In the Through the Eyes of the Sculptor video, I learned a lot about the process of sculpting in stone that I never would have guessed otherwise. While I assumed that sculpting was a long and laborious task, I didn't realize how many different stages there are, or how many people are involved. When Emmanuel Fillion first conceived of his idea, he was at the beginning of an artistic journey that would last him almost a year, and require him to return to his native Italy.
After building a small clay version based on a live model, he then had to make a silicon cast, which he used to make a small plaster version. This was then sent to Italy, where a highly skilled craftsman (an "artigiono") makes a life-sized version in clay, which Fillion then refines. After searching many quarries, Fillion chooses an ideal, blemish-free block of marble, from which another artigiono carves out the general shape of the clay model. It is then Fillion's task to finish the sculpture, which requires defining her muscles and making her form seem like skin. He gives her the title Genesis, for she is his first sculpture that was completely his own idea, and wasn't commissioned work. It's interesting that he calls her his first personal sculpture, when so many people had a hand in it. Since art is about ideas, however, the part of the work that is actually called "art" does indeed belong to him.
The Glass and Ceramics video also emphasized the process of creating the final product. Commercial ceramics go through a process that is in some ways very similar to what Fillion went through. A cast is made, and then the clay either in the form of liquid slip or in a dry powder is pressed into it. The form is then fired to transform the properties of its crystals and to make it hard and durable. How hard and fine the final product is depends on the quality of the clay and on the temperature that it is fired--a low quality and low temperature results in bricks, a high quality and high temperature can result in chinaware. Ceramics, startlingly, is becoming integrated in all sorts of technology. It can be found in dentures, hip replacements, car mufflers, and space shuttle equipment. When we think of ceramics, we think of pretty vases, but ceramics has gone far beyond the art world.
Glass, too, is becoming more and more ubiquitous, in this case in architecture. While it can be heated from sand and blown into small artistic sculptures, it is also what dominates modern buildings. It is an environmentally friendly material, as it can cool buildings during the day and prevent heat from escaping at night. Laminated glass doesn't shatter, so it can be safe from causing injury, and a pocket of air between two layers of glass cushions and dampens sound waves. None of these processes affects the aesthetic of the glass, and so it still can be used as art. The Louvre has even developed a way to prevent its glass from tarnishing from exposure to oxygen.
In Installation Art, we learn about the myriad artworks that the term encompasses. An installation piece can incorporate a single room or an entire building, or can only exist through video. The video defines installation art as something that takes over and defines the space, and forces the audience to interact with it. Site-specific art goes one step further, and only makes sense in one very specific place. An example of this would be Spiral Jetty, which of course could never be transported anywhere else. The conceptual aspect of the art is often emphasized, which was introduced by Duchamp in the 1920s with such works as The Fountain. His contemporary Schwitters transformed his entire living space into a piece of installation art. He constructed walls that were filled with nook and crannies, where he placed various found objects.
Installation art is a lot more demanding for the curator. An artist requires much more space than a painting takes up, and assembling the art is typically very difficult. Installation art can be pretty much anything, and preparing a space for the art can by very laborious and time-consuming. In the end, however, the result is an artwork that, while possibly highly controversial, leads to a more in-depth relationship between the artist and audience.
The videos provided examples that illustrate what the textbook was attempting to explain. While the textbook did include photographs, it could not present a step-by-step process of all the different art mediums, as the video did. The book focused more on the final results of the process, whereas the videos emphasized everything that took them to the finished pieces. The text also defined the differences between fine art and craft, and then presented how these two distinctions are being blurred by contemporary artists. The videos, on the other hand, presented either fine artworks or commercial uses for the materials. Glass and Ceramics, for instance, spent just as much time talking about the utilitarian purposes of ceramics and glass, if not more. One question I would have is whether the artigiono in Through the Eyes of the Sculptor would be considered artists, or just artisans/craftspeople. While what they were doing was highly skilled, all of the ideas and decisions were made by Fillion, the artist. This is something that the textbook did not go into: the relationship between an artist and craftspeople to create one finished work of art, in which only the artist gets credit. It's hard to decide how fair this is.
As stated above, the videos breathed life into the text. Where the book could only provide photos of the artwork, the videos gave glimpses into the artist's lives and their processes. The videos were the flesh to the text's skeletal description of the different forms of art. The videos also made the relationships between the artist and craftsperson and the artist and curator murkier. Many people who may or may not believe in the artist's vision have to contribute to an artist's final creation. While Through the Eyes of the Sculptor and Installation Art did indeed emphasize how important these people are, are they getting enough credit when the artwork is finally displayed? Their names typically are not mentioned, and the artist gets sole credit. It almost feels like galleries should do something like the credits at the end of a movie: the director is certainly given more importance, but everyone who had any input in the movie gets his or her name in the end credits. I don't mean that all of their names should be listed on the label next to an artwork, but maybe it should be available in some sort of pamphlet available in the gallery. I'd be interested to know, for example, who the local artists were that drew Sol LeWitt's mural at the Albright-Knox.
No comments:
Post a Comment