Throughout this
class, I have become more aware of the contemporary art world and how
it is developing during the present day. I feel as though artists,
such as myself, view art differently; for example, the Accidental
Genius exhibit, which consisted
primarily of “self-taught” artists. We have come across new,
experimental mediums at Inova,
and later questioned artists at the Haggarty exhibit
concerning the content of their work and its importance. All of these
concerns and discussions are important in order to develop a higher
understanding of the art world surrounding us and the competitive
world we ourselves are trying to push our work into.
Seeing
the Mike Kelley-inspired piece by Jennifer Steinkamp was absolutely
mesmerizing. Steinkamp's animated tree provoked an intense emotional
connection between the viewer and the projection piece that was
located on the wall. Personally, I have never seen work like this,
therefore I found myself spending ample time with the work and even
returning a few days later. As my classmate Sarah Stankey put it:
The dancing tree, which almost
looked as if it were in pain throughout the metamorphosis of the
seasons, took on a life that we have not seen within a stagnant part
of nature. Through this modern contemporary medium of digital
animation Steinkamp portrays an intense emotional connection. The
tree morphed and changed and moved around the whole time. As I
watched, it seemed like the tree was withering and then coming back
again. It repeated this cycle over and over again. Then the tree
began to change seasons.
I can relate to Stankey's comment because I somewhat thought that the
digital tree was in pain based its movements. This exhibit was
focused on “outsider art,” which basically comes down to the fact
that the artist lacked professional schooling in their chosen field.
Along with Steinkamp was Eugene Von Bruenchenhein, whose work was
found after his demise. He created intense vibrant paintings that are
full of movement and cities. Also shown was a video of his bone
towers that are disturbing as well as visually intriguing.
Outsider
art has been segregated from the mainstream art world because the
artists in question have little or no training in art. “I've heard
of it being used to describe people who are outside of mainstream
culture as well; people with little contact to the mainstream
cultural and people with extreme psychological problems”
(Malesytcki). The Accidental Genius exhibition at the Milwaukee Art
Museum glorified art that is created by artists labeled self-taught
or “outsider.” It was discussed how “self-taught” and
educated artists are in different categories and why these labels are
important. To a certain extent, I understand that, with no education
in a particular medium, it is quite incredible what some self-taught
artists can do, but I do not think that studying the arts would hurt.
I find it true that “knowing how to speak about your work with
words like, 'composition' and 'negative space' and 'tension' and
'figure ground relationship' are what make our critiques as artists
so engaging. The(y) are the jumping off points of really great
conversation about the work. It is 'art academia,' perhaps, but it's
an important part of the 'outsider art' conversation” (Sprecher).
I find these concepts to be extremely important; I think the artist
should understand and know how to communicate with the outside world
about their art and their message. I found the conversation at the
Milwaukee Art Museum exhibit to be more exciting. All these
individuals had no experience and most had mental or psychological
disorders. I was more interested in that aspect and how creating art
was therapeutic or just for fun. Yes, we as artists make work for
this reason as well but we, for the most part understand why we
create and make it apart of our lives as careers.
This
leads me into the Tina Barney exhibit, The Europeans, that
was shown at the Haggerty Museum. After seeing her photographs in
person I felt a need to hear her talk about her images considering
the strong sense of wealth throughout the body of work. I know it has
been said that she ignores the fact that she herself is wealthy and
so are the individuals in her images. At the lecture she refused or
ignored questions about why she was photographing this certain class
of people. This irritated me as an artist who has to explain their
work through and through while someone who has received world
recognition refuses to explain the sole basis behind their work.
This did not change how I feel about the photographs, which I still
find to be powerful and beautiful. In the same month I went to see
my favorite photographer speak at the University of Milwaukee.
Elinor Carucci. She opened up about every detail of her process and
the reasons behind her work. It was refreshing after the Barney
lecture to hear an artist be modest when she has come extremely far
in the art world. I felt like I knew her as a person and fellow
photographer after her talk. I could not help but compare the two
photographers and see the differences in their work as well as their
presentations. Sarah Stankey mentioned that: “The contrasts
between Carucci and Barney demonstrate the vast differences in
photography today. I think their differences are apparent in their
work alone but in hearing them both speak about their work, it is
clear that Carucci is making images that are far more personal to her
than Barney's work could ever be” (Stankey). I could not agree
more. It was very educational to have two artists from the same
medium have completely different takes on their medium and lecture
talks.
Art
is always going to have controversial problems that we will continue
to discuss for centuries. Whether it be outsider art, artist
lectures, or contemporary mediums it will always be the topic of
conversation between current artists.
