Part 1: The Low Down on High Art
Judit and Ryan's journey begins from Britomart on a sunny Saturday midday...
The Therapeutic Hour: Art History Explained.
Having studied and fallen in love with art history last year, I knew this was an event not to miss. My passion is not often shared and yet it was easy to get Ryan to come along with, even with the risk of me starting to babble on about art, which was guaranteed to happen.
I've been to many art history lectures in the past year with varying degrees of success and this particular one promised "an illustrated lecture in rhyming verse" complete with "explosive deconstruction of Art Historical Theories - there may be fireworks", presented as part of the Auckland Fringe Festival. Yet nothing could've prepared me for the presenter, Kristelle Plimmer, M.A,, walking in on stilts. Mind you, I didn't really think the entire thing would be in rhyming verse either.
It was definitely a unique way to discuss art history, though some of the theories discussed were even a little complex for me, and I like to think I have a bit of a grasp on art history. The unique nature of the presentation made it very easy to listen to as the poetic verse kept a consistent rhythm throughout which was easy to get swept up in, even if you lost the thread of the theories being explained, hence easy enough to get drawn back into it. This rhythm was accentuated by and reflected in the presenter's constant yet gentle and mesmerizing movement on the stilts, both to keep balance and emphasize the point she was trying to make, involving her whole self in the presentation. One couldn't help but be drawn in and engaged by her body language, even if the topic went a little over one's head.
In terms of content, some of the ideas she discussed were familiar from many hours of our art history scholarship discussion group last year. Familiarity with some of the art works she presented in the slides also helped in my understanding, in particular the feminist art works from the late 1970s to late 1980s by the likes of Barbara Kruger and Judy Chicago. I'd studied these artists in depth so could relate more to the points she was making around them.
She brought up the idea that the study art history as a narrative or linear was not comprehensive and instead used the analogy of a maze, filled with many possible entry points, pathways and dead ends. Essentially, art is a reaction to and reflection of what has come before it, as well as serving as a representative of time, place and personal quirk. I will take this moment to shamelessly admit that I have a terrible head for history but art I can understand. Hence, it has been very useful that most of what I know about history, has been learnt through my study of art and the contexts in which it is created. We can learn about a society by the art work which comes out of it, as sort of a place marker. However, even where a work can be placed and read in this context, we can extrapolate in search of universal truths.
When presented with any art work, we will look automatically for meaning, understanding. The best thing I took away from a year of studying art history was how to look for this meaning. As with something like the Yinka Shinobare exhibition where I mentioned I didn't know a lot of the historical references behind the work, I could still look for other ways I could approach the work and bring meaning to it for me using what I know about art. The presenter discussed individual judgement based on taste and sensory experience, are aesthetic pleasures universal? Anyone can judge beauty and aesthetics based on their personal reaction.
I think that the many different interpretations people have of art and hence the many theories which have formed around it are a reflection as such, a catalyst or "locus for discussion". In the same sort of way Charles talked about architecture, I believe art is best out in the public sphere where different interpretations bring many layers of discussion and meaning. I enjoyed this lecture as it made me think again about the elusive meaning of art. The reason art can be so controversial and this truth so elusive is in fact because it is not a simple linear narrative, and it can't be a simple linear narrative because we keep going back to study it, making links, forming new opinions and ideas through discussion. I always found last year that after discussion a quote, theory or artwork, my opinion of it would often change.
Which brings me nicely to a quote to sum up on: "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Art history has in one year broadened my way of thinking so drastically, and one day I hope to go back and study more extensively to understand more about history and the human emotions, thoughts and feelings expressed in art.
Coming up in Part 2: Ryan and Judit make meaningful commentary on abstract art.
Judit and Ryan's journey begins from Britomart on a sunny Saturday midday...
The Therapeutic Hour: Art History Explained.Having studied and fallen in love with art history last year, I knew this was an event not to miss. My passion is not often shared and yet it was easy to get Ryan to come along with, even with the risk of me starting to babble on about art, which was guaranteed to happen.
I've been to many art history lectures in the past year with varying degrees of success and this particular one promised "an illustrated lecture in rhyming verse" complete with "explosive deconstruction of Art Historical Theories - there may be fireworks", presented as part of the Auckland Fringe Festival. Yet nothing could've prepared me for the presenter, Kristelle Plimmer, M.A,, walking in on stilts. Mind you, I didn't really think the entire thing would be in rhyming verse either.
It was definitely a unique way to discuss art history, though some of the theories discussed were even a little complex for me, and I like to think I have a bit of a grasp on art history. The unique nature of the presentation made it very easy to listen to as the poetic verse kept a consistent rhythm throughout which was easy to get swept up in, even if you lost the thread of the theories being explained, hence easy enough to get drawn back into it. This rhythm was accentuated by and reflected in the presenter's constant yet gentle and mesmerizing movement on the stilts, both to keep balance and emphasize the point she was trying to make, involving her whole self in the presentation. One couldn't help but be drawn in and engaged by her body language, even if the topic went a little over one's head.
In terms of content, some of the ideas she discussed were familiar from many hours of our art history scholarship discussion group last year. Familiarity with some of the art works she presented in the slides also helped in my understanding, in particular the feminist art works from the late 1970s to late 1980s by the likes of Barbara Kruger and Judy Chicago. I'd studied these artists in depth so could relate more to the points she was making around them.
She brought up the idea that the study art history as a narrative or linear was not comprehensive and instead used the analogy of a maze, filled with many possible entry points, pathways and dead ends. Essentially, art is a reaction to and reflection of what has come before it, as well as serving as a representative of time, place and personal quirk. I will take this moment to shamelessly admit that I have a terrible head for history but art I can understand. Hence, it has been very useful that most of what I know about history, has been learnt through my study of art and the contexts in which it is created. We can learn about a society by the art work which comes out of it, as sort of a place marker. However, even where a work can be placed and read in this context, we can extrapolate in search of universal truths.
When presented with any art work, we will look automatically for meaning, understanding. The best thing I took away from a year of studying art history was how to look for this meaning. As with something like the Yinka Shinobare exhibition where I mentioned I didn't know a lot of the historical references behind the work, I could still look for other ways I could approach the work and bring meaning to it for me using what I know about art. The presenter discussed individual judgement based on taste and sensory experience, are aesthetic pleasures universal? Anyone can judge beauty and aesthetics based on their personal reaction.
I think that the many different interpretations people have of art and hence the many theories which have formed around it are a reflection as such, a catalyst or "locus for discussion". In the same sort of way Charles talked about architecture, I believe art is best out in the public sphere where different interpretations bring many layers of discussion and meaning. I enjoyed this lecture as it made me think again about the elusive meaning of art. The reason art can be so controversial and this truth so elusive is in fact because it is not a simple linear narrative, and it can't be a simple linear narrative because we keep going back to study it, making links, forming new opinions and ideas through discussion. I always found last year that after discussion a quote, theory or artwork, my opinion of it would often change.
Which brings me nicely to a quote to sum up on: "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Art history has in one year broadened my way of thinking so drastically, and one day I hope to go back and study more extensively to understand more about history and the human emotions, thoughts and feelings expressed in art.
Coming up in Part 2: Ryan and Judit make meaningful commentary on abstract art.
No comments:
Post a Comment