David Firth is an animator who works primarily within the internet, though he has done some work for television. His work is often dark and surreal, sometimes humouress but oftentimes just pyschological horror.
His most popular animation series is "Salad Fingers" a flash animation that follows the adventures of what appears to be a mentally unstable mutant living in a desolate world post apocalyptic war. The series deals with mental illness, abandonnment and loneliness in a oneiric manner.
I like how much of Firth's work is experimental; he uses many different styles of animation and a range of different sources, as well as innovative sound effects. I also like that it is current, it's nice to have an appreciation for art that's being made right now and be a proper fan of it. I don't do much animation anymore, but I used to when I was a bit younger and I have a massive appreciation for it as it is so painstaking to do.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Pablo Picasso
Picasso was a spanish artist who lived from 25 October 1881 to 8 April 1973, along with Georges Braque he started the cubist style of art, a technique where "Cézanne's method of representing three dimensions as seen from several viewpoints" was "one of the characteristic features". (paintings.name, Marten Jansen)
My favourite painting by Picasso is Guernica:
It depicts a scene from April 26, 1937 where the town Guernica in northern spain was bombed in one of the first attacks by the Nazi Luftwaffe. I like how the feelings of the characters within the painting are understandable, yet they're so abstracted, almost like cartoons; All the fear and the pain and confusion can be seen within their faces to the point where it sort of disturbs me and brings about in me a feeling of dread and horror at what those people in the town of Guernica must have been going through.
My favourite painting by Picasso is Guernica:
It depicts a scene from April 26, 1937 where the town Guernica in northern spain was bombed in one of the first attacks by the Nazi Luftwaffe. I like how the feelings of the characters within the painting are understandable, yet they're so abstracted, almost like cartoons; All the fear and the pain and confusion can be seen within their faces to the point where it sort of disturbs me and brings about in me a feeling of dread and horror at what those people in the town of Guernica must have been going through.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Charles and Ray Eames
Charles and Ray Eames were postmodern designers that made a large impact on all aspects of american life by influencing "architecture, furniture, and textile designs to their photography and corporate design". (Alexandra Griffith Winton, Charles Eames (1907–78) and Ray Eames (1912–88) | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
They brought art into the homes of many americans by creating affordable well designed furniture that was a "functional, affordable options for consumers seeking modern yet livable domestic surroundings." (Alexandra Griffith Winton, Charles Eames (1907–78) and Ray Eames (1912–88) | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art) This became something that Charles and Ray Eames continued to try to do over the next thirty years.
The Eames's also made films, my favourite being Powers of Ten, which is a film about science comissioned by IBM. The film does a very good job of showing just how small we are within the universe, but also gives the appearance of making IBM computers feel powerful.
They brought art into the homes of many americans by creating affordable well designed furniture that was a "functional, affordable options for consumers seeking modern yet livable domestic surroundings." (Alexandra Griffith Winton, Charles Eames (1907–78) and Ray Eames (1912–88) | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art) This became something that Charles and Ray Eames continued to try to do over the next thirty years.
The Eames's also made films, my favourite being Powers of Ten, which is a film about science comissioned by IBM. The film does a very good job of showing just how small we are within the universe, but also gives the appearance of making IBM computers feel powerful.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is an art movement that followed after modernism. Francis Berry describes it as "abandonment of political advocacy for a singular ideology." that arose because "the political ideals that fueled modernism had given way to profound disillusionment with abhorrent wars such as Vietnam, ultra-utilitarian architecture, and academic minimalism."(postmodern-art, 26 June 2006).
I think this means that people attempted to return to older techniques and at the same time embrace new technologies, with many more installations, multimedia and intermedia artworks.
This complete political apathy of the postmodernists can be seen when I compare a statement by Andy Warhol (a prominent postmodernist) and Pablo Picasso (a prominent modernist). Warhol writes:
"Sometimes people let the same problems make them miserable for years when they should just say, So what. That’s one of my favorite things to say. So what. My mother didn’t love me. So what. My husband won’t ball me. So what. I don’t know how I made it through all the years before I learned to do that trick. It took a long time for me to learn it, but once you do you never forget." (Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (from A to Z and Back Again),1975, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Page 112)
whereas Picasso said:
"What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only eyes if he is a painter,..far, far from it: at the same time, he is also a political being, constantly aware of the heartbreaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image. How could it be possible to feel no interest in other people, and with a cool indifference to detach yourself from the very life which they bring to you so abundantly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war." (Russell Martin, Picasso’s War, The Destruction of Guernica, and The Master Piece That Changed The World, 2002, New York, Penguin Putnam Inc., Page 175)
I think this means that people attempted to return to older techniques and at the same time embrace new technologies, with many more installations, multimedia and intermedia artworks.
This complete political apathy of the postmodernists can be seen when I compare a statement by Andy Warhol (a prominent postmodernist) and Pablo Picasso (a prominent modernist). Warhol writes:
"Sometimes people let the same problems make them miserable for years when they should just say, So what. That’s one of my favorite things to say. So what. My mother didn’t love me. So what. My husband won’t ball me. So what. I don’t know how I made it through all the years before I learned to do that trick. It took a long time for me to learn it, but once you do you never forget." (Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (from A to Z and Back Again),1975, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Page 112)
whereas Picasso said:
"What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only eyes if he is a painter,..far, far from it: at the same time, he is also a political being, constantly aware of the heartbreaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image. How could it be possible to feel no interest in other people, and with a cool indifference to detach yourself from the very life which they bring to you so abundantly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war." (Russell Martin, Picasso’s War, The Destruction of Guernica, and The Master Piece That Changed The World, 2002, New York, Penguin Putnam Inc., Page 175)
Modernism
Modernism is "In the field of art the broad movement in Western art, architecture and design which self-consciously rejected the past as a model for the art of the present." (Tate, 2011)
Which I think means that artists and architects decided that they'd try to do things in as different a way as possible to how things had been done before. This was done in a way to explore new ways of doing things, like Picasso, or a way of streamlining things like Harry Beck.
Within modernism there were many art movements, Dadaism, cubism, surrealism, minimalism to name a few. Art from these movements has a striking difference to what I think of as traditonal art. They are very minimal, focussing far less on making the artwork mimic how it would look in real life and instead being a lot more about the message that's being delivered.
I think cameras are largely to blame for this as they made photorealistic paintings pointless, this meant that artists had to try harder to create something worth paying attention to.
Which I think means that artists and architects decided that they'd try to do things in as different a way as possible to how things had been done before. This was done in a way to explore new ways of doing things, like Picasso, or a way of streamlining things like Harry Beck.
Within modernism there were many art movements, Dadaism, cubism, surrealism, minimalism to name a few. Art from these movements has a striking difference to what I think of as traditonal art. They are very minimal, focussing far less on making the artwork mimic how it would look in real life and instead being a lot more about the message that's being delivered.
I think cameras are largely to blame for this as they made photorealistic paintings pointless, this meant that artists had to try harder to create something worth paying attention to.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Semiotics Part 2
Semiotics and a desire to make sense of signs has been going on since ancient times,
"One of the most notable debates on signs in the Ancient world took place between the Stoics and Epicureans (around 300 BCE in Athens).
The crux of the matter concerned the difference between "natural signs" (freely occuring throughout nature) and "conventional" signs (those designed precisely for the purpose of communication)" (Paul Cobley, Introducing Semiotics, 1999, Cambridge, Icon Books LTD, 3rd ed., Page 5)
However by the middle ages St. Augustine had developed the theory of "Signa Data" which in summary is:
"The difference between naturalia and data, Augustine says, is that the latter occur by the will of a sign-user while the former do not. Given this voluntarist emphasis, it makes sense to translate "signa data" not as "conventional signs" but "given signs."" (leithart, 07 November 2007)
This provided the foundation for western semiotics, pointing people away from natural signs and towards conventional signs as the proper signs to study. However it wasn't until many years later that Semiotics became the science we know it as today, thanks to Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914).
"One of the most notable debates on signs in the Ancient world took place between the Stoics and Epicureans (around 300 BCE in Athens).
The crux of the matter concerned the difference between "natural signs" (freely occuring throughout nature) and "conventional" signs (those designed precisely for the purpose of communication)" (Paul Cobley, Introducing Semiotics, 1999, Cambridge, Icon Books LTD, 3rd ed., Page 5)
However by the middle ages St. Augustine had developed the theory of "Signa Data" which in summary is:
"The difference between naturalia and data, Augustine says, is that the latter occur by the will of a sign-user while the former do not. Given this voluntarist emphasis, it makes sense to translate "signa data" not as "conventional signs" but "given signs."" (leithart, 07 November 2007)
This provided the foundation for western semiotics, pointing people away from natural signs and towards conventional signs as the proper signs to study. However it wasn't until many years later that Semiotics became the science we know it as today, thanks to Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914).
Semiotics Part 1
Semiotics is the science of signs. There are two parts to a sign and there are three types of signs.
The two parts of a sign are the signifier and the signified. In this example:
The signifier is a cigarette with a strike through it. The signified is "smoking is not permitted here". So, the signifier is what you see, the signified is the meaning you take from a sign.
The different types of sign are iconic, indexical and symbolic. In the example above two different types of sign are being employed. We have the iconic part, which is the image of a cigarette, and then the red circle with a strike through it is symbolic. An icon is what it represents, so a picture of a cigarette means cigarette, a picture of a dog means dog. Symbols are signs that we have been told the meaning of, so a red circle with a strike through it means "do not do"; This is something that people need to have learnt to understand the sign. An indexical sign is a sign where the signifier relates to the signified, an example would be footprints in sand which is a signifier for "someone has walked here".
The two parts of a sign are the signifier and the signified. In this example:
The signifier is a cigarette with a strike through it. The signified is "smoking is not permitted here". So, the signifier is what you see, the signified is the meaning you take from a sign.
The different types of sign are iconic, indexical and symbolic. In the example above two different types of sign are being employed. We have the iconic part, which is the image of a cigarette, and then the red circle with a strike through it is symbolic. An icon is what it represents, so a picture of a cigarette means cigarette, a picture of a dog means dog. Symbols are signs that we have been told the meaning of, so a red circle with a strike through it means "do not do"; This is something that people need to have learnt to understand the sign. An indexical sign is a sign where the signifier relates to the signified, an example would be footprints in sand which is a signifier for "someone has walked here".
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Beauty and Sexism
Something I find really annoying is the idea that images of physically attractive women (large breasts, long legs etc) are seen as derogatory. WHY?
We see frumpy looking women and are told "this is what real women look like", I'm not so sure. Of course, not every woman is a supermodel, but of the two ideas I think that it's quite obvious which one women themselves would rather look like. Almost all women wear make up, because they want to look more attractive, it's a psychological thing. Both sexes try to look attractive though, it's just a lot more socially acceptable for women to be seen making an effort about it. A man who spends a long time doing his hair will be mocked for it (by women as well as men), and a man who wears make up will be openly laughed at or worse. But, at the same time, a guy with greesey hair and a bad complexion won't be seen in a favourable light either.
And what's worse is, people think that having attractive women in advertising and media is a bad thing, but the truth is, if ugly women sold things then they'd be on posters instead. As it is women don't aspire to look ugly and men don't aspire to have sex with ugly women, and we arn't brain washed that way, it's in our genes to seek out an attractive mate, we'd have to be brainwashed to think the opposite.
I just can't see WHY you'd want to go against all that and push the idea that attractive women should be excluded from media, personally I can't imagine anyone other than jealous femanists that would think like that.
We see frumpy looking women and are told "this is what real women look like", I'm not so sure. Of course, not every woman is a supermodel, but of the two ideas I think that it's quite obvious which one women themselves would rather look like. Almost all women wear make up, because they want to look more attractive, it's a psychological thing. Both sexes try to look attractive though, it's just a lot more socially acceptable for women to be seen making an effort about it. A man who spends a long time doing his hair will be mocked for it (by women as well as men), and a man who wears make up will be openly laughed at or worse. But, at the same time, a guy with greesey hair and a bad complexion won't be seen in a favourable light either.
And what's worse is, people think that having attractive women in advertising and media is a bad thing, but the truth is, if ugly women sold things then they'd be on posters instead. As it is women don't aspire to look ugly and men don't aspire to have sex with ugly women, and we arn't brain washed that way, it's in our genes to seek out an attractive mate, we'd have to be brainwashed to think the opposite.
I just can't see WHY you'd want to go against all that and push the idea that attractive women should be excluded from media, personally I can't imagine anyone other than jealous femanists that would think like that.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Analysing my Wardrobe
People are made up of bits of things they like about other people and have pieced together. This idea works on a mental level but also more obviously on a asthetic level. We see people in films and think "I like that character, if I look like them maybe I'll be more like them and thus save the day, get the girl and be the hero".
So, I've decided to analyse my own attire, and see what that says about me.
I'll start at the bottom.
I'm wearing vans trainers, which are a brand that sponsors skateboarding. I used to skateboard, but stopped years ago, so I suppose I'm still trying to give the impression that I do skateboard; Skateboarders live life on the edge and are frequently injured, so they become quite hardy.
I'm also wearing odd socks, a grey one and a navy one, which I suppose shows that I just don't care about my appearance that much. They're only socks, I'm someone who can let the details slide provided the overall result is ok.
My jeans have a gaping hole in the left knee (it's always the left one first), are tattered at the bottom and smeared in paint. This could show people that I'm scruffy, so I don't care too much about my appearance, I'm the opposite of stuck up, I'm easy going, but possibly a bit of a scumbag. The paint could be read as paint or as just dirt, meaning people will either clock that I'm an artist or they'll think more along the scumbag lines.
I'm wearing a quicksilver t-shirt, this is another skateboarding brand, so again just the active hardy sort of skateboarder image. It doesn't carry a slogan or anything, so it doesn't make me look like someone who speaks out on things.
My hoody is a patchwork of purple, red, brown and orange paterned material. I've worn it a lot so it's become ragged at the edges, and the cuffs are in tatters. This hoody makes me look like a hippy, so I'm easy going, unlikely to cause a fight and probably smoke.
Lastly I wear glasses, not by choice, though I did choose which ones. I chose glasses that were less obvious, as I didn't want them to be a defining feature of my face, however people still automatically assume I'm clever because I wear them.
So, as a round up, I'm trying to portray the image that I'm a skateboarding, artist hippy who's easy going and not too fussed about his appearance.
So, I've decided to analyse my own attire, and see what that says about me.
I'll start at the bottom.
I'm wearing vans trainers, which are a brand that sponsors skateboarding. I used to skateboard, but stopped years ago, so I suppose I'm still trying to give the impression that I do skateboard; Skateboarders live life on the edge and are frequently injured, so they become quite hardy.
I'm also wearing odd socks, a grey one and a navy one, which I suppose shows that I just don't care about my appearance that much. They're only socks, I'm someone who can let the details slide provided the overall result is ok.
My jeans have a gaping hole in the left knee (it's always the left one first), are tattered at the bottom and smeared in paint. This could show people that I'm scruffy, so I don't care too much about my appearance, I'm the opposite of stuck up, I'm easy going, but possibly a bit of a scumbag. The paint could be read as paint or as just dirt, meaning people will either clock that I'm an artist or they'll think more along the scumbag lines.
I'm wearing a quicksilver t-shirt, this is another skateboarding brand, so again just the active hardy sort of skateboarder image. It doesn't carry a slogan or anything, so it doesn't make me look like someone who speaks out on things.
My hoody is a patchwork of purple, red, brown and orange paterned material. I've worn it a lot so it's become ragged at the edges, and the cuffs are in tatters. This hoody makes me look like a hippy, so I'm easy going, unlikely to cause a fight and probably smoke.
Lastly I wear glasses, not by choice, though I did choose which ones. I chose glasses that were less obvious, as I didn't want them to be a defining feature of my face, however people still automatically assume I'm clever because I wear them.
So, as a round up, I'm trying to portray the image that I'm a skateboarding, artist hippy who's easy going and not too fussed about his appearance.
Gillian Wearing and Victor Burgin
Probably Gillian Wearing's most famous works are the series of photographs called "Signs that say what you want them to say and not Signs that say what someone else wants you to say" which is where she's asked people to write something down on a piece of paper and then photographed them holding it, getting some interesting results when what people have written on the paper doesn't match up with how we would percieve them on the street.
This idea of the text jarring with the image can also be seen in Victor Burgin's "Today is the tomorrow you were promissed yesterday" were he takes the often poetic language of advertising and juxtaposes it against mundane urban photography. The problem with this for me is that because the image is so dull it almost lacks any impact, it's also a dreary idea; that life as it is portrayed in film, television and advertising is not the truth, and that your life will basically be boring. I know that good art is stuff that makes you think, but thoughts like that I'd sooner dismiss in favour of either a more positive thought, or if it is a negative thought at least one with a bit more impact.
This idea of the text jarring with the image can also be seen in Victor Burgin's "Today is the tomorrow you were promissed yesterday" were he takes the often poetic language of advertising and juxtaposes it against mundane urban photography. The problem with this for me is that because the image is so dull it almost lacks any impact, it's also a dreary idea; that life as it is portrayed in film, television and advertising is not the truth, and that your life will basically be boring. I know that good art is stuff that makes you think, but thoughts like that I'd sooner dismiss in favour of either a more positive thought, or if it is a negative thought at least one with a bit more impact.
Appropriation
Appropriation is basically where you take something from somewhere else and use it for your own purposes. It's an essential part of practicing art, because unless you live in a cave for your entire life, how can you not be influenced by the work of others? Just recently I finished an A0 piece for Illustration, where we were told to take the composition of a painting from a gallery and then use it as a basis for our own work. So I've appropriated someone elses composition.
But there are times when people appropriate to a much more obvious level, like Sherrie Levine's Gold Fountain, which is a replica of Duchamp's fountain only in gold. For me I just feel like what's the point in this piece of work, does the urinal really have more to say? The first time it was done fair enough, it had a point. But there's a reason that barely anyone has heard of the gold fountain compared to the original.
It could also be argued that the Chapman brothers have done some appropriation with their work with Goya's prints. Persoanlly, whenever I see these prints I just think they look defaced. If I had produced some work, and then someone else bought it and scribbled all over it, I'd be annoyed, and I wouldn't think they'd done something clever with my work, or that it was now their work, I'd think "they've just gone and scribbled all over my work!". So I think appropriation has a place for deffinite, but I'm not a fan of when it's just ripping off other peoples work.
But there are times when people appropriate to a much more obvious level, like Sherrie Levine's Gold Fountain, which is a replica of Duchamp's fountain only in gold. For me I just feel like what's the point in this piece of work, does the urinal really have more to say? The first time it was done fair enough, it had a point. But there's a reason that barely anyone has heard of the gold fountain compared to the original.
It could also be argued that the Chapman brothers have done some appropriation with their work with Goya's prints. Persoanlly, whenever I see these prints I just think they look defaced. If I had produced some work, and then someone else bought it and scribbled all over it, I'd be annoyed, and I wouldn't think they'd done something clever with my work, or that it was now their work, I'd think "they've just gone and scribbled all over my work!". So I think appropriation has a place for deffinite, but I'm not a fan of when it's just ripping off other peoples work.
Saul Bass
Saul Bass was a graphic designer who made film titles. He was one of the first people to make film titles interesting and worth showing, as prior to his opening titles for "The Man with the Golden Arm" most movie theatres didn't even bother showing the titles, but Preminger specifically said that they should show the titles as he felt they were an important part of the film.
I like how Bass's title sequences are quite simple, they don't overload you with information, and although looking at some of them on youtube I thought they look quite outdated, his style is still being appropriated, as can be seen with "Catch Me If You Can", which uses a very similar style. By using this style however it is easy to place when the film is set, as the way the characters look and how they're animated is in a 50s-60s style.
I think Saul Bass did a very valuable thing for films, as apart from trailers the opening credits are our first insight into what a film will be like, and is an important part of setting the tone.
I like how Bass's title sequences are quite simple, they don't overload you with information, and although looking at some of them on youtube I thought they look quite outdated, his style is still being appropriated, as can be seen with "Catch Me If You Can", which uses a very similar style. By using this style however it is easy to place when the film is set, as the way the characters look and how they're animated is in a 50s-60s style.
I think Saul Bass did a very valuable thing for films, as apart from trailers the opening credits are our first insight into what a film will be like, and is an important part of setting the tone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)