Recently in class we have crossed over from Modernism to Postmodernism and discussed the fundamental differences in each. The subject of our last blog post had to do with the current exhibition in Kipp Gallery...a good example of Postmodernism. As I concluded the comment run on that post by using examples from the essay in the catalog to the exhibition, I realized it was rife with buzz words of postmodernism. If you did not pick up the catalog or read the essay included...please take the time to do so.
A couple classes ago we also watched the art21 episode on Jenny Holzer. I felt her, work being almost completely text based, would be a good compliment to Mr.Noble's installation in the gallery. In this post, I would like to continue to explore the idea of text as the artwork. In comparison, Alastair Noble and Jenny Holzer share very different concepts on how their works are presented and the only thing that is similar is the fact that text is the basis of their works...other than that all similarities are out the window. Many of you had strong feelings about the fragmented bits of language in the installation...not being able to understand it...wanting something more than just the text...wanting images.
It is from the concept of Postmodernism that gives validity to work that is just text based...words are powerful and loaded with meanings other than what a word might be saying at a given time. That is why the frameworks of theory that we apply to visual art now, were once applied to writings and language. Language became huge and important in the art world in the early 60's, and through critics and writers on art, helped to change the way in which people thought about what art was at the time.
Take a minute to check out a few links that I have built in below and above, and then respond to the questions...
After checking out some of the links...please comment.
Do Jenny Holzer's brief "Truisms" in the first link in the post, function as art in your opinion, is it enough to have a provocative statement over a provocative image?
Is it better to have full statements that speak directly and do not leave room for the imagination, in comparison to fragmented texts?
Both Alastair Noble and jenny Holzer use text as the basis of their work,which functions more as an image and why?
What about graffiti? Does graffiti have similarities to either of the artists that we are referring to? Would graffiti fall under the contemporary term, "text based art"?
Joseph Kosuth helped to start the Arts and Language movement that believed in the conceptual over the actual object...click on the images below to enlarge...although these works date back to
the 1960's, compare and contrast them with Holzer and Noble.
10 comments:
Jenny's work is very text based, she trys to center the text as the main focus. Graffiti does have similiarites to Jenny's work, Graffiti is used as the main focus in many works of art. I would say that Graffiti is considered contemporary text based art. Words that are ment to stick out are done in a certain way to grap the attention of others.
I have checked out the other websites that you had on Jenny. By going to these sites I found out that I really like Jenny’s works. This is because they are so different and unique from all other artists, which she stands out. I feel that she shows us that she creates new art and that art has come so far and changed with are changed world. Some of her pieces that I like the most are "Xenon for Berlin”, "Xenon for the Peggy Guggenheim,” “Benches”, and "Truisms." I like these artworks of hers because I think they are very unique and I like how with each one it’s not just a picture of a building, it has text. With this text I think it changes the whole piece of artwork and tells a story which makes me more interested in the piece of artwork.
I went on the other sites and really liked the work! I think her work is very different. I like how she uses text as well she doesnt just use the work she explains it... Out of the work Ive seen I really like benches!
Do I think that Jenny Holzer's work functions as art? yes; it is her self expression and own creativity (regardless of whether or not it makes sense to others, it has some meaning to herself. Just like with Alastair Noble's work)but do I think it is enough to make a provocative statement? absolutely not. On the first link, there is video where she states that now, in her work, she uses the texts of others because "she cannot say enough adequately." However, can't anybody do that? Find a line of text that appeals to him or her and paste it somewhere? To me, that doesn't speak inspiration. I'm not saying that "text based art" isn't a form of art because there are other artists that appealed to me. Take Christopher Wool for example, who yes, does use text from other sources, but the way that he presents it is what sets him apart. There's a complexity and uniqueness that jumps out as provocative to me. Not to mention his use of graffiti, which I agree does fall under the category of "text based art." It's just like stenciling, hand-painting, silk screening, whatever you choose, it simply alters the presentation of the text.
Is it better to have full statements that speak directly and do not leave room for the imagination, in comparison to fragmented texts?: After looking at a few of the artists in one of the links provided, I would have to say that honestly I feel that both a full statement/sentence as well as a fragment can have equally powerful impact. Sean Landers' "Le'go my Ego" utilizes full sentences such as "Where do I start" and "resisting bad ideas is half the battle" among others that however full statements, still leave lots of room for interpretation. In contrast, Tauba Auerbach uses no full sentences, but rather usually one word as in Subtraction (startling) or Silent/Listen. By doing so she provokes the observer to think about the words, more than the overall art, and consider each meaning individually.
I visited the other website and checked out Jenny's work. I found her work to be very interesting,very different and it is definitely something that an artist or regular person wouldn't think of. Overall this is great art.
i think one word can be seen as artwork. words are very powerful and i think jenny does a great job by using words and expressing in the simplest yet most powerful ways. she is very different from many other artists that we have talked about. some people may call a picture of a chair artwork...jenny will take the picture of a chair put some words in it and it changes the viewers perspective completely. i think she is very talented!
Is it enough to have a provocative statement over a provocative image?- Yes, I think that it is enough. As we have seen thoughout this course that alost anything can be considered art.
Is it better to have full statements that speak directly and do not leave room for the imagination, in comparison to fragmented texts?- I think that either one is good. It simply depends on what the artist wants you to get our of their work. If they want you to take something specific from their work then they will have full statements that leave no room for imagination. If they want you to be able to take your own thoughts from the work then they will leave fragmented texts.
i feel that it is up to the artist whether they want to put a full statement or leave to the imagination. i think it depends on what that artist wants to portray, and when the viewer is reading you are reaning exactly what you are suposed to and then taking your own meaning. i do feel that graffiti is art. there is lots of art around us. and some of those graffiti artist do some awesome work.
Holzer's work is entirely based on the words used. How they are ordered, font, the length of the statement all come into play. Graffiti is more just the design and usually there is no message incorporated. With all the vague definitions of art though, i would consider grafitti art but for different reasons. Holzer's work to me isnt as much "art" as just a statement and an opinion.
Post a Comment