The Yale Lecture was developed by Richard Serra from notes after an abandoned sculpture project back in the mid-1980s, Slight Point. This lecture was given in the wake of a similar issue involving his work Tilted Arc. It was removed from the Federal Plaza in New York by a government agency and destroyed after it was deemed to be lacking in ‘aesthetic appeal’. It was debated widely after speculation of it being an ‘act of censorship’ and ‘suppression of speech’. Serra discusses his practice, inspired by the steel mines he worked in at the age of 17 to fund his studies. His site-specific work and its materiality/physicality speaks for itself, it is also heavily dependent on the social and political context in which the work will be/is placed. He believes that the works scale, size and location of the sculpture should be determined by the topography of the site. Compared to that of modernist sculpture, transportable and lacking context. Calling them ‘follies’, he humorously finds similarity in an iron deer on a front lawn, explaining that modernist sculpture is too commonly autonomous with its surroundings. Merely functioning ‘critically in relation to the language of its own medium’.

In an excerpt from Leo Steinberg’s Other Criteria, published in 1972, he discusses the subject of what he calls ‘The Flatbed Picture Plane’. The 70s is the decade that signified a huge shift within the art world. There was a strong sense of rebellion, and need for change. Contemporary Art is said to have started around this time. It was the decade of body art (Gutai), installation art, the conceptual, minimalism, performance art and the rise of feminist art after Linda Nochlin’s article Why have there been no Great Women Artists?, published in Art News in 1971. In one of the best essays on Robert Rauschenberg, Steinberg refers to the artist’s ‘Flat-bed picture plane’, borrowing the term from the flatbed printing press. He describes how Rauschenberg tacks pictures and material on a flat surface as one would with a bulletin board, and how people tack maps or horseshoes on the wall. He describes the flat bed picture plane as a ‘receptor surface’ in which objects are scattered. Steinberg also discusses how the picture plane is an upright, vertical surface that over a huge amount of time has survived even the biggest changes of art style (Willem DeKooning, Rothko etc.), still confronting the human posture, head at the top, foot at the bottom.

In terms of comparison of these two pieces, both explore the idea of change within their field. For instance, from what was said in Serra’s lecture, it is clear that his work embodies the change in which contemporary sculpture had created. It became much more conceptual, well within the context of the sculpture’s location whilst still celebrating its materiality. Steinberg also mentions Duchamp and his paintings in which flat, vertical picture plane becomes horizontal, a whole new viewing experience after the tradition of upright vertical surface lasted so long.
Harrison, C. and Wood, P. (2001) Art in theory, 1900-1990. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 948-953, 1124-1127

I have always been interested in the History of Art as a subject, and studied it for A-Level. During this time I fell in love with writing long essays debating different theories, how art has changed according to politics of the time and so on. To be honest, I expected the same sort of thing from this module, instead I was pleasantly surprised to find a much more ‘contemporary’ course. Although I still thoroughly enjoy writing long essays I have found the ‘blog’ technique very freeing in comparison, in the sense that I don’t not feel confined to certain ways of writing. I have similarly learned to think more broadly when critiquing an artwork, instead of looking for a standardized set of features within a work, such as tonal values, scale etc, which I utilize throughout the course, I have learned to look at each work with a fresh outlook. That does not mean however that these ‘standardized’ features are irrelevant, instead they are just a platform from which this course has now taken me further. By this I mean that the blog has given me another opportunity to study and assess art and thus has taught me a new refreshing way of evaluating art.

Simple, bold imagery embellished with meaningful but somewhat unclear text.

 Recently my work has become increasingly text based, although I still find a strong importance with images. As well as text playing quite a large role in my work, I have been using simple bold, and often high contrast, imagery; I really enjoy creating a relationship between text and image, specifically complimenting simple images with short statements. I have found that using text gives the viewer an extra nudge towards the ‘theme’ of the piece, or equally does the complete opposite and draws the viewer away from the subject by undermining logic. I have been investigating this relationship a lot, and have been using group crits and reactions from peers to determine what, where and when certain aspects of this relationship are either significant or irrelevant.

Paul Delvaux, ‘Crucifixion’ – oil on wood- 1952

In the 1950s Delvaux painted a series that revised an old subject that was prolific during the Medieval and Renaissance eras, the Passion of Christ. He did, however, not want to recite the same imagery as paintings from earlier periods. He decided to paint all the figures as skeletons, in nearly all of the paintings. He uses the skeletons to represent the fragility of life, and employs them as a tool to shock the viewer into being reminded of life and its fleeting absence. In this way we could easily look at the painting as a Vanitas. This specific painting from the series shows three crucified figures above a number of fully armoured centurions. The middle figure is illuminated, strongly suggesting that this is Christ, could this represent significance is still present after death? Or is it simply for aesthetic reasons? This painting raises many questions, and takes time to properly understand. Usually depictions of the crucifixion of Christ are in a countryside landscape, as Christ was crucified on top of a hill, whereas here we see a strong contrast to this as it is set in a built up area. The strange architectural shapes create strong hard lines throughout the image, and give the painting a more ‘modern’ film. This could be Delvaux trying to transport the theme of the ‘Passion of Christ’ into a more contemporary era, carrying the message to the viewer that these old Vanitas values still apply.

I have always been a great admirer of David Shrigley’s drawings. To me, they represent a fast flowing style that comes straight from the mind, an image that isn’t thought through meticulously for days or even weeks on end. Although I find this important with some aspects of practice, I feel that artwork like Shrigley’s is needed within the art world to keep it ‘sane’. A large proportion of his drawings clearly have a deeper meaning, but they are depicted in a lighthearted manner. I have always enjoyed creating drawings similar to Shrigley’s, I find that fast mark making, combined with a small caption of text, therapeutic, more importantly for me, it is a very quick and easy way to visualize my thoughts and ideas. Shrigley’s text is often somewhat confusing, in the sense that it doesn’t explain the image accompanying it, give specific opinions or give any real narrative. Even though I find this manner of text intriguing, I wanted to do something different. I decided to start regurgitating sayings and clichés from my childhood. Many people would have heard similar things during their upbringing; they ranged from strict do and don’ts from adults or teachers, to certain equations and formulas that are forever stuck in my mind. In honesty, I started using this text as I couldn’t think of what else to write, but I soon realised that it accompanied the fast scribbly drawing style very well.