Whilst reading Leo Steinberg’s ‘Other Criteria’, he describes a key feature in modern art as the ‘flatbed picture plane’. This describes a horizontal pictorial surface, that even when it’s distorted through cubism or abstraction etc, it still has a set context to the up-right human figure. As Steinberg describes it “The top of the picture corresponds to where we hold our heads aloft; while its lower edge gravitates to where we place our feet.” (pg. 949.). He notes that Robert Rauschenberg changes this Modernist layout, to a ‘opaque flatbed’ (pg. 949.) horizon that revolutionized how art can be viewed today. Steinberg notes in his own words how Rauschenberg allowed us to see beyond the up-right human figure plane, and more into the philosophy behind the art itself.

In the second text, ‘Serra (b. 1939) from The Yale Lecture’ Serra talks about his interest in working with 3D heavy-duty materials and focusing on their innate properties. He looks upon the representation of certain types of processes, such as wielding, and notes how modern artists simply viewed them as a way of joining materials together, instead of it being part of journey towards the outcome. This throughout is emphasised as a key element to sculptures, and can be argued as a type of development in how we view art from the modernist period. As he puts it – “the evidence of the process can become part of the content” (pg. 1125).
With his passion lying in site-specific work, he notes how modernist artwork can only be judged in relation to works of its own medium, therefore limiting its correspondence. Site-specific work however, opens for new languages in which the art can be talked about, thus allowing a continuous dialog for each language to criticize and debate with the other. This keeps the art forever current.

When comparing the two texts, it becomes clear that both are referring to changes in how we create, view and understand art. This evidently spans back over the last century, featuring key modernistic viewpoints compared with post-modernistic viewpoints referencing when each article was published. They both highlight highly influential developments such as Rauschenberg’s ‘opaque flatbed’ and Serra’s site-specific work. These allow the reader to recognise how far the art world has revolutionised itself from the modernistic era, and also allow one to understand how contemporary art is influenced by such major developments today.

Whilst thinking of a way to ‘devise a mode of practice’, artist Jessica Warboys came straight into my mind. She takes her work outside the studio and creates paintings whilst working on the beach. She does this by ‘casting mineral pigments directly onto a damp, folded canvas, which was then submerged under the sea before being pulled ashore.’ – (reference 1) This not only creates a spectacular display of colour (figure 2), but does so using natural resources.

Capturing what could be described as contemporary abstract art in such a unique way is truly what inspires me about her work. It could be argued that, as the waves are the ones making the impressions onto the folded canvas, nature itself is the true artist behind Warboys’ work. Here we’re not just looking at a 2D array of colour, but more importantly we are looking at array of energy powered behind a natural source which creates a dramatic display.

For me, this inspires me to question more upon what we are truly seeing when we view art. For this reason, my mode of practice would include altering and editing many processes of art together, to latch on to the idea that you should question what you see. As a simple example, I may start out creating a photo which I then work into with paint. Finally, I scan the artwork back into the computer to manipulate it once more. through the altering of a single image, it might become that it is no longer recognisable from what it once was – this would pose many questions and this process of editing and manipulating an image from a single point, is what I’d aim to focus on in my mode of practice.

Figure 2

Bibliography:

http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-st-ives/exhibition/studio-and-sea/jessica-warboys

– Reference 1 and Figure 2, examples of Warboys mode of practice.

In the excerpt from ‘Other Criteria,’ Leo Steinberg suggests that the traditional vertical positioning of the ‘Renaissance picture plane’ allows the viewer to be able to relate to it, as when the art is uprighted on a wall it mimics the ‘erect human posture’. In the 1950s, new work (such as that by Rauschenberg and Dubuffet) stopped being read vertically and instead could be read horizontally – the ‘flatbed picture plane’. Steinberg explores the relevance of Duchamp’s radical change in orientation of work, discussing the relevance of the ‘ninety-degree shift’ that is integral to many of his pieces. The essay then focuses more on the work of Rauschenberg, whose rotation of objects is believed by Steinberg to change how the viewer relates to it.

The excerpt from ‘The Yale Lecture’ includes Richard Serra’s views on the creation of his site-specific steel works and how they vary from studio-based sculptural practice. Serra argues that it is vital to the piece for it to be built on site and not in a studio space before being moved to a new area, as he believes site-specific works form a relationship with the environment in which they are built. Serra comments that works built in the context of the government, education and other institutions can risk being seen as ‘tokens of these institutions.’ However, contextual neutrality in a site is very difficult. Serra states that site specificity in work rarely leads to commercial gain. If an artist is funded to create a piece, control over their own creation can be lost in order to meet the demands of others, erasing some of the piece’s meaning in the process.

Both texts explore ways of working which are not seen as ‘traditional,’ for example through Steinberg’s investigation into the changing of orientation and context of a piece and through Serra’s rejection of sculptural studio practice, instead wanting sculpture to be site-specific. However, the two excerpts differ in that Serra believes in the importance of his sculptural work being left in the area of creation, whereas Steinberg is exploring different orientations and presentations of work.

Bibliography:

Harrison, C. and Wood, P. (2001) Art in theory, 1900-1990. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 948-953, 1124-1127

Jenny Saville – passage – 2004  

Theory: Feminism. 

Jenny Saville’s painting Passage depicts a modern portrait of a transsexual. It is a dramatic expression of a body that challenges traditional canons of beauty. It also considers the artificial construction of the human form. In an interview with Simon Schama, Jenny Saville said: 

“With the transvestite I was searching for a body that was between
genders. The idea of floating gender that is not fixed. The
transvestite I worked with has a natural penis and false silicone breasts.
Thirty or forty years ago this body couldn’t have existed and I was looking for
a kind of contemporary architecture of the body. I wanted to paint a
visual passage through gender – a sort of gender landscape.” 

Jenny Saville is known for beautifully large oil paintings that challenge societies structure of gender. Passage is an interesting contemporary piece that shows an agonizing frankness to the human body whilst also exploring a unique path that society so harshly judges, transvestites. The painting is an interesting exploration in to feminism, not only the equality of female’s bodies but everyone’s body. 

A lot of Saville’s work explores the disparity between the way women are perceived and the way that they feel about their bodies. Passage branches that out even further and makes the viewer feel the confidence of this transvestite. From the beautiful brushstrokes, to the rich cool toned pigments, Saville paints in such a mesmerizing realistic manner almost bringing her paintings to life. Passage explores the traditional romanticism aspect of female painting but with this unique contemporary matter of transgender, she has managed to normalise such a controversial topic in society in such a beautiful way. 

The concept behind the appropriation of this image is to bring it into the 21^st Century and relate it to the ever-growing use of screens and modern technology; the main message I am trying to convey is how concerning it is that young children (the millennial generation) are becoming addicted to using screens and social media. The process of appropriating this image felt quite bizarre and the idea of plagiarising someone’s work seemed rather iniquitous; it made me think about how frustrated I would be if someone were to use my work for their own creative gain. On the other hand, part of me feels like that what I have created is considered to be my own work as I have reprocessed and changed the context of the original image by using my own ideas and concepts. However, even if the work has been appropriated, another problem arises whereby people will initially look at the image and recognise it to be the work of the original artist rather than yours.

Image being appropriated: ‘Reflections on The Scream’ (1990) – Roy Lichtenstein

Leo Steinberg’s (b. 1920) Other Criteria talks about the shift from the Renaissance, to modern and post-modern developed practices. The main point Steinberg discusses in his essay is how the orientation of work can change the meaning of the piece; the main example being the idea of a vertical piece resembling a head-to-toe image in the Renaissance period. He compares works by artists such as Picasso, Rothko, and Newman’s works; they all conform to the ‘head-to-toe’ orientation. He goes on to say that the shift in orientation of the work can radically shift the subject matter of the work, horizontal being more reminiscent of nature, and vertical being the shift to culture. Steinberg finishes off the extract by talking about the work of Rauschenberg during the 1950s which broke out of the standard picture plane of images; Steinberg said that the non-conforming nature of Rauschenberg’s works made them more personable and was a dramatic shift into post-modern art.

Richard Serra’s (b. 1939) The Yale Lecture discusses his practice of site-specific sculpture and the issues that are presented with it. He focusses on transforming traditional processes, such as welding, into the main subject of the work through the use of steel making; combining traditional methods of sculpture with the use of architectural technology, producing Modernist pieces. He focusses on how a piece’s context is majorly affected by the environment it’s placed in. There are a variety of problems with site-specific sculpture; a piece cannot be created in one space and then be transferred to a new location because the piece can be misinterpreted. Serra also says that corporate funded works are often advertised as public service works which detract from the meaning of the piece itself; it is also hard to justify creating such big pieces because they do not allow for secondary sale of the piece.

There are various connections that can be made between the two texts, the main one being the development of each practice from times as far back as the Renaissance to post-modern works; what is also interesting about this point is how the modern/post-modern pieces still have tones of pieces from prior movements, for example, the ‘head-to-toe’ orientation of Renaissance art being transferred to updated works.

My mode of practice encompasses mark making, combined with the use of filming to create pieces; using the mark making tools and materials as the basis of the piece, and film to finalise and refine it. What I want to document within this mode of practice is the process of creating, looking at each individual mark and the sounds and textures that are made during the process; eventually allowing me to relive the process of my creation in a sensory format. The film making allows me to document this and also, manipulate the footage to create a new piece through modern processes of editing; this would allow abstraction as well as being able to further develop the original piece from a variety of different aspects. The filming process could also allow for different qualities of the filmed piece to be focussed on, like the sounds produced or the textures created. This mode of practice allows for various paths to be explored, from sensory experiences, to the interactive and inclusive nature of the outcomes; it is also applicable to a variety of subject matter and links traditional processes to more contemporary ones.

For this task I decided to use an artist I had previously researched Jenny Saville (b1970-). She is famous for creating paintings of the face, in a figurative form and sometimes texturizes her work.
Saville uses images of her own body or others and makes realistic paintings. However, the images I decided to appropriate were two different paintings of a squished face. Reference (closed contact (1995) by Jenny Saville.) Saville was fascinated by the idea of surgery and how this could change it for better or worse. The colour tones within the paintings are marvellous.

However, I get a sense of danger or pain, the reason for this is her face looks swollen or bruised. Though, I feel this is not the case and not Saville’s intention. My version of her images turned out to be very accurate and were very funny to observe. I decided to do mine in black and white as I wanted more depth in my images. The actual process that I used was to lay my face flat onto a photocopier and take pictures of my face squashed onto the frame. This is how I was able to appropriate an image of her work and assimilate it into a piece of my own work.
Overall I found this work to be very fascinating and satisfying.