William Kentridge is a South African artist who has worked in a variety of mediums, and has given some important commentary on South Africa during and after apartheid. The most interesting artwork (to me at least) that Kentridge created were a series of charcoal drawings which he later turned into movies. His drawings were so unique because Kentridge would create one initial drawing, and each subsequent one would just be on top of the original. He would add and erase small portions and details of the drawing each time, and take a picture in between each revision. Later, he would use each picture as a frame in a movie.
Kentridge's art is so fascinating to me because his drawings are just as much about the process as they are about the final product, possibly even more so. The act of making each small revision in each piece becomes the art. While Kentridge deals with a different subject and content than I do, I still think that his work is similar to mine in a lot of ways. He uses charcoal drawings in order to make his commentary, and after he finishes a drawing, he alters it in some way. A lot of my personal work has been focused on the final work rather than on the process of making the work, and while my process has never been boring, I think it would be interesting to possibly record my process next time. I've been experimenting more and more ways to "ruin" my charcoal drawings, and I might want to explore different ways of presenting my work as well, whether it be in video form or not.
0 Comments
Alexis Arnold honestly has some of the coolest artwork I have ever seen. I absolutely love the crystallized books that she has done, as well as the other crystallized objects such as the chandelier of antique kitchen supplies. The process of crystallizing the objects is visually stunning, and adds interesting texture and color elements that did not exist previously. I also love the fact that Arnold arranged the pages of the books a certain way and opened them, rather than crystallizing a closed book. They seem kind of frozen in time, but dynamic due to the movement of the pages, and it just provides a really interesting contrast. I hadn't really ever thought about crystallizing things to make art, but there are probably tons of mediums I don't know about. While Arnold's work is extremely different than mine, I still think I could think more creatively like she does and begin to experiment with mediums I hadn't previously considered. Finding new ways to wreck my drawings could possibly include something like crumpling it up and getting crystals to grow on it, I don't know. Anyway, I think that Alexis Arnold is a creative artist who manages to create visually stunning works, and I look forward to seeing more from her.
Arnold's Website On November 25th, our art class went on a gallery walk to some of the galleries on Main Street- specifically the Reynolds Gallery, the Brazier Gallery, and the Glave Kocen Gallery. I overall enjoyed the experience, in large part because I don't go to art galleries very much on my own, and this allowed me to see a little of what Richmond has to offer.
While at the Reynolds Gallery, there was a lot of interesting work on display, but what drew me in most was the work done by an artist named Nancy Blum. Blum created large-scale drawings of flowers and plants (very fitting for someone with that last name), some of which spanned the entire length of walls in the gallery. Blum's art is very interesting to me because while it manages to capture some of the realistic details within the flowers, they are also extremely stylized and interesting to look at. In addition to this, there are so many small details in Blum's work that one has to observe extremely closely to notice. The background of many of the pieces seem gray from afar, but are actually comprised of a tight pattern of multicolored lines. I could stare at Blum's drawings for hours and still manage to notice something new. Pretty much all of the work I've done this year has been realistic, and while I haven't aimed for hyper realism, I do know that I've tried to keep my drawings close to the actual subject material. It is work like Blum's that gets me thinking about whether or not I want to start trying to create artwork that's more stylized. But would that sacrifice the realism I've been aiming for? Another artist whose work I saw that absolutely floored me was Stanley Rayfield at the Glave Kocen Gallery. Rayfield managed to create artwork so realistic I could have sworn they were photographs instead of pencil drawings. It's amazing. Like with Blum's work, I probably could have stared at Rayfield's for a ridiculously long amount of time without getting bored. There are so many small details in his work that when together, create astounding realism in his work. This got me thinking a bit more about my work, and though I do realistic drawings, I don't aim for hyperrealism, and mainly try and get the biggest details or most defining features of the people I draw on the page. Would trying something more detailed or hyperrealistic help my work and add more depth? It was also very interesting to see the racial aspect of Rayfield's work, seeing as he mainly chose to draw or paint portraits of African Americans. Like in the picture below, Rayfield put his subjects in poses and clothing, such as the crowns, that would usually be found in works about white Americans and Europeans, and was a very nice change of pace. I continued drawing the outline in pencil, but due to only having one shortened class this week, did not make the most progress.
I began planning out the drawing and making the grid for it.
War is something that happens worldwide, and everybody feels the effects of it, even if they aren't the ones doing the fighting. War is such a universal experience that it is so interesting to find that so many different artists have managed to make completely unique works grappling with all of the different emotions connected to war. Artists like Francisco de Goya created realistic etchings showing the horrifying effects of war in gory detail (Rubin 1), while other artists such as Kata Legrady created art made of guns and bombs covered in candy (Michel 4). This brings up a few different questions concerning the artists and the war. How does being on certain sides of a war impact the types of emotions felt by the artist? Does the type of conflict, for instance, a modern war such as the one who impacted Legrady, versus the 19th century conflicts impacting de Goya? War, like many things, has evolved due to technology, and it is interesting to see how the art following war has changed as well. Michel's article talks about WWI, which was "the first modern war, in which mechanized weaponry wrought mass destruction" (Michel 1). The artwork, most notably the Dada movement which came out of this war is vastly different from the types of 19th century artwork talked about by Rubin.
Together, the two articles paint an interesting picture of the wars which have taken place over the past two centuries, as well as the art which followed. It was a little surprising exactly how much artwork has changed throughout time. In the 1800s, the artwork of de Goya and others is very realistic, and though portrays many of the same emotions, looks extremely different from the surreal, or abstract work which became more popular after the first World War. The fact that the trend in artwork changed so quickly was interesting to see. I spent the one class period we had this week brainstorming. I can't begin my actual project until we are back in art class due to the fact that I need paper from there.
|
AuthorA senior at Maggie Walker taking Art IV Archives
May 2018
Categories |