jungle cult.I think using a created fantasy world as a base for art works is awesome. For the viewer it is always a fresh and intriguing experience, and for the artist it is quite personal in the sense that it is a real piece of them.

Steve Rood

Hey Tessa, sorry I missed Steve's lecture, but here's an attempt at the blog anyway.

I thought I'd start this blog as a bit of a continuation from last week. One because I don't have too much to write about on Steve, and two because when I gave a little further thought to collaboration I was a little embarrassed at my laziness last week.

These two pieces are from the Cow Parade collection which has been touring around the world since 1999. The cows get auctioned off after each event and Cow Parade has made over 20 million dollars doing so. This money gets given to charitable organizations. These two cows are both done by New Zealand artists, and were displayed on Auckland streets. Buzzy Beef was done by Jill Jessup and Pohuticowa was done by Kathy Reid.

These are two pieces from the Vader Project. Like Cow Parade, this is a project that travels, contains multiple artists working on the same canvas, and the individual pieces get auctioned off at the end. The collection started in May 2007 at the Star Wars Celebration IV event in Los Angeles and has been to Europe, Japan and Pennsylvania.

I wonder if these two examples are really collaborations or not. In a sense they are because of the multiple artists working on the same canvas. However the artists are not working together, and are making individual pieces. Still not a hundred percent sure on collaboration vs collective.

As for Steve Rood, the Photographer. I read a few blogs of Steve's and I found them all quite cool. He seems to be really down to earth, and has quite a fresh approach to society and societal happenings. I'm not a very big fan of photography, and I find it quit hard to think of any photographer I like. Reading a friend's notes I saw a quote I quite liked (you'll probably read it several times) "Photography is just a blip in the landscape of visual technology". I liked it because I think its completely true, and I think sometimes photography is a little bit over rated sometimes. Here are the pieces of Rood's work that I do like, I found them on his blog.

One photographer I like is Gabriel Orozco. This is probly because he doesn't only do photography..and probably also because I like all of the other stuff he does (the link is the massive one at the end). I'm not sure you can make too many comparisons with Orozco to Steve, however there is a certain seriousness that comes through in both artists photos. This is quite nice in photography, as it is easy I think to be really humorous.

http://www.cowparade.com/

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/10995/the-vader-project.html

http://thetofsteve.blogspot.com/2009/08/armageddon.html

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/longvalley/RSnXHO6sAsJVHaD6fz8lLGNmkASO8DnghIdS248wjQwHovuHGZpB24YJTupK/gabriel_orozco.jpg&imgrefurl=http://longvalley.posterous.com/%3Ftag%3Dgabrielorozco&usg=__220rKdayLkUIpT5LAB0D2wpc2Qc=&h=593&w=436&sz=51&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ChlMh-WmTInusM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGabriel%2BOrozco%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1540%26bih%3D871%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=122&vpy=44&dur=4694&hovh=262&hovw=192&tx=111&ty=126&ei=u0ilTN3GBNq5jAePhIWrDA&oei=u0ilTN3GBNq5jAePhIWrDA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

Fran Alisson

Fran's lecture was quite fresh compared to past lectures I thought. She didn't seem so wrapped up in herself which was nice, maybe this is a result of being part of Weeds.

I liked how she compared collaboration to a flat or a club, pooling resources. It must be easier all round for the individual, and take a lot of pressure and stress out of making works. I imagine only specific types of people would be suited to being involved in a collaboration, Fran said you have to be very democratic, this doesn't surprise me but made me wonder how you choose people to collaborate with. Like interviewing flatmates, maybe you interview artmates? Being part of a collaboration must have a very interesting effect on your practice. Fran said it becomes quite a safe space to pursue ideas because responsibility and consequences get divvied up. I think a collective differs from this, in that everyone is working towards the goal and has separate tasks to complete. Whereas a collaboration rolls all ideas and skills together.

I really could not help but make comparisons of Fran with Frances Hansen, and Mary Curtis. The way Fran collects cake tins (baskets in Frances's case), uses domesticity as a theme, and explores materiality is uncannily alike what Frances is into. The result of all of this however, is more fitting to compare with Mary Curtis's pieces, and in fact both Mary and Fran cited Helen Britton as an inspiration. Helen Britton's pieces are trinkity and often floral, this is a theme that also flows through Fran's work. When I viewed Mary Curtis's work in Object Space I talked about how a really wanted to touch then, I get the same sensation when looking at Britton's and Allison's pieces.

The one solid similarity you can make about these four artists is that they all generate work from giving life to old and used objects. Fran quotes Julian Schnabel in saying "I work with things left over from other things", which I suppose is a less attractive way of saying it. I compared Schnabel's work to Hansen's earlier on, and I fell he lends his ideas and techniques quite easily to Fran's practice as well.

Deborah Crowe

The picture of the bridge at the start of Deborah's slideshow shows us her infatuation with weaving, architecture, space and

structure. This is what her main idea is heavily influenced by, and made from. It is not surprising when you find out that she is trained in weaving, and she said she uses it to create 3d shapes and environments.

My favorite works of Deborah's are Kibble Palace Small World (20

09), Sidestep (2005), Shift (2000), and Collared (1999). I also quite like her Warp series.

In her work Shift (2000), I immediately made comparisons to Dion Hitchens work Te Wao Nui a Tane (1999). These works by Dion are smaller then Deborah's Shift, however they are similar in how they command space in the room and are constructed with a sort of transparency. Deborah talks about creating a contradiction in the space, and she succeeds in doing so. These lightly made figures are flimsy and transparent but seem to fill the space up. They cast big moving shadows and makes

the space seem quit airy. Although I haven't seen this piece in the flesh I imagine the viewer would feel a little dwarfed, as the three dimensional shapes take on quite a human form. Dion's works do the same in that manor. This work of Deborah's definitely employs her usual tactics of intervening with space, and using weaving.

I really enjoy looking at Sidestep (2005), it's a digital print on pvc mesh. Again Deborah uses a weave (or mesh in this case), and the image itself seems to be woven together as

well. Deborah talks about photography as a way to construct inventional drawings, and this furthers her practice. I think you can see that his is quite an experimental work when you place it along side her other works. Invention is also quite apparent in Kibble Palace Small World (2009). I really like this work, and there is something quite enjoyable to look at about it. As well as invention in these two works, there is a huge sense of intervention. Kibble Palace Small World puts you in a very imaginary spatial place, this really intervenes with the original image. You also get Deborah's weaving again as the window pains collide and intersect.

I liked how Deborah talked about how architecture is just a different scale of bodily containment, and I completely agree with her. You can easily see how the two effect each other in trends and inspiration. The images at the end of Deborah's slideshow really interested me, although I don't think they were works of art. The scaled down and repeated close ups of architecture reminded me of some of Steve Lovette's later works Up - n - dwn (2006), and Tresspass # 17 (2005). These works by Steve also intervene with space and also have a weaving sensation about them.

Steve Lovett

My Favorite pieces by Steve are Trespass # 17 and Up - n - dwn. The first piece talks about how beaches are being sold into private ownership and were no longer accessible for the public. This piece is not only awesome to look at, but it sums up Steve very well I think. It is a 6 colour print on paper and is very very detailed. Screen printing allows you to do this well and I think it gives a good insight to how Steve thinks and operates.

It is clear that Steve basis his work on social and personal issues. His work Holding the Man (1996) talks about the HIV crisis, which effected Steve severely, it was easy to see that this still haunts him. He talked about how this piece got taken down from a clinic, this must have been interesting. When you make work that relates to your own personal issues so strongly it must put a real damper on your own attachment to the piece. In saying that it must also really increase the passion that goes into the work. I think it would be really hard to lay yourself out like that in a piece of art.

Steve is a very multi-layered artist. Not only in his screen prints, but also in his media. His work Speaking Parts (1998-2000) uses screen printed images and sound. This layering of media is quite interesting I think, and must have had a very weird affect on the viewer. I think Steve is also quite layered in the way he thinks and deals with his inspiration (social, personal and political issues), It's plain to see that his pieces are rich and deep with thought. I immediately made comparisons and similarities with Frances Hansen's work. Frances also works with layering quite heavily.

In terms of how he has evolved as an artist, I think it is clear to see that his earlier practice dealt with a lot of personal issues. In his later pieces, I see more social and political issues being addressed and also it seems that his latest (2010) pieces take a decent step back from being so deep in meaning. I think it must be quite fresh to make a work that is more aesthetically pleasing after being so conceptual.

I really like Steve as a lecturer and person. He is really quite clever and it definitely shows in his work. I find it quite interesting how he gets involved in his work on such a personal level, this must cause some kind of internal conflict, and would have curious effects on how you feel about your finished pieces.

Frances Hansen

I'm not completely sure whether I liked Frances Hansen's work or not, but I did think her process was very methodical and interesting. As a young person at Art school I find myself consistently trying to leap ahead to the end product. Lecturers keep trying to beat this habit out of me, and it was cool to see how someone as experienced as Hansen works. Her process is quite epic I think, and I was a little surprised to find out that she was a mother as well as an artist. I'm thinking it must take a lot of effort to finish a piece whilst cramming all the "collecting, constructing, thinking and changing" in, as well as running a house and looking after kids.

It is not a surprise however, that her practice is heavily based around domesticity. This is definitely a key factor in Hansen's practice. You are a product of your environment and the domestic environment I think has a heavy influence on Hansen. Running a house must be a repetitive and monotonous job, and Hansen said her mind often wonders whilst doing household chores. Maybe this is more of a creative environment then it first appears?

One artist that Hansen said really influenced her was Dan Arps. This I found quite fitting, as I think her art looks a lot like his art, but on a 2D scale (for lack of a better term). Hansen thought Arps's work "is how a disgruntled office worker would make art". I thought this was really funny, and it made think that maybe Hansen's work is how a disgruntled housewife would make art? I really couldn't find many images of Arps's work, which is a shame as I think it would have been easy to make some comparisons of her work to his.

One Artist I did look into who can make strong comparisons with Hansen is Julian Schnabel. His work Bob's World is done on wood and canvas in '06 and is made out of oil, wax, bondo, ceramic plates and horns. This fits well with Hansen's work, as she also layers the hell out of her pieces, and uses all sorts of found materials. I think layering is definitely a key step in the making of Hansen's work. When you work with so many different materials it must become very tricky in what can go on top of what.

As for A Garden of Peculiarities, I thought that "Plant = Art" was a funny statement. Of coarse plants equal art, plants are a representation of nature and I think nature has always had heavy hand in art making. Mainly because nature is so aesthetically pleasing (jelly fish, snow flakes, crystal formations, bacterial growth), and isn't that the driving force behind art? To be aesthetically pleasing? Maybe not a driving force, but definitely a classic reason. If my above statement is correct, does that mean that places with more nature produce better art? Say, New Zealand vs. Los Angeles? I've been to L.A. and it's weird that when you hope off the plane the sky is not blue it is usually grey. What do you think?

Eldon Booth

Eldon's lecture was kind of funny. I know nothing of film, even though, I thought his ideas and the films he made were very alternative. Not that this is a bad thing. I suppose this is only because I am readily subject to feature length, mainstream films.

In filming Five Good Reasons, 06 Booth witnessed a burning car, which he filmed. He said he was more interested in filming the people that were running to watch the burning wreck then filming the wreck itself. He also said rubbernecking was deeply grained in human nature, this reminded me of the film we watched in our Gaze lecture Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. We talked about how the girl was being watched, and then she views the painting that watches us. The whole thing gets turned around on itself, and it becomes clear that voyeurism is a main theme. This can also be related to Booth's first film Withdrawal. In the short piece we watched, the camera did a lot of following as apposed to normal film shots. Booth said this was because he didn't want the viewers to gain insight into the characters, this definitely happened in Hitchcock's Vertigo.

Booth talked about how he did Withdrawal with a hadycam because he wanted it to have a reality effect. This was due to the epic amount of amateur film footage shows on TV. There are two films that I have seen that use the same technique. Cloverfield was made in 2008 and was directed by Matt Reeves. The whole film is shot on handycam and someone even told me it was as long as a handycam can film for. The second movie is Open Water, filmed in 2003 and was directed by Chris Kentis. Open Water is about divers that go missing, and the footage becomes them bobbing around in the water for a day or two. Eventually they get eaten by sharks I think. The two movies both have suspense filled moments, and try to capture a lot of emotion from the characters. As apposed to Booth's movie, I would say these two are more Action type films, where as his Withdrawal, I think was more of a drama.

Booth's exploration of reality and illusion is quite apparent in both films. He said he wanted to blur the lines between fact and fiction. I'm not sure if he meant this in terms of, the story line is fiction, but he wants to make it seem like fact? If in that case then most directors blur the lines between fact and fiction. I think both films use an illusion of some sort to gain the characteristics of reality. I think most films do this actually, gaining a sense of reality is a general goal in any film.