Last week was a long, eventful week. I forgot about a number of things. I'll try to remember a few others though.
I met Marlene early in the Winter '12 quarter during a grad student meet-&-greet at Mellow Mushroom. I don't exactly remember that meeting, nor do I recall when she (according to Tai) touched my hair and made some commentary about it. Since we had a similar type of hair (and hair is a big thing in the Black community) we always had a running joke about being kindred spirits due to that. Instead of calling me her brother-in-arms, she'd refer to me as her brother-in-hair.
Our rapport, however, had considerably more depth than that. We took to each other right off, as I'd frequently see her hanging out in the computer lab with two other friends of mine who were work-study technicians. Marlene and I found that we had other mutual acquaintances outside of SCAD and caught up for margaritas (for her) and chips & salsa (for me, since I don't drink) to talk about life, love and photography. That was near the end of Winter and I was really flattered that she was already familiar with my work from outside of SCAD. I had assumed I'd be a completely unknown quantity.
Over the months that followed, Marlene and I would talk and text often. She was constantly cluing me in on people I should know or meet in the local arts community, places I should check on, opportunities I should look into, etc. As I'm older than she, it would be wrong to say she viewed my like a little brother, but it was a sibling-like rapport and though I didn't know her as long as others due to my time here at SCAD, we had grown comparably close as friends.
This was a constant theme in her life. She affected many others in the same way. Dru, Justin, Deidra and Tai who know her longer and better than I feel the same way of her, as do others who didn't know her as well. It's a tough loss within the dept and for me. I've lost a friend who had only begun to enrich my life, someone who I assumed I would share many more experiences within my career as an artist and I in hers. I'm still very stunned.
Yesterday, there was a guerilla-style memorial to her on an unused wall next to a print lab. Huge prints of Marlene's tacked up salon-like. I don't know who did it and judging by how it was put up, I know that SCAD will pull it down. But I thought it was awesome. To me, it said "Here's someone who meant something to us as students. This is our dept. She deserves our respect. We love her and knew her talent and she deserves to be featured. In our school. Because these are our walls."
I don't know who did it and I don't want to know. It doesn't matter. I'm sure the school will take it down and paint over the holes. I hope whoever did it the first time does it again.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Objects of Objectification…
I am inspired, somewhat, by Cammi's post from last week.
Over the course of 7 days I worked on two pieces for Open Studio. Originally, I had no plan for the presentation of these photos since I didn't honestly think they would get in. I had, however, been struggling with the "how" aspect of presenting the images should there ever be a situation in which I'd need to do so. Matting and framing just didn't really fit the images (it is perfect for some types of images but I think presentation should match the work).
I felt pretty strongly that the presentation should be as much a part of the work as the work itself. I've done this a number of times before, with the prints I've done directly onto plexiglass or the ones I've done on metal. Ultimately, though, I did those prints because (to me) it just looked cool. Being on a transparent surface or a metal one didn't really have anything to do the work and I felt as if the pieces for Open Studio (and, by extension, all twelve from the series from which I pulled those two) should be more intentional in terms of presentation.
When I exhibited the pieces on glass, I got a lot of "Cool photo; how'd you do that?" comments/questions but they're very separate and they didn't resolve one another. I thought that the abstract pieces might be more complete in a mixed media presentation but printing on plexi is out of my budget until further notice. Then, I came across Pam Moxley's work at Mason Murer when going to see Deanne's work.
Pam Moxley does a lot of mixed media presentations of painting, distressing, texturing, exposing an image and then coating it. The piece I saw was one of the only one's I remembered from the gallery itself. I really wanted to try it and luckily Travis knows all about this process and was willing to coach me through it. I'm extremely happy with the results. Extremely. Professor Turk (who watched and guided me through the creation of the work in her own, enthusiastic way) was really excited about them and how they turned out. She even, at one point, as we were talking about it referred to it (the panels and the resin) as "almost turning them into a sculture."
I've never been into sculpture but have been fascinated by it. Sculptures have a physical presence that you don't get from a photo. I'm glad that I found something that lends that quality to the images so that they feel like a piece instead of just a picture. I was concerned for some time that I wouldn't be able to sort that out. I've also given thought to what I'd call the series. Objects of Objectification came to mind but I don't know if I'm married to that yet. It's a though.
For those interested, more of Pam Moxley's work can be seen on her website:
Pam Moxley
Over the course of 7 days I worked on two pieces for Open Studio. Originally, I had no plan for the presentation of these photos since I didn't honestly think they would get in. I had, however, been struggling with the "how" aspect of presenting the images should there ever be a situation in which I'd need to do so. Matting and framing just didn't really fit the images (it is perfect for some types of images but I think presentation should match the work).
I felt pretty strongly that the presentation should be as much a part of the work as the work itself. I've done this a number of times before, with the prints I've done directly onto plexiglass or the ones I've done on metal. Ultimately, though, I did those prints because (to me) it just looked cool. Being on a transparent surface or a metal one didn't really have anything to do the work and I felt as if the pieces for Open Studio (and, by extension, all twelve from the series from which I pulled those two) should be more intentional in terms of presentation.
When I exhibited the pieces on glass, I got a lot of "Cool photo; how'd you do that?" comments/questions but they're very separate and they didn't resolve one another. I thought that the abstract pieces might be more complete in a mixed media presentation but printing on plexi is out of my budget until further notice. Then, I came across Pam Moxley's work at Mason Murer when going to see Deanne's work.
Pam Moxley does a lot of mixed media presentations of painting, distressing, texturing, exposing an image and then coating it. The piece I saw was one of the only one's I remembered from the gallery itself. I really wanted to try it and luckily Travis knows all about this process and was willing to coach me through it. I'm extremely happy with the results. Extremely. Professor Turk (who watched and guided me through the creation of the work in her own, enthusiastic way) was really excited about them and how they turned out. She even, at one point, as we were talking about it referred to it (the panels and the resin) as "almost turning them into a sculture."
I've never been into sculpture but have been fascinated by it. Sculptures have a physical presence that you don't get from a photo. I'm glad that I found something that lends that quality to the images so that they feel like a piece instead of just a picture. I was concerned for some time that I wouldn't be able to sort that out. I've also given thought to what I'd call the series. Objects of Objectification came to mind but I don't know if I'm married to that yet. It's a though.
For those interested, more of Pam Moxley's work can be seen on her website:
Pam Moxley
Sunday, October 14, 2012
TED Talk with John Maeda from RISD
John Maeda: How Art, Technology and Design Inform Creative Leaders
"Art is about asking questions that may not be answerable."
This was a quote from a John Maeda, the president of RISD. I was browsing TED Talks seeing which ones jumped out at me and decided to watch his talk. The subject was how art, technology and design are shaping leaders. There were a number of things I enjoyed in the talk, beginning with his description of how his teachers would say he was good at math and art but his father would tell people he was just good at math. My father never did that to me but I had a girlfriend who did that (as an economics major in college, I was also good at math). At any rate, one of the many reasons I refer to my relationship with her as past tense but I digress.
Also amusing was his discussion of the Apple II computer. We had one growing up and my dad (who has a side fascination with computers and technology) still has it, actually. I was also fascinated with it much in the same way he was. Aside from the passing amusement, I thought his analysis leadership of today as contrasted against the traditional model to be particularly interesting.
"Art is about asking questions that may not be answerable."
This was a quote from a John Maeda, the president of RISD. I was browsing TED Talks seeing which ones jumped out at me and decided to watch his talk. The subject was how art, technology and design are shaping leaders. There were a number of things I enjoyed in the talk, beginning with his description of how his teachers would say he was good at math and art but his father would tell people he was just good at math. My father never did that to me but I had a girlfriend who did that (as an economics major in college, I was also good at math). At any rate, one of the many reasons I refer to my relationship with her as past tense but I digress.
Also amusing was his discussion of the Apple II computer. We had one growing up and my dad (who has a side fascination with computers and technology) still has it, actually. I was also fascinated with it much in the same way he was. Aside from the passing amusement, I thought his analysis leadership of today as contrasted against the traditional model to be particularly interesting.
Traditional Leadership Creative leadership
One-Way Interactive
Bring right Being real
Orchestra model Jazz Ensemble
Community in Harmony Community in Conversation
One of them I thought was also intriguing is how he categorizes Traditional Leadership as being open to limited feedback with Creative Leadership being open to unlimited critique. It's not that I always viewed the words "critique" and "feedback" as exact synonyms but I've never viewed them as being so different as this particular context.
At any rate, as I try to look at how society's views are being shaped and changed in general (society's views change and evolve of time; it's inevitable and the question is never "if" but "how"), Maeda talks about one of the places where a definite shift is occurring. It's a short watch but an interesting one. Plus, the opening quote stuck with me, especially as we often seem to expect to either "get" art or have art that is this complete box that answers all the questions or whatever. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's confusing or we just won't get it. That's okay, we don't have to "get" everything just like not everyone will "get" everything we do. Hopefully we create something that gets us talking even if we don't get all the answers in the end.
I saw a performance art piece at Whitespace once that I felt taxed by my patience and my ability to be open-minded and appreciative of art in general. I was frustrated by it and didn't have pleasant things to say about it for the most part. But an hour or so after it was over, my friends and I were still discussing it. One has to consider it successful if it so affects a group of people. The last thing I want from my own work is for it to be forgettable.
I saw a performance art piece at Whitespace once that I felt taxed by my patience and my ability to be open-minded and appreciative of art in general. I was frustrated by it and didn't have pleasant things to say about it for the most part. But an hour or so after it was over, my friends and I were still discussing it. One has to consider it successful if it so affects a group of people. The last thing I want from my own work is for it to be forgettable.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Dumbing ourselves down by absorbing information?
Last quarter, Suellen Parker gave me some links on things she felt could help me expansively consider the themes I've been shooting. One was an interesting article prompted by a book written by Nicholas Carr entitled The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to Our Brains.
As someone who considers himself an intellectual and an information spunge, I'm keenly interested in this since, like many other people, I use the internet to gather information. On the outset, I thought Carr's discussion was going to be about how things like Twitter cause us to dumb down our way of corresponding with others. Oddly, he pointed to the very process of attaining information as the source of the issue.
The short version is that the internet — with its wealth of information, literally at your fingertips and absence of individual restriction — facilitates a state of inattentiveness that runs counter to the human method of "information-attainment-then-reflection-upon-said-info." With the internet and its endless series of links from one site (and pool of information) to the next, we are discouraged from reflection on the info we gather. All we do is absorb with an declining compulsion to process. We can convincingly argue that it is difficult to read lengthy text on a computer screen, but when we do, we go down the rabbit hole of exploring link after link after link.
According to Carr, we're no longer processing the information we've gather. It may simply merit an amused chuckle if not for the fact that our brain adapt to the way we use it without a judgement upon whether that use utilizes it as a resource in the best manner. The brains just out for simplicity and efficiency.
One thing that hit home with me was his mention of social media and the manner in which it encourages interruption and disruption. Constantly checking one's newsfeed, glancing at new tweets, etc, all these things interrupt our day with little bits of information and our brains grow to accept this as "the way." Not so much a argument in favor of printed media (which does not allow for interactive, interruptive data) as much as a call to use the internet differently and make a concerted effort to just focus.
It's a slightly different way of talking about some of the ideas on which I've been shooting: the barrage of "shared info" invading our space and time. I considering not posting a link on principle with the hope that people would read about it in printed form, but that's a little unfair. Here's a link to the transcript:
http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-nicholas-carr-internet-and-brain-0
As someone who considers himself an intellectual and an information spunge, I'm keenly interested in this since, like many other people, I use the internet to gather information. On the outset, I thought Carr's discussion was going to be about how things like Twitter cause us to dumb down our way of corresponding with others. Oddly, he pointed to the very process of attaining information as the source of the issue.
The short version is that the internet — with its wealth of information, literally at your fingertips and absence of individual restriction — facilitates a state of inattentiveness that runs counter to the human method of "information-attainment-then-reflection-upon-said-info." With the internet and its endless series of links from one site (and pool of information) to the next, we are discouraged from reflection on the info we gather. All we do is absorb with an declining compulsion to process. We can convincingly argue that it is difficult to read lengthy text on a computer screen, but when we do, we go down the rabbit hole of exploring link after link after link.
According to Carr, we're no longer processing the information we've gather. It may simply merit an amused chuckle if not for the fact that our brain adapt to the way we use it without a judgement upon whether that use utilizes it as a resource in the best manner. The brains just out for simplicity and efficiency.
One thing that hit home with me was his mention of social media and the manner in which it encourages interruption and disruption. Constantly checking one's newsfeed, glancing at new tweets, etc, all these things interrupt our day with little bits of information and our brains grow to accept this as "the way." Not so much a argument in favor of printed media (which does not allow for interactive, interruptive data) as much as a call to use the internet differently and make a concerted effort to just focus.
It's a slightly different way of talking about some of the ideas on which I've been shooting: the barrage of "shared info" invading our space and time. I considering not posting a link on principle with the hope that people would read about it in printed form, but that's a little unfair. Here's a link to the transcript:
http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-nicholas-carr-internet-and-brain-0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)