On our class field trip, we visited several sculptures on the University of Oregon campus, including Wind Fence by Ned Kahn behind the Lillis Business Complex and Flying Ducks by Tom Hardy outside of Lawrence Hall. An objective was to compare the experience of simply viewing pictures of the sculptures on a computer, versus walking around and seeing the sculptures in person. After this field trip, I realized that the difference between the two dimensions of viewing is space. Space allows interaction in the form of walking (sometimes touching) to allow the experience of so many new aspects that are not obtainable through an image, including aspects such as point of view, weather, environment/context, and shadows. This in-person experience of space gives new life to the sculpture and presents to the viewer so many more things to appreciate (or critique) about the sculpture.
Richard Serra, minimalist sculptor, argues that there is actually no such thing as just looking; in fact, the viewer is aggressively hunting for meaning and certain qualities in an art piece. Not only this, but the art piece looks back at the viewer. I agree that no matter what, the viewer is hunting for meaning in a painting, even if it is just subconsciously. A psychology teacher once told me that it is impossible for any normally functioning person to think of absolutely nothing at any waking time, which makes me believe that as long as someone is visually processing information, they are also making connections from the art to emotions and past experiences. Especially in the case where the art piece is presented in a setting clearly meant to imply the work is exactly that (an art piece), such as in a gallery, the viewer already feels as if they should be looking for meaning.
Richard Serra’s opinion on the viewer’s aggressive hunt for meaning and the concept of the object looking back at the viewer is reflective of his tendency to exude raw aggression and physicality in his art, as compared to deep psychological reflection. He does this through utilizing giant, cold slabs of metal to create his minimalist sculptures. Something in his art technique that I can relate to and really appreciate is the way he very precisely places the slabs of metal while thinking of how it will affect the viewer’s perception. But to be completely honest, it is very hard for me to appreciate his art aesthetically because no matter how well thought-out his placement, material choice, et cetera are (which are fun to discuss), in the end… they are just a few giant slabs of metal. To be fair, I haven’t seen Serra’s sculptures in person to experience the space and context surrounding the sculptures, so who knows; maybe I’d be surprisingly impressed. Until then, I have to say I much prefer Louise Bourgeois’ sculptures, which offer more elements and shapes to admire (I just realized how incredibly awkward my photo placement under this sentence is).
A part of what makes Louise Bourgeois’ art more dynamic, delicate and detailed is the fact that she created the pieces based on her feelings based on her psychological childhood trauma (feelings of loneliness and betrayal) of finding out her governess was her father’s mistress. I wonder if her attention to her own feelings is also what makes her sensitive to the idea of making art pieces that work with its surroundings’ occupants. Bourgeois on her art piece A Touch of Jane Addams which was placed next to an office building: “Instead of trying to rival the building, I have made a structure which is so discreet and so sensitive that my structure doesn’t have a bone of contention with the building.” Compare this to Serra’s disregard to the art piece’s surrounding occupants when his sculpture Tiled Arc, placed in front of an office building, got many complaints from the building occupants that it was obstructing view and he retorted that art is not for the public.
Louise Bourgeois and Richard Serra clearly have different styles, approaches, and opinions on art, which brings to mind the concept of each being defined by opposites. Would the extreme of Serra’s cold minimalism even exist without the extreme of Bourgeois’ emotion-filled sculptures? I believe so. While the existence of an idea’s extreme opposite may magnify the idea, it still exists as exactly what it is. In a less vague example: if most art were of the same style as minimalism, its label may not be called ‘minimalism’ because it would be the norm, not an extreme such as ‘minimal’; the content of the art still remains the same. The aspect of art that changes is how we perceive it, not the content itself.
A recurring theme we’ve touched upon seems to be how our perception affects art; in fact, art holds no meaning without our perception. Take a new twist on your perception and you’ll find that Bourgeois and Serra may not be so opposite in some respect, such as in the area of deciding whether their art is abstraction or representational. Traditionally, any art based on an idea rather than physical object is an abstraction, while art based on an object can be representational or abstraction (keyword: based on). At first glance, it seems clear that Serra’s work is abstraction (based on idea) and Bourgeois’ work is representational of real objects. While an idea is abstract, in the sense that it is simply intangible, that is exactly what makes me wonder if Serra’s work is in fact abstract – is it not possible to represent an idea unique to the artist, something only he knows, very accurately? Would Serra not be the most fit to represent his own idea in the most accurate tangible form possible, through creative means? How is it so much different from a representational art piece, such as the Flying Ducks sculpture outside of UO Lawrence Hall? Every representational art piece, including Flying Ducks, will be interpreted differently. What the viewer gets from them will always sway away from the intended message due to completely subjective situational contexts surrounding the piece and the viewer, just as Serra’s idea may not be accurately understood by the audience; that happens in all art.
While Serra describes his Torqued Eclipses art piece as having “nothing to do with feelings,” he describes how he angles the metal plates in great precision in order to convey a certain feeling to the viewer, turning his art piece into a direct representation of the concept behind his art. I, as a viewer, can analyze those small details and arrive at a conclusion as to what the artist intended to make me feel. Though ideas themselves are abstract (intangible), I can understand his idea through his tangible representation of it. Let’s not forget that at the core of every representational artwork is an idea; there is always an idea or feeling expressed through it. The only essential difference between representational art and Serra's abstract art is that Serra's abstract art is based on an idea that doesn't have an established symbol to represent it, due to the idea’s uniqueness and complexity.
Works Cited
Art 101 Lecture Series (Winter 2011): Amanda Wojick
Art21: Louise Bourgeois
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/bourgeois/index.html]
Art21: Richard Serra
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/serra/index.html#]
Right click on images for sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment