I've gotten a lot done since my last process picture. In fact, I made most of this progress in a single class period. My mark's looking really good, and I seem to have gotten the hang of creating a sense of depth with the charcoal using subtlety of value. The leg and knee look great, and the back and shoulders look even better. This surprises me because I had no idea how to use my mark - Rubens' mark, that is - to depict the musculature of the subject's back. I experimented with it, and I think I nailed it.
This is really starting to come together. I notice that as I follow my progress in a clockwise direction, the image begins to both convey a much better sense of depth and mirror Rubens's actual mark. I know that I'm only halfway done at best and that we don't have many studio days left, but I think my getting the hang of working with charcoal will expedite the process and allow me to finish before the nine weeks are up. The class went to see Bob Trotman's exhibit Business As Usual at the Visual Arts Center. I was impressed (and a little creeped out) by the realism of his wooden sculptures, and I was intrigued at how the face of each sculpture was different from that of the next. I also found his pieces rather meaningful, as I share with him some of the same sentiments about corporate America. However, while his viewpoint has the duality of criticism and sympathy, as he expresses in his artist's statement, mine tends to lean towards cynicism with regard to the corporation and big business. I enjoyed seeing Trotman's work; the concept was completely new to me, and I think that a statement such as his needed to be made.
_ Although the first three readings (Whistler vs. Ruskin, Gilbert Stuart, and The Chinese Art Explosion) did not seem to me to be very similar to each other, they each raised important questions. They made me question the definition and value of art and the role of the artist, three topics I have not often considered.
I found Whistler vs. Ruskin somewhat amusing. It seemed silly to me for the mentally unstable Ruskin to attack Whistler's work and for Whistler to then file suit against his critic. This is what made me consider what art is, for Ruskin did not recognize Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket as art. He astutely interpreted it as a challenge to the established norms of the art world, something that would revolutionize modern art. Why he saw this as a threat escapes me. Ruskin himself, anything but conservative, justified Turner's work by using detached metaphors and analogies, not even returning to the actual work; if anything, he should have supported Whistler. But who was he to question the authenticity of Whistler's Nocturne? Furthermore, who is anyone to do so? This brings the role of the critic into play as well, because it is largely up to the art critic to set the standard for what can be called "art." In any case, the deranged Ruskin could not have hoped to quell the coming modernist movement. The art changed with the times, and pieces such as those of Whistler, which were formerly considered heretical, came to define the popular idea of what constituted art. The Gilbert Stuart reading left me a little confused. To begin with, my first impression of Stuart's reduplication of his original portrait of Washington seemed inauthentic. In reproducing the image so many times and selling off the copies for quick money, Stuart lessened the relative value of his original piece. In addition, he created a multitude of future unknowns by distributing so many versions of the same portrait, not the least of which include the identity and intended recipient of each painting and the order in which the paintings were created. But why would Stuart impugn a piece attributed to him? Modern forensic analyses and extensive research virtually nullify his claim. This brings into question the role of the artist, about which I have begun to formulate strong opinions. I don't think that an artist should be able to disown his own work. Once he has made for himself a business of making art, he cannot simply renounce responsibility. Art is not a means of making profit; it is a statement. A statement cannot hold credibility in anonymity; therefore, the artist must stand behind his work. I think Stuart's repudiation of that one portrait was cowardly and represented on his part a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for his trade. Finally, The Chinese Art Explosion made me think about how society values art and the extent to which people will go to gain social standing. I was shocked at the exorbitant prices that people are paying for others' work. In the simplest sense, the price of a good or service reflects its intrinsic value - or rather, how much others are willing to pay for it. These prices are artificial, however; in this corrupted Chinese art market of auctions, the highest bidder sets the price of the piece. So buyers can boast of their accomplishments upon acquiring pieces of art that fetch such high prices. And for what? Prestige? I repeat, art is a statement. And the Chinese, of all people, should take this seriously, as visual art is basically the only form of expression not censored by their government. That's why artists like Ai Weiwei take advantage of it. Despite the rapid and recent growth of the market, there have been signs that the market is reaching maturity. In other words, it's a stock market of art speculation that's in imminent danger of crashing. These readings Ok, so we're starting on an Old Masters drawing project in class. We've been given the choice between three types of paper (each with a different level of tooth, or roughness) and charcoal, conte crayons, white chalk, and ink as marking media. I'm imitating the aforementioned Rubens piece in charcoal, and as you can see, I've just gotten started working. Coach suggested that I begin in a corner or otherwise inconspicuous place, so I chose to begin by working on the left calf of the figure in the image. I think it looks ok for beginning work, but as I look at it from a distance, I see lines that are a little too defined to convey a completely convincing sense of depth. I tried to create multiple values by varying the concentration of the mark, but I think that the best way to really bring forward the most salient regions will be to go back over the area and highlight them with chalk, which I'll do as one of the final steps of the project. For now, I'll continue to practice imitating Rubens' mark and creating the illusion of depth as well as I can. |
Ian FraserArt III student at Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies Archives
June 2015
Categories |