14:32   5-11-12

3:27   5-5-12   1 note

Time is color.

Considering that a lot of my posts on here are for my various classes at CCA, I thought this would be a good one. Really neat site that combines math and color to create a visual spectacle that moves through time…

theseanachaidh:

TIME TO RGB

Time to RGB takes the current time, divides it by its highest value
and multiplies itself by 255 to display a beautiful background color.
(Translation from Geek-Speak “Cool Colorful Clock Display”)
For a great effect, watch it go from midnight to 1AM.

Located here:
http://timetorgb.com/

(via hollymoney)

21:47   4-29-12   3,633 notes

3:57   4-29-12   2 notes

[Flash 10 is required to watch video]

This is why I love performance art. Because it gives people a reason to do this.

(Source: literallysame, via fuckyeahdementia)

23:03   4-20-12   45,557 notes

22:22   4-18-12   1 note

1:13   4-18-12

On Land Art

Coined by artist Robert Smithson, Land Art, also called Earthworks, is an art movement that emerged in the late 60s where artists explored the idea of site-specific sculpture by turning the world into a museum. The Wikipedia article on Land Art excellently describes, “Sculptures are not placed in the landscape, rather, the landscape is the means of their creation.”

 

For my 4D class, we were assigned to read an article from The New Yorker dating back about a year ago that focuses on two of the most famous works of American Land Art, Smithson’s “Spiral Jetty” and “The Lightning Field” by Walter De Maria. “Spiral Jetty” looks like it sounds (as far as I can tell from descriptions and photographs); it is a jetty Smithson built by raising the ground level in an area of the Great Salt Lake in Utah that forms the shape of a spiral. Honestly, I don’t find the piece itself to be very exciting, but I am actually quite fascinated with the idea of the process of raising that much land that is underwater and to be able to do it in the shape of such a geometrically perfect spiral. De Maria’s piece seems much more appealing to me. Located on over a square mile of uninhabited New Mexico landscape just outside of Quemado, “The Lightning Field” is composed of 400 steel metal rods set perpendicularly into the earth at varying lengths so that they all reach the same height. It is described as rather nondescript during most hours of the day and night, but at sunrise and sunset the poles glow peachy-golden, reflecting the sky.

 

Although I absolutely love the idea of art that you have to experience rather than just view, I’m not sure how I feel about the Land Art movement. To my memory, I have never viewed a work of Land Art in person, but I would very much like to do so within my lifetime. The whole concept of Land Art is great, but the two issues I tend to have with Land Art are the materials used and its general aesthetic appearance. I’m not totally sure why, but I’m a bit uncomfortable with the idea of introducing unnatural materials, such as 400 steel rods, to an otherwise undisturbed landscape. I feel better about work like Smithson’s where he used the pre-existing dirt and rocks to create his art. But on the other hand, despite Smithson’s use of natural materials, his design, like many other designs of Land Art, is just… not exciting; it leaves me wanting more. Whereas De Maria’s design, despite his use of steel, specifically addresses the passage of time and creates a beautiful, fleeting phenomenon.

 

But the type of Land Art I am most intrigued by isn’t even considered Land Art at all. Places like Al Khazneh in Petra, Jordan, and many other colossal shrines, temples, caves, and monuments carved out of rock faces and mountainsides throughout the Middle East and Asia. Those who painstakingly labored and even donated their lives to the creation of these spectacles were hip to Smithson’s idea centuries before he was ever even born. And although they were not created as “art” they are indeed today seen as art as a part of the land. And they’re waaaaaaaay cooler than anything Smithson or his contemporaries ever created. Just sayin….

20:59   4-9-12   1 note

Pouring Your Art Out

Everyone is familiar with the work of Jackson Pollock, the alcoholic beatnik artist who poured and splattered his way to redefining the topography of the art world in the 1950s. Today, a new generation of artists are pouring their paint, but in a style very different from Pollock.

Three contemporary artists known for their experiments with the technique are Canada’s Marti Garaughty (see above) and Amy Shackleton (see top), and Holton Rower (see below) of New York. Perhaps the most well-known, is Rower, creator of the poured technique called Tall Painting where a three-dimensional plywood structure is created and a seemingly endless combination of colors of paint are then poured over it to create a brilliant cascade of swirling madness. Garaughty’s poured style is something a little closer to what I have experimented with. Although I could not find much information on it, I assume she paints by pouring her paint on to various locations on a canvas while it lays flat, allowing the large amounts of paint to swirl themselves, perhaps intervening here and there with a palette knife to provide direction.

But of these artists, my favorite and the one who stands out most for her unique style and the figurative nature of her work is Amy Shackleton. Shackleton’s painting strategy is extraordinary, and I’m not gonna lie, I really, really wish I could do that. According to answers she has left to comments on her video (see bottom), she paints with TriArt liquid acrylic and enamel paints that she pours from plastic condiment bottles. She mostly lets gravity do the work of carrying her paint across the canvas, but she does control it by rotating the canvas on a Hex Bolt that she attaches to her easel.

Now for the question: Is this stuff really art?

Answer: Hell yeah it’s art!

Although I think most would agree that Shackleton’s work is indeed art, more controversy arises with Garaughty and especially Rower’s work. Part of why most would agree that Shackleton’s work is art, is simply the fact that it’s figurative. From my experience, many people outside the “art world” are more comfortable with art they can identify with and are more likely to dismiss abstract art for its apparent lack of focus. Garaughty’s work, too, is also probably considered art by most, and those who disagree may only do so on the bias of disliking abstract art or may feel that the paint does all of the work through gravity and thus the art is done by the paint rather than the painter. But then that raises the question of whether art can be more about the process than the product. This is also seen in Rower’s work (see video at bottom), where the process of pouring the colors, selecting the paint, and watching it move is actually more fascinating than the final piece. Some question if Rower’s work is art because it is so simple to create that literally anyone could do it. But I think his work is art because of the focus on the process, and also the artist’s understanding of color use and combinations that elevate his work beyond just “spilling paint”.

Links to the artist’s sites

Marti Garaughty: http://garaughty.com/

Holton Rower: http://holtonrower.com/

Amy Shackleton: http://amyshackleton.com/

18:37   4-7-12   1 note

19:24   4-6-12   67,357 notes