5 June 2011
Back to life.
So I have neglected my blog for the past few years; I really started to enjoy it. Now I'm back :]
12 May 2009
Rationale
When I first started this module it was a bit daunting. I had never used a blog before and I thought at first I would never get the hang of it so I considered using the good old pen and sketchbook. But it didn’t defeat me and I gave the blog a shot. I took my awhile to actually get the blog started and I was still unsure what I was actually supposed to be writing about and even now I’m still unsure if I have done it correctly.
I have mainly gathered information in the blog about exhibitions, my own thoughts, things I have read about in newspapers, things about artists in general, my own work, illustrations of art pieces and most importantly how audiences interact with art pieces and how they might see them depending on what kind of space the piece is in.
Doing a blog has made me think more critically about artists work and even my own. A blog is like doing a sketchbook except I don’t feel it’s quite as personal because people can read it if the have access to the internet. In the end I really enjoyed doing a blog and one of the reasons I liked doing is because people could comment back on my thoughts or the things I have seen.
I also think it’s a good way to communicate with tutors as well as other students because if you don’t always get to see them everyday they can see what your up to and they are able to leave feedback for you.
I have decided that I’m going to continue keeping a blog and use it for similar reasons as I’ve kept this one.
Overall I think this module has been successful and I have learnt to think more critically, as well as taking my audience into account when I hang my pieces in exhibitions.
11 May 2009
The exhibition
I've been thinking about the exhibition and how my work is going to be displayed. I’ve gone from having a photograph hung on a wall in a plain frame to a mod rock cast nailed to the wall so it looked like it was actually coming out of the wall.
Displaying both of these would have to be in the college just because of the content that the pictures hold and therefore, by doing this it would be making more appealing to certain audience; artists, art lovers etc, because you don’t usually find just any random folk in an art college. 
Displaying both of these would have to be in the college just because of the content that the pictures hold and therefore, by doing this it would be making more appealing to certain audience; artists, art lovers etc, because you don’t usually find just any random folk in an art college.
Now, however, I’m displaying a head with tiny pieces of photographs stuck to it on a plinth. The reason I’m having my sculpture on a plinth and not anywhere else is because it’s something that the audience need to walk all the around to see the full piece. The plinth is situated around the average eye level so that it’s easy to see and people don’t have to bend down and see it.
Surfing the net
I've been surfing the net the past hour or so trying find out some information about curators.. and i've just stumbled across something on the 'Royal College of Art' website that you can actually take a course on it !
Why the course was established?
Curators of contemporary art in Britain have in the past relied for their training on experience gained through employment. Neither art history nor fine art courses provide a wide-ranging consideration of contemporary art which also includes study of critical practice and theory, and detailed understanding of how art institutions are structured and administered.
The MA course was established in 1992, co-funded by the Royal College of Art and the Arts Council of Great Britain. It was the first postgraduate programme in Britain to specialise in curatorial practice as it relates to contemporary art. The course is now funded by Arts Council England, and in 2001 the course title was amended to Curating Contemporary Art, more accurately to reflect the content and primary focus of the programme
Why the course was established?
Curators of contemporary art in Britain have in the past relied for their training on experience gained through employment. Neither art history nor fine art courses provide a wide-ranging consideration of contemporary art which also includes study of critical practice and theory, and detailed understanding of how art institutions are structured and administered.
The MA course was established in 1992, co-funded by the Royal College of Art and the Arts Council of Great Britain. It was the first postgraduate programme in Britain to specialise in curatorial practice as it relates to contemporary art. The course is now funded by Arts Council England, and in 2001 the course title was amended to Curating Contemporary Art, more accurately to reflect the content and primary focus of the programme
The Observer
Art has changed. And so have the people running it. A sharp-minded breed of iconoclastic curators is revolutionising both the gallery scene and the way that we experience art.
Here's an article that I found in the observer about curating.
I thought It'd be quite interesting to read about how curators find the work rather than just telling it from an artist or audiences persepctive.
Curating art used to be a straightforward enough, if onerous, occupation. Typically, curators thoroughly versed in art history would use their research skills putting together what they saw as the best art works of a particular movement or historical period. For figures such as David Sylvester, curating wasn't really regarded as a major profession - more of a side show in the ongoing business of being an art authority. Things, however, have changed drastically since then. University courses in curating are springing up. And where once museums looked to the art historians of places such as the Courtauld Institute for the next generation of art supremos, they are now turning to something like the Royal College of Art's curating course, fast becoming the inside track for tomorrow's leading curators and museum directors. In turn, today's curators and museum directors have ditched anonymity.
'The curator of contemporary art is now concerned with the whole physical and intellectual experience of an exhibition,' explains Teresa Gleadowe, head of the RCA's curating course. Simply doing bucket-loads of art historical research is not enough. In the ground-breaking 1972 exhibition Documenta 5, Harald Szeemann - perhaps the first major freelance curator - dumped aesthetic categories and instead arranged the art through themes like 'Idea' and 'Individual Mythologies'.
Gleadowe argues that there's a huge difference between today's curators and those art historians of the past. 'Curators are now required to engage with new art as it emerges and find a critical context for the reception of that work,' she says. In reality, those critical contexts tend to act almost as curatorial trends - for instance at the moment there is a definite turn away from 90s irony to either some sort of return to socially committed art or art about everyday situations. And the broadening of the art world from a European-North American axis to a global scale means most contemporary curators now spend huge amounts of time flitting to and from art festivals around the world to keep up with what's going on - as well as to unearth buried talent.
Through the 80s and 90s curating evolved rapidly. In 90s Britain, there was a shift away from institutions - Damien Hirst and Carl Freedman famously took matters into their own hands with the Freeze and Modern Medicine exhibitions that set young British art rolling. Curators started putting shows on in domestic spaces, and combining art with non-art objects. In Berlin, Daniel Pflumm got the whole 90s Mitte art scene going by exhibiting works in his nightclub, Elektro.
In some ways curators became the counterpart to dealers: where the latter would shift artworks, the former would make works credible by putting them in exhibitions. If a work caught the eye of the right curator and got included in a big show it did wonders for its price and the standing of the artist. Inevitably the institutions have caught up, employing the new breed of contemporary curator to become museum directors and effect change from within. What's certain is that the days of paintings organised into neat chronological rows are well and truly over
Here's an article that I found in the observer about curating.
I thought It'd be quite interesting to read about how curators find the work rather than just telling it from an artist or audiences persepctive.
Curating art used to be a straightforward enough, if onerous, occupation. Typically, curators thoroughly versed in art history would use their research skills putting together what they saw as the best art works of a particular movement or historical period. For figures such as David Sylvester, curating wasn't really regarded as a major profession - more of a side show in the ongoing business of being an art authority. Things, however, have changed drastically since then. University courses in curating are springing up. And where once museums looked to the art historians of places such as the Courtauld Institute for the next generation of art supremos, they are now turning to something like the Royal College of Art's curating course, fast becoming the inside track for tomorrow's leading curators and museum directors. In turn, today's curators and museum directors have ditched anonymity.
'The curator of contemporary art is now concerned with the whole physical and intellectual experience of an exhibition,' explains Teresa Gleadowe, head of the RCA's curating course. Simply doing bucket-loads of art historical research is not enough. In the ground-breaking 1972 exhibition Documenta 5, Harald Szeemann - perhaps the first major freelance curator - dumped aesthetic categories and instead arranged the art through themes like 'Idea' and 'Individual Mythologies'.
Gleadowe argues that there's a huge difference between today's curators and those art historians of the past. 'Curators are now required to engage with new art as it emerges and find a critical context for the reception of that work,' she says. In reality, those critical contexts tend to act almost as curatorial trends - for instance at the moment there is a definite turn away from 90s irony to either some sort of return to socially committed art or art about everyday situations. And the broadening of the art world from a European-North American axis to a global scale means most contemporary curators now spend huge amounts of time flitting to and from art festivals around the world to keep up with what's going on - as well as to unearth buried talent.
Through the 80s and 90s curating evolved rapidly. In 90s Britain, there was a shift away from institutions - Damien Hirst and Carl Freedman famously took matters into their own hands with the Freeze and Modern Medicine exhibitions that set young British art rolling. Curators started putting shows on in domestic spaces, and combining art with non-art objects. In Berlin, Daniel Pflumm got the whole 90s Mitte art scene going by exhibiting works in his nightclub, Elektro.
In some ways curators became the counterpart to dealers: where the latter would shift artworks, the former would make works credible by putting them in exhibitions. If a work caught the eye of the right curator and got included in a big show it did wonders for its price and the standing of the artist. Inevitably the institutions have caught up, employing the new breed of contemporary curator to become museum directors and effect change from within. What's certain is that the days of paintings organised into neat chronological rows are well and truly over
Artist and the Audeince
Most people see art as something complicated, incomprehensible and unnecessary. Artists are often treated as "harmless fools". Why is this? Because art is always a new occurrence, it is original and it causes anxiety and therefore people are often ill-disposed towards it. A layman likes to say: "Even though I don`t know much about art I at least know what I like." But these aren`t actually their own preferences as their habits and the conditions they live in have made them like certain things and dislike others. We like the things we know and don`t trust the unknown. The past (which we know) seems better from the unpredictable future. We think of art in a similar way. Such thinking leads to the isolation of an artist who likes to penetrate new grounds of imagination.
The process of creating is always accompanied by loneliness and a certain incomprehension. Yet an artist doesn`t create just for his own satisfaction. Every artist wants other people to admire his works. The desire to be admired is in fact the main incentive of creating, while the process of creation itself requires a receiver as a natural supplement. One should realise however that as important to an artist as the audience is, it is not the quantity, but the quality of the audience that counts the most. The virtues of a work of art can never be described in terms of its popularity. This means that to an artist only the opinions of the people he respects and values are important. These are often just a few people - his friends, other artists, critics and people that show interest. The audience of course is also not completely without a word to say, but it is usually that little group of people (if the artist manages to convince them with his work) that encourages the creator to continue his work.
The audience can either accept or reject an art work. It is hard to forsee how people will take it. There is an emotional tension between an artist and the receivers, a feeling of insecurity and challenge, which are essential to an artist. A creator has to have the certainty that his work will overwin the public`s obstinacy or otherwise he will not make sure that what he has created is original, whether it was a work of art not only in his plans, but the actual outcome is as well.
The process of creating is always accompanied by loneliness and a certain incomprehension. Yet an artist doesn`t create just for his own satisfaction. Every artist wants other people to admire his works. The desire to be admired is in fact the main incentive of creating, while the process of creation itself requires a receiver as a natural supplement. One should realise however that as important to an artist as the audience is, it is not the quantity, but the quality of the audience that counts the most. The virtues of a work of art can never be described in terms of its popularity. This means that to an artist only the opinions of the people he respects and values are important. These are often just a few people - his friends, other artists, critics and people that show interest. The audience of course is also not completely without a word to say, but it is usually that little group of people (if the artist manages to convince them with his work) that encourages the creator to continue his work.
The audience can either accept or reject an art work. It is hard to forsee how people will take it. There is an emotional tension between an artist and the receivers, a feeling of insecurity and challenge, which are essential to an artist. A creator has to have the certainty that his work will overwin the public`s obstinacy or otherwise he will not make sure that what he has created is original, whether it was a work of art not only in his plans, but the actual outcome is as well.
Hanging
picture hanging .com - PICTURE HANGING SYSTEMS. An extensive range of display fixtures and fittings for the optimal and flexibledisplay of paintings, white-boards, clocks etc;without damage to walls. Recommended for commercial, public and private buildings where art will enhance the working and living environment. Particularly specified for art galleries, museums, boardrooms, hallways, stairwells and restaurants.
- Free standing poster display unit
- Free standing glass shelf unit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
