Group Critique - Friday, Sept 23rd, 2011

The visit to my studio to critique my work went very well. My shaped canvases seem to be captivating, drawing people in, forcing them to ask: "What is it?" I felt I received some great ideas and direction from our group, which consisted of Chip, Emily, Gabby, and Chris. Chris made the suggestion that I make the organic appearance of my work more "gross". Gabby seemed to think that I needed to make them less textured, maybe smoother somehow. Alex thought the idea of me painting 2D canvas with the same type of image as the forms I am making (spines, ridges, etc.) was a great idea, and they all felt that adding this to the collection would be an interesting way to augment the shaped canvases. Chip seemed to like the idea that I was including evolution into my work, not biological evolution, but the way the work will change over time. Emily seemed to think the ball could lead to controversy, and that I should be careful about overusing it. Overall, they seemed to think I was heading in the right direction, and looked forward to seeing what the future would turn these things into.

The Uncle Ted Experiment

"Uncle Ted's" Visit to my studio My Uncle Ted was a guy I'd never met before, but whom had been commenting on my art on AnythingArts.com. He used to be an artist, and painted on the street in Key West for some years, painting Manatees and ducks for tourists. Although he had no formal education in art, he seemed to think I was on to something with the shaped canvases, and the evolution thereof. He also really loved the way I'd painted the edges darker, saying that it made them "pop", gave them mystery. He was very enthusiastic about the work, and felt that I was in the right vein, and should continue to explore the possibilities. This man was full of energy, and seemed very curious as to how I was making the forms. I showed him some pieces of the next work that I had laying around, and he just couldn't believe I was getting those shapes out of foamcore. He also wanted to know how large I planned on working, and I explained that I needed to keep the size small enough to get into my car, since the larger pieces always make it more difficult to transport, but that I had the option of using several smaller pieces to create one larger piece, and that seemed to placate his desire to see the work in a very large format. He suggested that I take the pieces to the beach, and perch them atop a set of poles, and display in front of the tourists and beach goers. This is something I might consider in the future, if I ever have time to go to the beach!  I tried to explain how my work connected with Dadaism and the contemporary art movement, but I think, frankly, this was lost, as he wasn't so much interested in the history, or how my work fit into the history. Rather, he was more interested in my process. Therefore it became difficult to explain, since I feel you need to know at least a little about Dada in order to appreciate contemporary art. Without realizing it, I did sort of bring him into the ideas of contemporary art in a round about way. He seemed surprised to find out that art can be made with ideas as simple as automatic drawing, channelling a person who has died, or even using intuition as a guide; He was also interested to hear that random drops of paint, or splatters of paint, a la Pollock, could be made into something beautiful. I also explained what an important role that chance, random acts of mark making, had on modern art, and he seemed interested in this. Which sort of brought him up to date on my methods: although the creation of the shapes is somewhat random, the surface is not a exactly a random act, yet the painting of them is. I make no preconceived notions about where I will put paint, or how I will place it onto the surface. If I make a mistake, I work with it, rather than try to correct it. This brought him joy, saying that, in his work, many times he has to re-gesso the canvas, paint over the bad image, in order to start over. I further explained how he could use such accidents to his advantage, and the many reasons it's abad idea to paint over a previous painting. He and I talked for about 45 minutes. All in all, I think that he was very interested and somewhat enlightened when he left. It was a good interview, and it helped me to try to see my work through the eyes of a novice, and get a fresh perspective about the direction I am going.

Response to Reading #2

Halley says that  having soul was the cure for alienation from society. But, today, it seems, the thinking has changed, so that the soul  becomes a "means by which bourgeois culture has consolidated it's position by denying it's historicity," meaning that the working class is not learning about it's past as much as other generations, therefore making sure that being alienated becomes the new "norm,"  and that when a member of this sector of society does create a work which has "soul", it automatically becomes timeless and universal in character. However, Halley points out that this type of change of opinion should be looked at more closely, examined to see why this change has occurred, saying that intellectually, abandoning the former way of thinking might have been a mistake; that giving accolades to works that have soul such as timelessness and universality might be too much credit to give certain authors, that having soul isn't a ticket to fame and fortune. That by giving so much credit to a work of art, putting it firmly in the category of heroical or having the power to reunite us with nature hasn't proven to be answer to many problems, since many of the worst of the problems are still rampant in society yet today. The prediction that returning to nature would somehow bring us betterment only ended with disappointment: the nuclear bomb.

The hope that abstract expressionism would represent responsibility, good actions, and strong faith, and that putting certain artwork on a pedestal, were basic dreams of many leaders in the world of art. Sadly, this bubble bursted when the first nuclear strike hit Japan, firmly placing the era into one of devastating power, brought about by nature herself (along with science and mankind,) by utilizing the splitting of the atom, the exact nuclear reaction that allows our life giving sun to shine bright, and to emanate so much warmth. It was like bringing the sun to the earth, allowing mankind to harness such enormous power, and use it against his fellow man, denying, in effect, society the ability to need or even want to become one with nature any longer. Nature had become dangerous, frightening. The bourgeois felt that the world was now "codeless," meaning that good manners in world matters no longer applied, since the US had proven that might overpowers nature, and on some basic level, amplifying the frail state of the carbon based life forms that brought about these wars. The basic desire of the world of art, at that time, was to bring about a neutralizing effect on society as a whole; to prove that even the lowliest man had as much validity as the richest King or Prince. 


This nuclear age only created a new idea: that those that held such vast power to wipe out cities with just a flip of the wrist were truly in control, with or without a King. Everyone feared the society that created such a devastating vehicle; so much so that the bourgeois suddenly had a new problem to deal with, one that was far more pressing than equalizing the status of all men: the fear of world wide nuclear devastation! The only real hope was that the people who had control over this menacing new means of death was that the they, themselves, would force the world to see that equal rights for all was an enforceable and worthwhile reason to bring about equality. It wasn't long before even this frail dream was put to rest.

The advent of television and radio brought about yet another change: mass media. The effect of TV and radio began to show society that information from a few consolidated sources was not only vitally important to the working man, but that it was important that art itself had to change yet again. Art became an entity that mirrors and reflects mass media, since the media was overwhelming society with images that became iconic, using photography and film to get it's point across. These new ways of communication brought about a new way of looking at things: a more global outlook; a means by which the whole world could see up to the minute tragedies and political machinations anywhere on the globe. We became a society accustomed to "myriad variations [and] repetition."

The 80's brought about the next era, when certain French authors became popular, even though they had written prior to this new decade. Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, and Baudrillard helped to change culture and it's concept of itself,  by ushering in        the era titled poststructuralism, or structuralism, marking a change based on the experiences of artists who were born after WWII, and therefore laying to rest the memory of experience created before the War. These younger artists allowed themselves the luxury of deconstructing art which had gone before, and to pick and choose bits and pieces to appropriate into their own work. Individualism AND assimilation became the new norm. Economy of possessions was now important. A transition from the industrial, and post-industrial, eras had begun.

Structural and post structural thought had begun sometime before the 60's, yet it caught on in society as a whole more clearly in the 60's, and held a foothold right up through the 80's. Richard Nixon brought about the end of the American economy, and it's effects were felt the most beginning in the 80's, by taking America off the gold standard, and with oil and gas becoming more expensive, and the Vietnam War ending without the US being the winner, making the mood in America change to a more pessimistic, less hopeful one. Extinction of species started to be a reality, too, being prophesied for decades, but in the late 70's and early 80's, began to be proven by science, making the mood of the US even less than positive. 

Science helped to bring about the concept that the world around us was changing, making for a new, heightened sense of urgency to protect it against the ravages of humankind, although, sadly, we don't seem to be having much success, what with certain political ways of thinking rejecting the idea of global warming and environmental change. Bourgeois society was now seeing nature and beauty in a different way. Instead of wanting to become one with nature, which may always be an underlying desire, mankind now wanted to be the overseer of nature, to manage wildlife, protect endangered species, and allowing law and rules to be extended deep into the wilderness. The so called 'back-to-nature' movement penetrated everything, from marketing and advertising, and changing the idea of being INSIDE of nature into one in which nature is brought into the home via mass media and marketing firms. Society was no longer a part of nature, but rather nature was a cause which to defend from within our own homes. Even if our city dwellers never had any contact with nature, they all were aware of our dependence on it for life giving air, water, and soil. In many ways, this integration artificially creating a sense of life within a home now seemed, for some, the only way of experiencing it, even if it was nothing more than a facade.

Nature and art seem to now be a simulation for many urban dwellers. Society has become desensitized, our tactile senses were being stimulated by the artificial representation of the artificial. As time goes by, we may see even more "artificiality" in our world, especially if global warming makes it too hot to be outside. In such a case, we may be forced to experience nature through virtual reality or the internet, as we watch our natural world slowly die, thanks to the actions of humankind and the devastating effects they are having on this planet.

____________________________

Response to "Portraits Can Get Your Pulse Pounding"

Science and art often work together to discover unique and unusual discoveries about ourselves. Psychological and marketing studies have helped bring to the fore new methods of testing the reactions of viewers to visual stimuli. I myself have participated in several marketing research studies that use sensitive electronic monitoring systems to record eye movement, heart rate, and sweat detection. It is refreshing to see that such technology can be used to scientifically record data of the experience of viewing art. Marketing obviously takes visual stimuli very seriously, in order to improve sales and product awareness. It's about time we applied these scientific tools to examine what stimuli exist when we view art, because art needs marketing tools, too, as much as does any other sellable item. I feel that more marketing research can be done to pinpoint certain traits, such as a comparison of one piece to another, or even alter the context of viewing art by altering the environment that one views art in, or even take EKG scans utilizing brain, heart, and endocrine systems to measure reactions to both visual and physical sensations to research concepts such as color effect within a work of art, or to test composition, placement, or light, etc.

As an aesthetic-emotional assessment of viewers can be recorded, so can more in-depth research be pursued by postgraduates or doctoral candidates at research universities around the world. This may, perhaps, bring about changes in the way we do art. In fact, it could be an art unto itself, such as performance art or video. Science has always had an affect on art, and I think maybe it's time to see just how much art CAN be affected by scientific research. Of course, we have to be steeled against any controversial findings the results might show. After all, artists are a sensitive bunch! Yet, at times, it's the negative data that helps bring about the most change.

Responses to required reading

Response to Required Reading

Aug 29, 2011

Senior Thesis - Class of 2012

By Alan R. Neal

Article A: 

"Against Interpretation" by Susan Sontag

I think she is essentially saying that art critics or the public's interpretation of art in the past has hindered the true enjoyment of art. It has tainted the way the western societies look at art, bringing the work down to a level of deconstruction that allows society to feel more comfortable with their limited interpretation than to allow the art to just be art, to just enjoy it as the expression of the artist, and to not find the need to delve so deeply into it's meanings, even if there is meant to be one. 

Even the opening phrase she includes leads one to believe that maybe what we've been taught all our lives, to not judge a book by it's cover, could be the wrong way of going about it. Plato was a brilliant man, supposedly. But he seems to be incapable of seeing past his own limitations by stating that art is "an imitation of an imitation." (4) In many ways, Plato is technically correct when she notes that, to Plato, a painting of a bed, no matter how good it is, is just a painting of a bed; you can't sleep in it, you can't give it hospital corners, or even change the pillows. She rightfully states that the painting isn't "true." Yet, Aristotle was able to see beyond the "falseness" of a work of art, and realize how much it feeds the soul: "Lie or no, art has a certain value according to Aristotle because it is a form of therapy. Art is useful, after all, Aristotle counters, medicinally useful in that it arouses and purges dangerous emotions."(4)

She states that mimetic theorists should look beyond the limits of mimesis, and consider the idea that decorative and abstract art can be as valid an experience as any concerned with mimesis alone. That all can be lumped together into one pleasant experience, exclusive of none. She further explains that honesty in a work of art is the best way to impart the feelings of moving out of the realm of common vernacular and into the realm of majesty, and that transparency is [the] "most liberating value in art - and in art criticism - today."(4)

She emphasizes that a work of art should be experienced using our senses, and that interpreting the art only takes away from the enjoyment of it. That assimilating it into thought is the wrong way of experiencing art. She feels that, in todays society, we often live with too much sensory overload, and that our enjoyment has been dulled to a point where we no longer have clarity of feeling or emotion of our senses. 

She ends with this very serious note: "The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us."(4) If only we could convince the world of critics and interpreters to learn how to accomplish this, we would not get mired down in our own overabundance and over-excess, to the possible point of no return.

Article B:

"Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes

Mr. Barthes takes us on a wild ride of wordsmithing. His opening paragraph reminds me of my first encounter with a drag queen: Is it a man? A woman? A perversion? Or an artistic triumph? The illusion was somewhat successful. Until she spoke. The depth and breadth of her baritone voice threw the entire illusion into disarray. Then I saw her hands. This was no illusion. It was a blatant mockery of womanhood in general, a way of saying: "I am a man, but I have the skill to make you think I am a woman." Sadly, after years of experiencing this phenomenon, I was never quite able to understand the purpose behind it. That is, until I took my father to a drag show in Orlando, at the world famous Parliament House Resort. In my entire life, I'd never seen my father laugh so hard or so much. Only then did I realize that the effect was really more of comedy than of tragedy. That a man, dressed as a woman, could get by with so much more than a real woman could in a show such as the one she was in was not only a revelation, but it brought my Dad and me to a new way of understanding each other. Mr. Barthes didn't seem to have such a revelatory experience. He seemed to remain confused.

Therefore, analyzing this article was, in short, like wading through extremely thick oil. Is he reprimanding the author? Or the reader? Is he dismissing the job that the author assumes, which would be to impart his internal knowledge to his readers. Yet, if we kill off the author, then what will get written? There may be many readers, but if none of them are putting their thoughts into words, then what will there be to read? It's just like the chicken and the egg. He's saying that the author has to die in order for there to even be a reader. And he gives numerous examples of his concept. Yet, he is an author, and we are reading his ideas on paper, aren't we? At one point, he exclaims that: "Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile." So, I have to ask: Why are we even bothering to read this article at all? This author himself is telling us that critics are the scourge of the earth, and that the reader can't read until the author is dead. Yet he remains a critic of critics, and a critic of authors, as well as of writers and readers! One of Mr. Barthes' detractors, a Mr. Jacques Derrida, said: "Since there are no symbols of constant and universal significance, the entire premise of structuralism [which was what Mr. Barthes believed] as a means of evaluating writing (or anything) is hollow."(5) I think that Mr. Barthes may have been brilliant for his time. Curiously enough, now that he is dead, we are free to read his work without referencing his many critics. "Barthes saw the notion of the author, or authorial authority, in the criticism of literary text as the forced projection of an ultimate meaning of the text. By imagining an ultimate intended meaning of a piece of literature one could infer an ultimate explanation for it. But Barthes points out that the great proliferation of meaning in language and the unknowable state of the author’s mind makes any such ultimate realization impossible."(5) I think that discounts his own writing by making such claims, which, even though there may be some truth to it, is a professionally suicidal way of making all writers and authors extinct, and to a certain extent, unnecessary. Although I do not see a possibility of losing all authors, writers, or critics anytime soon. Humankind is still full of new ideas and knowledge, and writing it allows the writer to share it with others who choose to read it. Neither the end of publishing or writing is in the near future, for with today's technology, writing and authorship have been taken to a new level. Certainly the plethora of text we have to choose from is overwhelming nowadays. But with the right tools, we can choose more carefully now than ever before what we wish to read or learn. It's a shame Mr. Barthes isn't around to see what we have to choose from today. I am sure Barthes would be turning over in his grave if he realized that anyone can now, thanks to technology and the internet, be a critic, an author, or writer, or any other term that we wish to use to describe someone who puts words down for others to read. Relating to art, we all know that the artist is always going to be associated with the art, no matter what happens to the original piece. And what would be wrong with that? Artists such as Banksy are notorious personalities, yet having him associated with a piece of work certainly works in his (and his works) favor, and doesn't diminish the role of the author or his work. The chicken or the egg? The answer is irrelevant. It's too late to stop the proliferation of either!

Article C:

      "WHAT IS AN AUTHOR?" by Michel Foucault

Mr. Foucault seems to think the way some authors used to be treated by society was without question; their ownership was assumed, and no one seemed to challenge it. By the same token, he seems a little bitter that authors during the modern era are assigned authorship because theirs is now a monetary consideration that they must take ownership of. His comparison between authors of mathematical texts and those who write biological or medical texts seems a little unfair, however. Today, many mathematicians get plenty of credit for their work, specifically those who do research in a university setting. The list of famous mathematicians who've been published is exhaustive. Click here to reference a list of famous mathematicians on Wickipedia (1, 2, and 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematicians. Note how many are from the recent modern era, some still alive. So, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Foucault wasn't able, or perhaps he didn't try, to do the research on his facts. After all, somebody had to write the textbooks school children learn from, creating a standard that is upheld to this day.

My biggest question is how does this article relate to our work in the art world today? Is he saying that sometime in our past, authors such as ourselves have been overlooked, or taken for granted, because they were involved in a field of work that wasn't popular at that time? Things change over time, and obviously, things are totally different today from the way they were back in Aristotle's day. I think art is as popular today as it has ever been. Sadly, I also believe that many people that used to buy art, frankly are unable to buy art now because of the economic situation in our country. And since Mr. Foucault died in 1987, he's hardly an expert on todays market conditions.

There is a curious phrase a little more than halfway through the article, and I quote: 

"If by accident or design a text was presented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author. Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as, in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereignty of the author." 

Does this suggest that keeping an author anonymous helps to generate interest in playing the game of "find the author"? Is this a potential public relations ploy we could play on as artists? Keeping the author a mystery generates more interest in a work of art? Hmmm…something to think about!

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematicians

(2) http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/index.php

(3) http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/authors

(4) http://wyshock-fa479.blogspot.com/2011/08/against-interpretation-by-susan-sontag.html

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes

Senior Thesis Public Posting

Thesis Proposal

Aug 2011

Alan ReNae Neal

I feel like nature holds unlimited beauty and divine inspiration. I also feel that evolution and the understanding thereof is vital to our future, and understanding evolution is key to evolving my own work. Therefore, my work this year will involve experimenting with textures and substances coming from nature, and the basis of my inspiration will be found in evolution, nature, sex, or death. Using materials that can be attached to a surface using acrylic mediums, I want to explore such surface treatments as tapioca, coffee, sunflower seeds, pistachio hulls, and many other grocery items. I want my work to reflect the natural shapes and fluid lines found in flowers, plants, water, animals, and any other natural thing that would be appealing. I will draw on biology, geography, physiology, psychology, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, ecology, botany, astrobiology, religion, anti- religion, politics, and current events as sources of information, to help keep my work current and contemporary. I may also explore the subconscious, and look internally for inspiration for my work, using dreams, fantasy, and other intangible thoughts for reference.

I want to create a FEW larger paintings, but most should be smaller than 68" x 46", for the sake of transport. I also intend to continue to experiment with shaped canvases, utilizing a number of pieces to hang from the ceiling, off a wall, from wall to floor, and freestanding.

My biggest goal this semester is to find my niche, or style, in art, and to make it different, unusual, the kind of thing people don't see everyday. At present, I feel like I am on to something with the shaped canvases, but due to time restraints, I need to approach these with a different infrastructure, and a smaller, easier transportable size. Breaking away from the wooden infrastructure that I used last year, I want to try making lighter pieces using foam core, or gatorboard, so the pieces are sturdy enough for transport, but light enough to make transport easier.

Although I need to keep my options open for experimentation, I do plan on focusing on a certain look and style, in order to accomplish what I need to accomplish this year.

I will continue to experiment with installations and video, perhaps merging video with painting, and will explore other avenues of creativity in order to continue my quest for my own personal style and look.

Although my major may be painting, I want to combine painting and 3d/sculptural elements in each piece, in order to claim my own place in art history, and to define a newer way of creating paintings. This, I feel, is a credible path toward being different, yet current, within the world of art, and allows me the freedom to explore new and exciting ways to speak the language of art.

About me...

Just an old guy trying to find a way to get ahead in this old world...

Alan ReNae Neal: Senior Thesis Blog

This is my blog created for Senior Thesis at RCAD. I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions about my work. I am hoping to explore new vistas this year, concentrating on shaped canvases, textures, odd subjects, and inspiration from nature and life.