Kevin Van Aelst recieved a B.A. in Psychology from Cornell University in 2002 and an M.F.A. from the University of Hartford in 2005. His work calls attention to the little things, depicting them in unusual ways to bring their importance to the forefront. Aelst's work references science and identity, as well as art history and theory.
" how could this mechanical and mindless process be made to produce pictures meaningful in human terms,produce pictures meaningful in human terms,produce pictures meaningful in human terms, produce pictures meaningfulmeaningful meaningful meaningful in human terms—pictures with clarity and coherence and a point of view? It was soon demonstrated that an answer would not be found by those who loved too much the old forms, for in large part the photographer was bereft of the old artistic traditions"
"Photography had become easy. In 1893 an English writer complained that the new situation had "created an army of photographers who run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? …They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focused, the shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases…"
"But he learned also that the factuality of his pictures, no matter how convincing and unarguable, was a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality was filtered out in the static little black and white image, and some of it was exhibited with an unnatural clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture were not the same thing, although they would afterwards seem so. It was the photographer's problem to see not simply the reality before him but the still invisible picture, and to make his choices in terms of the latter."
" Since the photographer's picture was not conceived but selected, his subject was never truly discrete, never wholly self-contained. The edges of his film demarcated what he thought most important, but the subject he had shot was something else; it had extended in four directions. If the photographer's frame surrounded two figures, isolating them from the crowd in which they stood, it created a relationship between those two figures that had not existed before."
"There is in fact no such thing as an instantaneous photograph. All photographs are time exposures of shorter or longer duration, and each describes a discrete parcel of time. This time is always the present. Uniquely in the history of pictures, a photograph describes only that period of time in which it was made. Photography alludes to the past and the future only in so far as they exist in the present, the past through its surviving relics, the future through prophecy visible in the present. "
The Photographer's Eye by John Szarkowski
How does one produce something meaningful. How do you make it matter? How do you show truth in one plane from 6 directions? That's the on;y thing Szarkowski seems to have overlooked, it is not four sides but SIX. I found this article amazing, as parts of it seem so applicable right NOW. It is incredible to think of artists being baffled by the immediacy of the photograph. The idea that in 1966 the world felt over saturated with images. He died 3 years ago, but I wonder what he thought of flickr and the changing landscape of photography in the last 15 years.
Owen Silverwood is a creative and still life photographer from London. Jenny recommended I take a look at his work. I am really interested in the manner he plays with shape and light.
I always enjoy the lectures in small crit rooms over on Broad Street, they just feel so much more intimate and relaxed. This one was no exception, what a funny lady Wendy Maruyama is. She is a third generation Japanese American and makes furniture and wood work. She was very silly and had the room bouncing with laughter at her ornate tampon boxes, and very sultry wood block prints she showed as research. Again, it was nice to see work in a progressive format, as she started with some of her pieces from the 70's, very organic and loose. It was interesting to see the obvious affiliations and styles of each decade through the 80's, 90's and then the even more influential styles of each place she visited in residencies. Her work would evolve completely after spending time in France, England, China, and Japan. She seemed to soak up every bit of culture and history each time she went somewhere and it would then seep into her work. It seemed as if going to England really changed her work the most though, she began to emulate the craftsmanship of the arts and crafts style. However, her trip to Tasmania inspired her to make a piece about the extinction of the Tasmanian Tiger, you really should go to her site where you can see the video I pulled a still from. It is too sad. Sadder? The last Tasmanian Tiger died due to negligence, the zoo keeper forgot to bring him back inside for the night and he froze to death.
When Hank Willis Thomas talked about making a list of 100 ideas he would like to do I thought it was a great idea. I tried to make one of my own, but got really stuck around 70. Paul suggested I make a list of 100 things the string can represent, in order to try and figure out what it is supposed to be, comment on.
1. Space
2. Time
3. Light, trace shapes of light
4. Shadow " "
5. Dimension
6. Walls
7. Bars
8. Gateways
9. Vortexes
10. Black Holes
11. Cages
12. Hallways
13. Prisms
14. Geometry
15. Pyramids
16. Staircases
17. Hallucinations
18. Trees
19. Legs
20. Cords
21. Wind movement
22. Structures
23. Door ways
24. Windows
25. Blue prints
26. Road ways
27. Reflections
28. Vibrations
29. Sound
30. Speech bubbles
31. Wind socks
32. Growths
33. Voids
34. Holes
35. Directions
36. Frames
37. Containers
38. Blankets
39. Snakes
40. Villains
41. Cutting lines
42. Webs
43. Nets
44. String
45. Divisions
46. Barriers
47. Receding
48. Perspective
49. Armatures
50. Refractions
51. Graphs
52. Horizon lines
53. Terrain
54. Surface
55. Power Lines
56. Plants
57. Furniture
58. Smoke
59. Grids
60. Windows
61. Illuminated space
62. Boundaries
63. Planes (not the flying kind)
64. View points
65. scaffolding
66. ladders
67. spot lights
68. roots
69. waterfalls
70. spokes
71. trajectories
72. echos
73. arches
74. plane paths
75. latitude
76. maps
77. borders
78. road systems
79. veins
80. organ systems
81. viruses
82. depth, appear as if under water, flooded
83. eaves, holding up existing structures
84. outlines
85. contour lines
86. texture, wood grain, wallpaper
87. room dividers...
88. silhouettes
89.compass, directions
90. rivers
91. tunnels ala road runner coyote
92. communication
93. star trails
94. string theory
95. connections
96. timeline
97. storyline
98. progression
99. balance
100. tension
Some of these end up as what the string can literally be a representation of, what it can take the form of, create the illusion of and some are ideas of what the string means.. what it represents, what it can be a symbol for.
Hank Willis Thomas totally blew away my expectations. When I viewed his work prior to the lecture I heard a completely different voice than the one I listened to today. I can only imagine what a lecture he is prepared for might have sounded like since he prefaced with "I'm a little nervous because I don't know what I'm going to talk about." I can't possibly say with enough enthusiasm how thrilled I was when he showed his work from the beginning. The real beginning. Sometimes it is so discouraging when these amazing artists come and leap into the work that was shown at the Whitney, or begin by discussing their new series hanging in the National Portrait Gallery. To see his evolution as a photographer, from images that were strong in composition and tone but perhaps lacking conceptually and forwards to rooted ideas that result in even stronger work was really encouraging. I agreed with his ideas about the anti- Bresson, Indecisive Moment, being so compelling sometimes, and that digital provides us with so many possibilities but the concept of "in the field" editing really emphasizes the impermanence of an image.
His anti- ads were all incredible, well thought out and beautiful, but I was most drawn to his work with the frames. I've had a lot of similar ideas about the concept of framing, and the idea that something being framed insinuates it holds more worth. Big, gilded, museum frames provide this justification of prominence and importance about art that when paired with the gallery setting could make shit art. I mean that literally. Contextualization is so important with art, so I found his noted reactions to his kiosk displays of thesis work very telling. Hank Willis Thomas reasserted ideas of appropriation to me, a seemingly recurring facet to contemporary works, and again, was an example of not getting permission!
The Truth is I am You
Cause Collective
Installation of Diebond speech balloons,
maps, placards, and Lenticular prints
University of California at San Francisco
2008
Paul Pfeiffer's lecture was intriguing, first off, I find it lovely that he was brought to VCU by the Sculpture (and Extended Media) Department, but none of his works can be viewed in the round, and I never fully understood why he is not considered a video artist. His work seems based in appropriation, but he emphasized the origin of the image/ video is not important, and that these larger than life characters are not necessarily supposed to represent themselves. This is supported by the effort he goes to to remove soccer balls, jersey numbers, etc. but these images are so iconic, we don't even need these visual clues to immediately recognize them all. Perhaps this is a very American sensibility, and I would be intrigued to know how is work is perceived throughout the world. Some subjects carry their fame worldwide, especially Michael Jackson and Soccer, or futbol. However, I've never seen Risky Business, and therefore, I thought I was watching a girl have a temper tantrum. This video was perceived rather differently to me than it was to Courtney who scoffed when Paul said some people did not recognize it as being from the movie.
I really enjoyed what Paul had to say about his mini formatting though. First, he shows it in a film format, 4x5, and then he spoke about his choice for his films to have no inherent beginning or end, that they almost function as a still image, something he does in his diorama of the Red Room. This idea is emphasized again in his Empire piece, the viewer may leave at any time during the video, but what will they miss? What will they not see? I found this concept to be rooted in almost all of the pieces he showed us, that we will inevitably not catch everything. He really makes it impossible for us to do so. How important is it that we can't? I was inspired by his creative use of medium, stretching something from how we are told it is to be used, and forcing it to act as something else. I also am always amazed that nobody gets permission to appropriate things or get model releases.
