Final AEP Coursework 2008

October 15, 2008 at 7:31 pm | In Acrylic, Contemporary, Coursework, Installation, Paper Relief, Papercraft, Papercutting, Sculpture, Writings | Leave a Comment

coursework08

Fiction, In Fact (2008)

Medium: A3 Paper 240 gsm, Glue, Acrylic
Dimensions: mm x (Base) 297 mm x 420 mm

Description: This artwork is a part-sculpture, part 2-dimensional site-specific installation. It is currently located on the first level of the school library and presented on a white pedestal. A white model of a dinosaur-bird hybrid bust is situated on the right of the longitudinal rectangular base. The head of the creature is created by adhering layers and layers of paper such that they are perpendicular to plane ground. By compiling multiple layers together, form is created by adding and removing layers at appropriate areas of contour. The creature’s head appears similar to that of a therapod dinosaur. Its mouth is open as though it were calling out. Five large head feathers protrude from the head of the creature; the size of each tail feather is larger than the one above it. The head is connected to the neck and upper torso, which is composed of stacking numerous layers of paper on top of each other. The layers of paper are stacked lengthwise, such that the layers of paper gradually decrease in size towards the neck. This creates volume for the upper body of the creature. A paper sculpture of an arm with wing feathers is adhered just slightly above the bust sculpture. The base of the artwork is a white, A3 sized cardstock joined to another layer of paper beneath. Both layers are presented in landscape. The paper beneath is painted a monochromatic gradient, starting with a dark black hue from the left, and gradually becoming a lighter grey towards the right, where the sculpture of the creature is placed. A silhouette of a dinosaur skeleton is cut out from the upper layer of the base, such that the gradient of the layer below is showing through the cut spaces of the skeleton. Although the skeleton cut-out clearly resembles that of a dinosaur’s, feather-like shapes appear to come out from the arm of the skeleton, forming a wing. The sculpture head is placed such that the neck of the creature is “joined” to the neck bones of the skeleton cut-out.

Meaning/Inspiration: Myths and fictional creatures have intrigued, excited and fantasized us for many centuries. But how did we manage to create such uncanny wonders that outlasted the erosion of time until today? This is the question that made me realize the intimate relation between reality and fantasy; that fantasy is actually a product fabricated from reality. What was really a prehistoric fossil could actually be the very element that catalyzed our ancestors to conceive the legendary dragon. My artwork manifests this relation in the rise of the mythological phoenix (fantasy) through its evolution from a dinosaur fossil (reality). However, these fantastic creatures and tales are gravely endangered by rapid modernization and scientific eradication. This sculpture is my wish for mutual symbiosis of reality and fantasy to endure the modern era. Through the rebirth of the phoenix from the ashes of science, fantasy seeks to find its pristine place again in our imaginations.

Reflections: I would definitely be more consistent in the following the shape of the cut-outs. Some uneven edges jutted out of the continuous shape. The head was be remade such that the layers are done in the same manner as the rest of the body. This way, it would not appear as though it were ‘plopped’ on.

ARTificial INtelligence reaches 10,000 Hits!

October 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm | In Blog Misc., Writings | Leave a Comment

A BIG THANKS to everyone who visited this ARTBlog!

ART.IN has achieved 10,000 hits (and counting!) since its’ opening on January 9, 2008. Starting out as what was meant to be a school SIA assignment, it is now a personal ARTBlog and will continue to be! Once again, thank you for your comments, support and viewership! (:
-XY

ART.Surfing–[Donna Ong]

September 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm | In Art Reviews, Art.Surf, Writings | 1 Comment

Note to reader: This is not meant to be a critical review. If you’re looking for something professionally written, sorry bub, maybe go look here. I feel that the art critics out there like to write in flamboyant language and use all those bombastic words to illustrate some super abstract point (which maybe under all those façade, is actually very unsophisticated) and it just makes me more confused than the artwork itself. So… enter XY’s very entertaining and casual art response style, 100% guaranteed no dictionaries or art teachers required. It isn’t going to be graded anyway, so it’s purely my personal humble opinion, no offense. (:

I promised irreverently that I would write about some other artists I mentioned from Singapore Biennale ‘06, but I never got it done, so now I’m making up for it! Today’s ART.Surfing spotlight will be on Donna Ong!! I’ve only got one photo of her works.. now I’m seriously regretting not taking more during Biennale!! :(

For Singapore Biennale 2006, Donna Ong did 4 installations in four different rooms of City Hall. Each installation represented a different person, each with their own secrets. (ooooh…) These secrets are translated into installations by turning the room into a space where these inner thoughts and desires acquire form. Actually, there were notebooks with drawings by the imaginary person to vaguely explain his secret thoughts… but I didn’t see any! X(

secret, interiors : chrysalis (19) image credit: Createlevoyage.com

This one was–to put very bluntly–very creepy. Like I explained in [The.Artist], I have a love-hate affair with these kind of Parental Guidance artworks. First look at the artwork and you get a

“Eeeee.. crazy person”

response. Dolls seemingly drowning in coffin-ish boxes with tubes leading to a network of other random stuff suspended in solution-filled jars and bottles. One of the ’stuff’ I remembered was ginseng. I didn’t notice the drawing of foetuses though. I confess, at that time, it was a look-and-go installation for me. I still couldn’t stomach these attractive yet haunting works for too long. After some thought, you would probably realise that this secret laboratory probably belonged to a certain Dr. Frankenstein who wanted to create human life. Motifs from Donna Ong’s Sing O Barren Woman (2002) are very evident here. Could Dr. Frankenstein actually be a childless woman trying conceive through artificial means of bringing plastic dolls to live? Easily the more “shocking” installation of the four.

secret, interiors : chrysalis (20)

Haha that’s Leny, trying to show you the beautiful hidden crystalware within the table. Too bad her hand is in the way. (Tsk.) The lights went on and off periodically, and it really looked beautiful when the lights came on full brightness. Leny fell in love with it.

My guess is this imaginary person is fascinated with pristine beauty and “the fleeting effects of light”!! Apparently he has created what looks like a crystal cave with glass stalactites and staglamites. Perhaps he is like a magpie—-mesmerized by glowing and shiny objects, collecting them and building his own little glass fortress.

I remembered almost trying to touch the glassy pillars of the cave (but now I can’t remember if there was a barrier or I quickly withdrew my hand in case I knocked something over)– the attractive power is so apparent! Another quality I would like to add is it’s fragility. Donna Ong mentioned in an interview that glass is like “shutting yourself out from the world (eg. snow queen)” but “at the same time strangely attractive despite its coolness”. I don’t know if the glass is a symbol/representation of the imaginary person, but if it were, this person would be: Introverted, Quiet, Doesn’t show emotions, Cautious, Rigid and a little…Compulsive?

secret, interiors : chrysalis (21) image credit: Universes in Universe

A table top-turned flying machine! Looks almost like the one from the Icarus Installation! Anyway, Icarus was a character from Greek Myth who tried to escape from exile using wax wings. But he enjoyed flying so much he got too near the Sun and his wings melted so he fell into the sea and drowned.

One look at this plane and you know it can’t take flight. But this is where imagination does its magic. It’s nothing like the real flying, but it reminds me of how I used to clip my pens to a ruler and pretend that it was some sort of treasure finding gadget. It led me to some..things.. I hid around the house. I actually kinda believed that it was a gadget, and hey, you really do get the feeling like you’re realling hunting treasure!

In private, (Or if you’re a kid who doesn’t care about what people think of you) this kind of magic does happen when you’re alone and no one’s watching. But hardly anyone shows them explicitly because they’re worried of what others might think of them. So what if you can’t really fly? You just need to be alone or be a kid. Now you’re flying!

Using that protractor thingy as the cockpit shield is really clever. What? I could sit on the machine seat? No one told me that! Aww… :/

secret, interiors : chrysalis (22) image credit: oceanskies79places.blogspot.com

This one’s pretty easy–a musical instrument! Those are stainless steel spoons and teppanyaki flipper/crepe spreading thingies! You can really make some (rather awful) music on this. This is probably the more interactive installation, since it allows you to play kitchen music. Does it remind you of how you liked to use spoons to hit the plates and cups then your mother told you not to play with kitchen utensils? Woah.. it’s like deja vu.

Deep down inside us, we all have secret beliefs and desires. Maybe we can’t clearly make out what they are at the moment, or haven’t felt so strongly about them yet. But Donna Ong’s installations makes us relook into our own desires and rethink that of others. What others’ desires may seem crazy to you may actually also be hidden in your own desires. But we don’t show it unless we’re alone, and we suppress them inside our minds, simply because we’re afraid others might find it crazy. (And they may actually do)

Donna Ong is a Singaporean artist known for her sculpture installations. Website: http://www.donnaong.com


the ARTist. Page finally updated!!

September 3, 2008 at 12:10 pm | In Writings | Leave a Comment

The World Rejoice!!

XY has finally updated her ARTIST page! You can access it by clicking the tab above or by clicking here.

School Assignment. -[Han Sai Por/Antony Gormley (3)]

July 28, 2008 at 9:23 pm | In Writings | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

3. Compare and contrast the works by the artists, paying attention to their concerns in art.

The very first observable contrast that comes to mind would be the great difference in the works’ size and scale. Han Sai Por’s “Object C” is made to small dimensions, possibly to imitate the small beauty one would find in nature. Perhaps she wanted to show that beauty in nature is evident even in the smallest things and most overlooked places. On the other hand, Antony Gormley’s “Angel of the North” is created on a massive scale, not only because it serves as a landmark, but also its “interactions” with the environment becomes more obvious on a large scale.

Another difference is that Han Sai Por’s work appears more organic, both in shape and form. This shows her interest in the simplification of nature itself. However, Anthony Gormley’s “Angel of the North” takes on a more physical form, especially with artificial wings and its metallic nature. This presents his interest in the relationship between man and nature, rather than just focusing on nature itself.

The material chosen also brings forth the interests of both artists–granite is a natural substance, whereas metal, which Anthony Gormley has chosen, brings a strong, heavy augmented and industrial feel to his work.

Both artworks, however, focus on simplifying the shape and form, omitting unneccesary details. For Han Sai Por’s “Object C”, this method of simplification apparently accentuates the simplistic beauty of nature, whilst in Anthony Gormley’s “Angel of the North”, it removes any distinguishing personal features, thus the artwork’s statement on men in general, rather than personal. Both artworks also have an undeniable link to nature and the environment. Han Sai Por’s “Object C” strongly resembles an organic object, also showing a relationship to nature. Its form, shape and even material are also linked to natural objects. Anthony Gormley’s “Angel of the North” would appear inorganic at first, but its rusted facade indicates a correlation with the natural environment. As large and as strong the sculpture may be, nature still affects the sculpture, causing it to rust.

School Assignment.-[Anthony Gormley (2)]

July 27, 2008 at 5:15 pm | In Writings | 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

2. Describe one of Antony Gormley’s installations in relation to the concept of land art.

Angel of the North (1998 )

Angel of the North is a sculpture situated at the mound near the A1 motorway at Gateshead, United Kingdom. It is made or corten steel, and is enormous at 20 metres high. The sculpture resembles a human figure, with wings replacing its arms, outstretched in full wingspan to the figure. The wings are 54 metres across, angled 35 degrees forward. The human figure, though realistic in form and shape, lacks distinguishing details. Features are simplified, and details such as the eyes and mouth are omitted. Although the figure is organic in shape, there is a stark contrast in its wings which have replaced its arms. The wings are very geometrical; a long rectangular “arm” divided into smaller rectangles.

This site specific sculpture is located from a mound created out of the destroyed remains of the pithead baths of the Lower Tyne Colliery. Not only is it a large-scale public sculpture, it is considered a land art because of its interactions with the natural environment around it. Its rusting material is an obvious statement of its interaction with the air. It also becomes a representation of human’s interaction with nature, since its origin was derived from ore mines–men harvesting ore from nature.

[Comments: I didn't include references to other examples of land art, so I will add it in here soon.]

School Assignment.–[Han Sai Por (1)]

July 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm | In Writings | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

1. Describe one of Han Sai Por’s sculptures.

Object C
1992, 21 x 17 x 79 cm, Medium: Granite

Object C appears as a pod-like shape sculpture, and the sides slightly cave in to form a somewhat canoe-like form. Four round bumps are sculpted out from one side, and resemble seeds in a pod. Three smaller, less obvious bulging curvatures are modelled out from the opposite side. They look more attached and blended in as part of the “pod”. At one end of the sculpture, the two sides meet at a point to become a smooth, pointed end. On the other end of the sculpture, the sides elongate out separately; they do not meet. The side with the larger curvatures ends off somewhat abruptly, with a blunt but smooth end. The other side curves upwards, ending off in a smooth, round end.

The subject matter, though resembling a canoe to some extent, appears abstract. The sculpture is modelled from granite, and although the sculpture has been delicately modelled to be smooth on the surface, the colour is speckled against a sandy beige. Its stoney appearance gives it a solid, dense feel. The shapes appear organic, as though it were a heavily simplified model of a natural object.


[Comments: I really had quite a hard time describing this! There isn't really much to describe as compared to, say, a painting by Dali. The simpler the artwork, the more difficult to describe! I did as best as I could to write as much as I could see... :p]

ART-Surfing: Damien Hirst

July 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm | In Art Reviews, Writings | 8 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

I’ve been going on a major art-surfing frenzy these few days, checking up on my old favourites from Singapore Biennale 2006: (Singaporean) Donna Ong, Brian Gothong Tan, Amanda Heng and (Worldwide) Takashi Kuribayashi, Jane Alexander and Nuha Asad amongst others. I realised I had dismissed many artworks which, after some art-surfing and reading of background informations, made me rethink their artworks. They include Yayoi Kusama (a very controversial artist), Ho Tzu Nyen’s The Bohemian Rhapsody Project which I now regretfully admit I did not watch especially since I have never heard of the Bohemian Rhapsody until now.

The particularly haunting artworks made me confused on how to interpret them at first, and I realised how little I was exposed to contemporary art all this time. Walk-The-Talk and printed/online notes really gave me a good starting point for me to interpret each artwork.

The newly “discovered” artist I’m featuring today is Damien Hirst, a very controversial and extremely rich artist whose artworks focus primarily on death and mortality. He is very famous for artworks consisting of animals or organs, whole or precisely cut up, preserved in formaldehyde. This artwork, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991) struck a very queer response from me.

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991)

It was a Tiger Shark, preserved and suspended in a glass/steel box containing formaldehyde. Damien Hirst was very particular about the appearance of the shark. When the poor preservation of the shark caused it to decay, the gallery gutted the shark and stretched its skin over a fiberglass mould, but he commented, “It didn’t look as frightening … You could tell it wasn’t real. It had no weight.” It was replaced by another shark.

Surely enough, one can interpret that the artwork embodies the frightening and powerful elements of death that even surpasses and consumes the shark itself. The suspension of the shark, especially with its preserved life-like features still intact, gives an impression of sub-reality. It seems alive, yet is dead. The title would at first give one the impression of a surrealistic or abstract piece, but this is purely realistic, to the extent of using a real carcass as a “ready-made”. It may look like a biological study found in a museum, but seen as an artwork, it suddenly means an entirely different thing.

This, and many other artworks sparked off many criticisms and controversial arguments. Because The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living was sold for nearly £7 million in January 2005, people are starting to question whether it was a money statement or whether it was really art. Another criticism is about the authenticity of the artworks, such as his spot paintings. The paintings were mostly painted by his assistants, but his philosophy was that the progenitor of the idea was the artist since the conception, rather than execution, is what matters to an art.

Away from the Flock (1994)

Many people opposed his series of preserved dead animals. Norman Tebbit commenting on the Sensation exhibition, wrote “Have they gone stark raving mad? The works of the ‘artist’ are lumps of dead animals. There are thousands of young artists who didn’t get a look in, presumably because their work was too attractive to sane people. Modern art experts never learn.”

The works appear gruesome, crazy and sick even, but it could be because of this very radical factor that drew the attentions of art critics and collectors alike. Personally, I feel very mixed about his artworks, especially the more controversial ones. As much as I appreciate the radical concept, I do not really see the reason behind the outrageous price tag. Also, I am slightly biased towards artworks with gothic, dead or morbid subject matters and concepts. I do not feel very comfortable when I start thinking of myself in the animals’ shoes, but do you think this is what Damien Hirst wanted his viewers to respond like?

So, do you think this is Art or Rip-Off? Please do comment. (:

ARTchive Profile: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/H/hirst.html

Artic Fox Relief: Current Status –[30%]

May 9, 2008 at 11:12 pm | In Coursework, Writings | 2 Comments

Pleasantville (1998) Essay

February 19, 2008 at 10:25 pm | In Writings | Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

Title: Pleasantville (1998)
Director and Writer: Gary Ross

poster

This film is an obvious satire criticizing the fear of change, and the self oppression of these people in order to prevent this change. Pleasantville would seem like the perfect place to live in. Everything is ideal, when put in other words, everything is right and nothing is wrong. You cannot make any mistakes in Pleasantville, such as the always-perfect goal in basketball, simply because ‘wrong’ does not exist. Everyone in Pleasantville does what they are supposed to do, and only what they are supposed to do. This also means they are very inflexible in their execution, just like Bill Johnson who becomes completely at lost when Bud (David) does not do his job as usual.

When David and Jennifer first get warped into Pleasantville, they immediately realise the switch to monochome colour and the conservative (or so-called “proper look”) dressing and hairstyle. The monochrome colours used readily reflect the townspeople’s mundane and robotic way of life, and also their lack of true and individual personality. They are greeted by their “alternate” mother, Betty Parker, in a very artificial and overly-friendly “Honey, Breakfast’s Ready!”. Massive piles of food fill the whole dining table, and it is obvious that it is far more than necessary to feed the family. Mary Sue (Jennifer) is served a humongous breakfast of bacon, eggs, pancake, steak and sausage. One would notice the high dietary fat content in these foods, and this symbolises the over-abundance of American life in the 1950s. This is even more so portrayed in Betty’s generous pouring of syrup on Mary Sue’s pancakes.

Sexuality:

Sexuality in the monochrome Pleasantville, was almost non-existent. Relationships between man and women were purely for the creation of a family, and the duties of the members in a family was clear, precise and strict. The man worked outside, and the wife stayed at home to prepare food and do the housework, while the children went to school. Teenage relationship was pure and innocent, but this was changed throughout the course of the movie. It all started when Mary Sue is obviously unhappy with this mechanical and innocent way of life, and introduces sex to Skip, who was previously shy and did not want to rush their relationship. Thus began the start of the changes in Pleasantville, and the revolution of sex, as symbolised by the rose turning striking red. It also led to Skip telling the other boy on the basketball team about it, thus starting to “infect” the others to lose their innocence. They become unable to score perfectly in basketball, and this marks a break from the “perfect sequence” of Pleasantville.

The people of Pleasantville are very conservative. They are shocked at the sight of visual art (beyond the “normal” festive decorations during Christmas), and even more so of depiction of nude women. They consider it “shameless” when they saw Betty’s nude figure artwork on the glass display at Bill’s Soda Shop.

Race:

Because Pleasantville was transforming from monochrome to multicolour, this led another theme to surface: Racism. Thus began a racial segregation between the “monochromes” and the “coloured” people. The “monochromes” are considered true citizens of Pleasantville, and continue to embrace the moral values of the town. The “coloured” people are those who have undergone change, experienced emotion and explored personal freedom.

When Bud and Bill Johnson are put in court for trial, the scene becomes reminiscent of To Kill A Mockingbird’s Court Episode. The “monochrome” people, like the whites, are seated at the ground level, while the “coloured” people, like the blacks, are located on the second level. This is a clear juxtaposition of the racial discrimination between the two “races”. The unfair treatment can be seen when judge is the mayor, and Bud and Bill Johnson are not offered a lawyer to speak in defence for them.

Personal Freedom:

At the beginning, the people of Pleasantville lacked autonomy and character. They said the same, predictable words and greetings along with artificial, almost-plastic facial expressions. They seemed like robots; without feelings, thought or emotion. They do and say as programmed, in order to achieve that “pleasant, idealistic way of life”. The deliberate use of monochromatic greys makes this even more significant. This reflects of the loss of individualism of Americans in the 1950s, where idealism and “perfect living” meant restrictions on behaviour, expression and thought.

When Betty becomes “coloured”, she tries to hide it with make-up in fear of her husband. But when she realises that she has fallen for Bill Johnson, she accepts her “colours” and even resists covering it up when her husband tells her she. She becomes more daring in pursuing her feelings, and does not completely fulfil all the expected duties of a housewife. She is firm in her own feelings, thoughts and emotions, something all the wives in the town are becoming, and this becomes a threat and worry for the husbands and mayor of Pleasantville. Previously seen as a mechanical housekeeper who will keep the family in order and serve meals and do the chores, they now realise that they can think for themselves and have rights to personal freedom.

The ‘Pleasantville Code of Conduct’ is a manifestation of the political oppression to the most ridiculous degree. Setting rules for the type of music to be played, the colour of paint permissible, or even prohibition to visiting the library are undeniably absurd standards to follow. Bud resists this by playing loud rock music, and together with Bill Johnson, paint a large mural outside the local Police Station expressing their discontent with the restrictions of personal freedom.

(976 words)

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.