Media, materials, and the marketplace...three areas of our most recent concentration in class. We have been discussing different types of media in the art world as well as the great change in the use of types of materials. Like I have been saying since the beginning of this class, the marketplace and those people that are players within it, are integral to how "value" is placed on art works. We have looked at people like Jeff Koons that seem to be all about creating a luxury product and playing up the concept of consumerism and we have most recently looked at artists like Trenton Doyle Hancock who make artwork that is about creating a personal mythology derived from his experiences as a child. It seems we have gone to extremes to illustrate certain ideas. So, what I want to explore in this posting is the question...Which type of art is more valid in your mind...the art that is personal and created with fairly traditional materials or is it the art that is about much broader concepts and is created with materials that are not always considered to be part of the art world? Is there a happy medium between the two for you?Before you begin thinking about this question, consider this big event that took place just this week in the art world... Artist Damian Hirst just sold almost 60 pieces of his work through Sotheby's, which is one of the biggest and most high end auction houses in the world, instead of using a gallery. His first two days of the auction netted 160 million dollars and there is still more than a hundred smaller pieces to be auctioned. Hirst is best known for his use of actual animals that are preserved and floating in giant tanks of formaldehyde. Click on the links built in to this post to find out more of this almost historic happening.
After taking all this in, respond to the above question or one of the below.
Why do artist today often use non-traditional materials to create their artworks?
If you were a very wealthy person who collected art, what type of art work would you invest in?...would you invest your money in tanks of dead animals?It is very possible that people of the late 1800's would have thought that the use of steel in large public sculptures (ie., Nevelson, Picasso, Calder) was "non-traditional" and strange. Do you think that Hirst is just ahead of the times with his material usage and that possibly in the future, we will think of his work as "traditional"?
19 comments:
i think people use untraditional substances because they want to be different and break free from the past creating something shocking nobody has ever seen before to make people think "what is art" once again back to that basic yet complicated question. I would have alot of weird stuff, just things that intrest me, like Barry McGee work, all over my walls and such
I think peopel today use non traditional material substances beacause art had developed greatly threw the years. Everyone has there own style of art and defines art in different ways. So all artist use the substance they think will make there work of art different and the way they want it.
I think artist use non traditional substances so that they can set themeselves apart from other artist. I also think that they use these substances to identify with a particular audience that looks at the substance and see the same thing the artist does, and it gives their work a little edge.
Which type of art is more valid in your mind...the art that is personal and created with fairly traditional materials or is it the art that is about much broader concepts and is created with materials that are not always considered to be part of the art world?
Well i think the key word here is "your mind". Because as humans our minds find many different things beautiful. Look at works like Picasso and his dog like structure. Do i think that is beautiful .... not really but somehow he did and others probably do too. The same goes for things like abstract art or surrealism, some people like it and some don't. I think it is not so much just traditional material that need to be looked at. I feel that any piece of artwork that breaks the mold, either with new materials or ideas, has a potential to fail. While works that are more traditional seem to be the artists way of playing it safe. However in art as in most things the greater the risk the greater the gain. Look at artists like Picasso, Monet, Andy Warhol, and Trenton Doyle Hancock. They all took a risk creating out of the norm work .... but they all had huge gains and fame when they were finally accepted into the world of art because it changed our perspective of beauty. So in short I think that yes, art that is a little bit out there is prob the most valid art. It is easy to follow the leader and see things that have been seen before ... However art is about finding beauty when others can not.
I think artists use nontraditional materials because they want to turn heads. Weather people like it or not they get recognized and it's different. But really it is what the artist wants everyone to see. The artist uses what they want to get their point accross and to maybe make people think differently about what they believe is art and what isn't art.
I think that art that is using traditional methods and is more personal means more to me. You know that someone put their heart and soul into it and gives life to the piece. I often prefer monuments constructed after disasters or in memorials to the fallen. I just don't like stuff that is just trown together to make money or made it seemed at like a 3rd grader constructed it.
By the way, Happy Birthday.
you asked us the first day of class for our own deff. of art, i believe that each person has there own right to what they feel is art. who are we to say what another artist uses? what you like may or may not be the same as myself.
we have no way of knowing what the artist that created their own work was feeling, or even why, all that you are aware of is what you feel when you see it. we all have the wonder of being unique in our thoughts and our feelings so who are we to judge?
I woudln't say that I have a certain kind of art that I feel is better, or more imporant. Art effects people in so many different ways that you cannot put a "chain" on what kind of art is meaningful. The non-traditional art is definitly up and coming. Would I spend millions on a dead animal, no. But people may look at the dead animal and feel completly differnt and spend billions on the animal.
In response to the last question on the blog about what do we consider traditional? Take into account that the time Picasso became famous, everyone was trying new things and seeing the world as "different." Picasso just illustrated it onto a canvas. Art definitely moves with times and is constantly changing. The 1800's would not understand a shark in formaldehyde, they would look at it with curiosity, but not know what to do with it. Painting, Sculpting, etc. were the big forms of art at the time and large lavish, abstract ideas like "The Gates" in New York were unheard of.
Steve K. (would not post my full name for some reason)
He may very well be a sensationalist who thrives on being different. Everyone has thier own tastes and vision in art. I like all types of art, but having dead animals in my house would remind me of "Pet Cemtentary" by Steven King. This artist would not be my first choice in buying high end art. That is what makes everyone unique, because we all have our own thoughts and march on the world in a different beat.
i think artists today use non traditional substances to help explain who they are. it helps them to express their feelings and yet gets them the attention they long for. i would probably have more traditional pieces of artwork on my walls rather than dead animals or elephant shit.
I think the use of untraditional substances is a means for the artist to get attention, and put themselves out there in the art world. Unless you happen to get lucky and everyone loves your work immediately, i think you almost have to do something to get your name out there.
even negative things bring attention to an artist. The more people that hear about them and/or their work, the more popularity they get. In other words, any attention is good attention.
I would definately have a piece of this work in my house. I think only the underwater animals would apply to my taste, because the stuff they are sitting in resembles water. Take the shark; I think it looks great!. Who wanted want to have a big ass shark in their house. If i had friends over Id def brag a little bit about having a 14ft shark in my house, and it would probably scare the crap outa some people. I dont think id spend as much money as he wants for his piece, but id definately take it as a gift.
i really like this piece. i think the use of the non traditional substance really expresses a theme to the target audience and cathes there eye. like mine.
Why do artist today often use non-traditional materials to create their artworks?
If I were an artist then sure enough I would aim to create something never before seen that has a pop to its appearance. When viewers see my work they would feel not only amazed, but controversial as to whether my work was that of the norm or not. Of course artists create their works to impress and express themselves in the most pure of ways but at the same time, I imagine that they try to impress an audience as well. Which would cause a great amount of pressure to be different from other artists and maybe put a out of the norm twist on their works or works to be.
I think artists use untraditional materials so that they can set themselves apart from others. The use of untraditional materials gives the artist a lot more to work with rather than your typical paint brush and paints.
Post a Comment