Saturday, August 29, 2009
3:08 PM
If anybody sees this shirt, get it for me pleaseeee.
though not exactly simillar, but it seems to be based on edvard munch's Scream.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
11:38 AM
What is judged to be valuable art?
If you're going to ask me that, I'd think it all depends on who's the judge.
The art dealers? How do they then see artworks and their values?
To me, a portion of these guys just buy artworks to show off their wealth. They buy works which seem pretty to them, what pleases their eyes, and then they display these works in their expensive galleries.
And then there're those guys who can appreciate art pieces like the artists and are rich at the same time. They buy the artworks so that they can enjoy them anytime they want.
Art dealers would be the people who set the price value of artworks, but that to me, cannot completely assure that the expensive pieces are valuable art, though the often sky high prices are indeed a lot of money.
To most artists, it should be the relationship they share with the artwork. It is how they can relate to the work. How it represents them or on issue they're trying to confront. It is the meaning that the artwork carries, and whether it is successful in bringing out the message.
All artworks should have a story to tell be it simple, straight forward and on the surface, or full of rich philosophies and hidden agendas. These are what make an artwork strong and powerful.
As an art student I would then judge a successful artwork as a valuable one as that would be far more important than price value.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
12:30 AM
Right.
A photograph’s studium and punctum.
Not in the dictionary, and hardly anywhere on the net.
Still though, I concluded from the few bits of info I found that this studium and punctum thing is a philosophy/analogy. It is created by a man by the name of Roland Barthes in his book Camera Lucida.
There was a handful of text of which I could not fully comprehend what they meant such as:
Barthes names the trace a photo’s punctum and distinguishes it from the photo’s studium. The category stadium defines photographs through a presence/ representation binary. The studium entails any photographic content thinkable in representational terms. Reducing a photo to its stadium reads the photo as a sign that represents a presence.
and,
Barthes “impossible science of the unique being” reads a photo as irreplaceable in that its utterly singular punctum evades representation’s homogenizing logic. To read a photo’s punctum may be impossible, but deconstruction traverses impossibility.
and,
A singularity’s trace, the punctum is nowhere photographable in a photo’s studium, yet the punctum supplements and mobilizes every element of the studium. The boarder between punctum remains heterogeneous to and breaches the studium’s representational closure.
Following that, there were some definitions by other people on the net, which helped me in understanding what’s a photograph’s studium and punctum. What are known as the punctum in a photograph are accidental details that provide no explanation but instead questions the surrounding in those photographs.
The “punctum” (or the “accident”, although not necessarily a bad thing) always works in relation to the “studium” (the commitment or the general intent) of the photograph, and is not always the “shock effect”. It is the aspect of the image that will keep drawing the viewer’s eye—or interest—back into the image, whilst never originally being part of the original intent of the image. Most of the time, the “punctum” is subtle and discreet, but always subjective as defined by how the viewer reads the image.
Here’s an example. This guy shared that a local photography group discussed a photo of Tony Blair, probably quite well known. The ‘punctum’ was supposedly in the detail of one of his hands. It’s stained with ink, an overlooked detail in relation to an otherwise perfect portrait. It ‘punctures’ the manipulated and ideological message although this political discourse is tiresome and predictable: New Labour spin, Tony Blair.
And so, the questions.
What is the studium and the punctum of this photograph?
I would think that the punctum has to be the loose edge at the top right side of the print pasted on the wall. Because it doesn’t seem like it’s meant to be, thus is the accident.
If the studium refers to the intention of this photograph, then it would have to be to show the artwork pasted on the wall. However the person who took the shot had unintentionally captured the punctum.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
2:25 PM
to:
Optical illusion in Op art.
Cool man.
Friday, August 14, 2009
4:10 PM
Hello people.
Just to share my first attempt at Halftone pattern.
And it's pretty darn fun man.
ho ho.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
4:49 PM
Eh hem(clears infected throat).
right.
So Mrs Tay saw this piece of work, possibly a sculpture and snapped it for us to blog about.
And i'm guessin' that it's at the esplanade if anyone wants to see it.
First thing that pops in my mind, Blackberries.
......
NO NOT THAT.
.....
these.
Ahhhhhlright. Enough Crap.
Onto the serious stuff.
So..
What is this work made of?
It looks like really hard plastic to me anytime.
Possibly fiberglass too.
Because it's gotta be real hard.
And to get a shape like that, i think most people would just work with plastic as it softens easily and can take any shape. it also makes the job easier when the chunks are gonna have to be put together.
Metal sheets can also be used but it's gonna be alot of work having to hammer it into such a shape and the artist just has to paint it whereas he can just find plastic of that colour if it's done in plastic.
Lasty, i'm thinking of wire gauze covered in paper mache. it's gonna take alot of work to have the paper mache smoothened out but still it's possible.
Conclusion: plastic.
if you wanna know how all the materials faired,
- Plastic
- Paper mache
- Fiberglass
- Metal
What do you think the title is?
I'm guessin' it's probably a series of sculptures titled "berries".
Firstly i would still tstick to my stand that it is a bunch of blueberries.
And in the background further up i see another simillar looking sculpture which looks like grapes to me.
Mmhmm.
Or maybe it could be a word or sentence that describes berries/fruits such as
"Juicy"
or
"Tropical"
or
"Organic"
then again it also resembles this.
So, "Molecules"?
Then it's gotta be a molecule formed from many many atoms to get that huge bulk.
But sitll, i'd go with the berries.
What do you think the artist is trying to convey in this work?
I think the artist wants the viewers to be more aware of the things around them.
And maybe he used berries as they are small.
Then he blows them up into huge sizes so that people can appreciate the detail of these tiny objects which we overlook, and realize that, "Oh, so this is how the thing is like. I could never tell without taking a closer look!"
Or that he wanted the viewers to imagine that they were minimized and things around them looked bigger.
The viewers are like ants that want to sneak up and have a good share of the sweet tasty fruits.
What feelings are invoked in you when seeing the artwork?
When i first saw it, i was stunned and felt confused because the sculpture appeared to be a huge alien like object which is uniform through out.
it is like being trapped in a box.
No matter where you look, you see the same things.
Then the lumps seem to work as little mirrors which reflect the viewers.
The frightening element becomes greater as i see so many of myself and on top of that i feel lost.
But after awhile, after i realize that it's a black berry, i start to feel like i'm in a dream.
A dream where certain objects have grown out of size.
And if it had the matt looking texture of a real berry, i might even think of having a bite.
HAHAH.
The dream then turns into a nightmare as my imagination runs wild again.
I feel as if the berries are going to spawn continuously and then devour me.
Once again, it's the fear factor.
Feelings?
Fear.
Why do you think this work is suitable for public displaying?
Hmm.
Yea i do think so anyways.
I think because the quality is there and the work is huge.
If it were to be of poor quality, it could just crumble or topple over if there were strong winds or a viewer touched it(if they're allowed to).
If the work was going to be tiny, it wouldn't attract much attention which then defeats the purpose of displaying it to the public.
Other than that, nothing should stop it from being displayed in public.
Good or not, it's still an artwork and whether people like it, thats another story.
Monday, August 3, 2009
9:26 AM
Surrealism.
cool stuff i found on flickr.
here's the first shot that got my attention.
and then i went on to find this.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdhancock/sets/72157615912246386/
here's another one i love alot.
And if you wanna see the other photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdhancock/
bye!
