So, Erased De Kooning was a painting by Rauschenberg that is essentially him taking a painting given to him by de Kooning and erasing it. The idea came from him making drawings and then erasing them, but this work was erasing a de Kooning, which to him was a more important work. I, for one, think this is just awesome. It's the type of art that could be interpreted by me as done by some try hard hipster wanna be or by someone who just doesn't give a [expletive]. This Rauschenberg guy most definitely seems like the latter, even saying that he had to be crazy to do it. The Jack Daniels bit was great as well. The fact that de Kooning wanted to donate a piece that he would've cherished makes it even better. Spending a month erasing it shows a lot of dedication. Anyways, I really liked this link, Miss Linda.
This link is a prime example of the discussion in class today...institutions kill creativity and the only way to retain it is to rebel. Think for a moment, if a student at this university turned in a blank sheet of paper as their completed assignment, for any class, they would immediately be given a failing grade. If one of us were to take a sheet of photo paper, develop it and use it as a photo for our crit, what would be the response of the rest of the class? You would be looked at as lazy and trying to get out of work, rather than simply rebelling against the established structure, which is exactly what it seems like this artist did. He refused to be boxed into an idea, and in my opinion his work was more abstract than any of the other works. It doesn't seem like he was trying to make a grand statement, but simply exploring and trying to step outside of what is expected in order to produce something uniquely his own.
I completely agree with what Natasha said above! If we were to turn in a paper without any apparent "work" or "effort" put into it, we would fail. But just because the paper is blank, does that mean we didn't put some thought into it? When everyone else is doing one thing, the blank paper would certainly make a statement. However, this university would not be very accepting of such work. It makes one wonder the direction our world is going in. Are we completely stifling creativity by creating so many guidelines for projects? I'm not so sure Rauschenberg was even trying to point this out to everyone, I think he was just trying to express himself. It would be nice if we could all be given the reigns to express ourselves in the ways we please as well.
I thought this link was very interesting. Rauschenberg's closing remark was very interesting- as the interviewer asked him what he thought about his art piece in the midst of the uproar about it being vandalism, he replied "I think it's poetry." I think this very well exemplifies the constant battle/balance between the intent of the artist and the interpretation of the viewers. I thought it was almost funny how there were all these comments on his piece, saying that it was a statement against modern art and so on, when really it was just a creation he wanted to do. I think a lot of times viewers can far overanalyze pieces of artwork. Like the others above said, this definitely connects back to what we talked about in class yesterday. While the physical act and final product is what we admire and analyze, often the thoughts, feelings and just being is far more present in an artist's work. For me personally, in creating my own artwork, I often look back on my pieces- whether they be drawings paintings sculptures or now photographs- and can distinctly connect parts to thoughts, memories or feelings I had whilst creating them. This perspective on the artwork is one that no other person can have and, in my opinion, is the only one that really matters. In creating a blank sheet of paper, Rauschenberg does not covey blankness but rather a representation of the time, thoughts and feelings it took to create it.
I too think Natasha's analysis of this is very good. It's also somewhat interesting that people's reactions to Rauschenberg's work is quite similar to how people would react if you turned in a blank piece of paper for an assignment (disapproval, shock, etc.). I also think that it was quite interesting when Rauschenberg was discussing the fact that what he did wasn't quite normal and that it was a bit weird. This piece really forces the viewer to look at the meaning (or potential meanings) of the piece as well as the artist's motivation for making it rather than details like composition that most people tend to focus on when viewing art.
This link falls very much in line with the concept of light as possessing different tonalities and characteristics, allowing for various interpretations of a piece. Various links have shown, for example, that light (and our perspective, in general) are highly relative to the forces and mediums that have shaped an individual. This Rauschenberg is perhaps the strictest manifestation of this phenomena, using the absence light to manifest a given piece. As such, he elevates de Kooning's and effectively highlights a truth about society: that although one may think light is being manifested, allowing one to see a picture's full effect, this perspective is actually just a manifestation of that individual. As such we arrive once more to the concept of the audience as its own artist.
Rauschenberg is right to describe his work as simply "poetry". The piece itself is brilliant. Looking at how he describes the work and how the viewers interpreted it reminded me of something a friend of mine brought up in another studio course. We were discussing motivation behind artmaking and she believes that artists create artwork, first and foremost, for themselves and the audience is just there as a secondary entity. His concept was simple and personally motivated, yet his audience took it to be much more complex than he intended. How often does it happen that an artist will create something and everyone will see it and over-think it?
So, Erased De Kooning was a painting by Rauschenberg that is essentially him taking a painting given to him by de Kooning and erasing it. The idea came from him making drawings and then erasing them, but this work was erasing a de Kooning, which to him was a more important work. I, for one, think this is just awesome. It's the type of art that could be interpreted by me as done by some try hard hipster wanna be or by someone who just doesn't give a [expletive]. This Rauschenberg guy most definitely seems like the latter, even saying that he had to be crazy to do it. The Jack Daniels bit was great as well. The fact that de Kooning wanted to donate a piece that he would've cherished makes it even better. Spending a month erasing it shows a lot of dedication. Anyways, I really liked this link, Miss Linda.
ReplyDeleteThis link is a prime example of the discussion in class today...institutions kill creativity and the only way to retain it is to rebel. Think for a moment, if a student at this university turned in a blank sheet of paper as their completed assignment, for any class, they would immediately be given a failing grade. If one of us were to take a sheet of photo paper, develop it and use it as a photo for our crit, what would be the response of the rest of the class? You would be looked at as lazy and trying to get out of work, rather than simply rebelling against the established structure, which is exactly what it seems like this artist did. He refused to be boxed into an idea, and in my opinion his work was more abstract than any of the other works. It doesn't seem like he was trying to make a grand statement, but simply exploring and trying to step outside of what is expected in order to produce something uniquely his own.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Natasha said above! If we were to turn in a paper without any apparent "work" or "effort" put into it, we would fail. But just because the paper is blank, does that mean we didn't put some thought into it? When everyone else is doing one thing, the blank paper would certainly make a statement. However, this university would not be very accepting of such work. It makes one wonder the direction our world is going in. Are we completely stifling creativity by creating so many guidelines for projects? I'm not so sure Rauschenberg was even trying to point this out to everyone, I think he was just trying to express himself. It would be nice if we could all be given the reigns to express ourselves in the ways we please as well.
ReplyDeleteI thought this link was very interesting. Rauschenberg's closing remark was very interesting- as the interviewer asked him what he thought about his art piece in the midst of the uproar about it being vandalism, he replied "I think it's poetry." I think this very well exemplifies the constant battle/balance between the intent of the artist and the interpretation of the viewers. I thought it was almost funny how there were all these comments on his piece, saying that it was a statement against modern art and so on, when really it was just a creation he wanted to do. I think a lot of times viewers can far overanalyze pieces of artwork. Like the others above said, this definitely connects back to what we talked about in class yesterday. While the physical act and final product is what we admire and analyze, often the thoughts, feelings and just being is far more present in an artist's work. For me personally, in creating my own artwork, I often look back on my pieces- whether they be drawings paintings sculptures or now photographs- and can distinctly connect parts to thoughts, memories or feelings I had whilst creating them. This perspective on the artwork is one that no other person can have and, in my opinion, is the only one that really matters. In creating a blank sheet of paper, Rauschenberg does not covey blankness but rather a representation of the time, thoughts and feelings it took to create it.
ReplyDeleteI too think Natasha's analysis of this is very good. It's also somewhat interesting that people's reactions to Rauschenberg's work is quite similar to how people would react if you turned in a blank piece of paper for an assignment (disapproval, shock, etc.). I also think that it was quite interesting when Rauschenberg was discussing the fact that what he did wasn't quite normal and that it was a bit weird. This piece really forces the viewer to look at the meaning (or potential meanings) of the piece as well as the artist's motivation for making it rather than details like composition that most people tend to focus on when viewing art.
ReplyDeleteThis link falls very much in line with the concept of light as possessing different tonalities and characteristics, allowing for various interpretations of a piece. Various links have shown, for example, that light (and our perspective, in general) are highly relative to the forces and mediums that have shaped an individual. This Rauschenberg is perhaps the strictest manifestation of this phenomena, using the absence light to manifest a given piece. As such, he elevates de Kooning's and effectively highlights a truth about society: that although one may think light is being manifested, allowing one to see a picture's full effect, this perspective is actually just a manifestation of that individual. As such we arrive once more to the concept of the audience as its own artist.
ReplyDeleteRauschenberg is right to describe his work as simply "poetry". The piece itself is brilliant. Looking at how he describes the work and how the viewers interpreted it reminded me of something a friend of mine brought up in another studio course. We were discussing motivation behind artmaking and she believes that artists create artwork, first and foremost, for themselves and the audience is just there as a secondary entity. His concept was simple and personally motivated, yet his audience took it to be much more complex than he intended. How often does it happen that an artist will create something and everyone will see it and over-think it?
ReplyDelete