As I completed my studio practice over the summer, I realized that the pieces I was producing were strongly tied to the landscape and the environments that I had been to in the last couple of months. However, the formal aspects of the art I have produced thus far is not as strongly tied to its conceptualization as it should be. As such, my current goal is to work on tying concept and content closer together.
That being said, readings such as Michael Clapper's "Thomas Kinkade's Romantic Landscape" exemplify the complexities that can be found even in traditional landscape paintings. Kinkade paints scenes that are meant to be idyllic, views that offer an escape from the concerns and problems of the real world. Clapper comments on the way in which Kinkade's admirers see the world differently than someone who may prefer Norman Rockwell's humorous approach to real-world situations; some individuals prefer to see the world how it could be, others favor a more realistic interpretation. This is pertinent to what I wish to explore because it shows how people's thought processes influence their opinion of and interaction with art.
You are defining your primary, conceptual framework as “language's impact on perception, thought, and action,” and have made a compelling case for this in your Junior Portfolio Review and Summer Research presentations, where you expanded on this to connect more specifically with different dialects of spoken/written language and seemed to be considering language as a particular form of communication. I encourage you to keep defining and re-defining what precisely it is about the nuances of language that is/will be influencing what you are visually producing/presenting.
ReplyDeleteYou note that the works you made over the summer were “connecting with landscape and the environments that I had been to in the last couple of months.” These were specific environments that (I believe) were visually and culturally distinct from one another, but with commonalities, as well. Were you just sketching and photographing these spaces/places because you were there, as a tourist/outsider, or were there particular aspects that influenced you “perception, though, and action” – and, if so, what role did language play in this? Was there written language in the form of signage for instance, or spoken language heard by yourself while you were perceiving the scene/location, and/or were you acutely and/or subsequently aware of the language of landscape as a pictorial tradition read differently depending on the perceiver/situation? This last aspect is what you seem to allude to a bit with your reference to the traditional (yet distinct) styles of Kincaid and Rockwell, but you’re not digging into any potential complexity here by simply suggesting, “it shows how people's thought processes influence their opinion of and interaction with art.” This is basically a given - the classic, we all see things differently so everyone’s response is valid – I know you aren’t suggesting that, and it’s the potential problem with such a simplification that perhaps you are interested in?
So, I would look back over some of the visuals you’ve produced thus far, and spend time doing some writing about the pieces that seem to spark something within you that connects to the crux of your content, and do your best to articulate how it’s doing that. For instance, there are a number of things I myself took note of when viewing the single piece you posted with this blog entry – and actually, a lot of it has to do with the platform and how I’m seeing it, scrolling down a screen. When reading your entry, I only saw the top portion of the image – the dark trees and sky – and was immediately reminded of a certain subset of romantic landscape images stored within my brain. Scrolling down to see the entire image I appreciate its composition, how the dark trees encircle the lightly colored city scene – and there’s something kind of interesting about how the remaining buildings in the background are rendered, as these sort of anonymous boxes – and this emphasizes the flatness of the representation for me in a compelling manner (as opposed to an atmospheric haze, for instance). I recall interesting things happening in terms of framing/flatness in some of your other studies as well. I don’t particularly know what this has to do with language (for me) at this time, but these are things I’m noticing.
Looking forward to seeing more new work soon!