LYNN HERSHMAN LEESON
This article on Leeson's work I think brings to light an old idea that inventors invent new things because they see a need and try to find a way to fill that need. Leeson spent the better part of her life manipulating images because she obviously found it more meaningful than basic photography, and at the time there existed no way to manipulate images on a computer. Her early works had a sense of realness to them, in that the original images were physically touched and rendered by her own hands. There is a quality of inventiveness to her work in the beginning, especially with her use of paint. Each mixed media work started very basically with a photograph but the rest was made completely by her own hands as if she were a painter instead of a photographer. One example is the picture of Roberta below:
This can hardly be called photography, even though it does start off with a photo in the beginning. This is very similar to what we do in the digital age today...we start with a photo and then manipulate it into a piece of artwork that can hardly be called photography any longer. This prompts Glenn Kurtz to say, "Soon no one will be a photographer." Kurtz seems to feel a loss when he describes Leeson's work, because she moves into the digital works and loses her individuality as a mixed media artist. But I think that Kurtz is too married to Leeson's earlier works and I find this irritating as an artist. He may have liked her earlier works, but every artist has the right to change styles without saying they are less of an artist for doing so. Leeson at heart was always a mixed media artist, and now that the technology exists, her true self as a creator can be realized. I would think that this would be a freeing thing for Leeson and should make Kurtz excited at what she will come up with next. Granted, her cyborg photos were a little lacking in comparison to her original works:
but I find them interesting in that she is experimenting with computer art in ways that are completely new to her, and still managing to work within the new ideas and contexts. As for her strict photographic manipulations in the "Phantom Limb" series, I actually really liked her photography, even more than her original creations. Her originals seem chaotic and almost abstract, while these photos are straight to the point. I think the loss that Kurtz sees is their commercial value because they are all print and the themes are so obvious:
which is a dominant theme in commerical photography. But instead of criticizing her like Kurtz, I see her growing as an artist and I find her new avenues adventuresome and brave for someone so new to the technology. In her recent works, she is planning on doing a piece on Second Life:
In all, I think Kurtz is seeing a loss in Leeson's work because she has new technology available. When things are harder, one finds a way of doing what you need to do, even if the outcome is not what you see in your mind. It is only after the technology comes available that you are finally able to do what you've always wanted to do. This I believe is the case with Leeson, and her works will continue to evolve as she learns new technologies and factors them into her work. I find her adaptable and changing and this to me means artistic freedom and should not be criticized. Eventually I think we will find that Leeson will go back to a more physical relationship with her works, only because she will get bored of the new technology and will want to change it herself again.
is not talking about an "alter ego"; she's talking about the flesh, the Satanic influence that all of us have inside of ourselves when we are not saved by Jesus Christ. By allowing herself to embrace this flesh side of her soul, she is injuring herself more and more and leading herself further and further into that flesh, or as she puts it, her "alter ego." The more she encourages this behavior, the more schizo she'll become and the more fearful and depressed she will be.
This can hardly be called photography, even though it does start off with a photo in the beginning. This is very similar to what we do in the digital age today...we start with a photo and then manipulate it into a piece of artwork that can hardly be called photography any longer. This prompts Glenn Kurtz to say, "Soon no one will be a photographer." Kurtz seems to feel a loss when he describes Leeson's work, because she moves into the digital works and loses her individuality as a mixed media artist. But I think that Kurtz is too married to Leeson's earlier works and I find this irritating as an artist. He may have liked her earlier works, but every artist has the right to change styles without saying they are less of an artist for doing so. Leeson at heart was always a mixed media artist, and now that the technology exists, her true self as a creator can be realized. I would think that this would be a freeing thing for Leeson and should make Kurtz excited at what she will come up with next. Granted, her cyborg photos were a little lacking in comparison to her original works:
but I find them interesting in that she is experimenting with computer art in ways that are completely new to her, and still managing to work within the new ideas and contexts. As for her strict photographic manipulations in the "Phantom Limb" series, I actually really liked her photography, even more than her original creations. Her originals seem chaotic and almost abstract, while these photos are straight to the point. I think the loss that Kurtz sees is their commercial value because they are all print and the themes are so obvious:
which is a dominant theme in commerical photography. But instead of criticizing her like Kurtz, I see her growing as an artist and I find her new avenues adventuresome and brave for someone so new to the technology. In her recent works, she is planning on doing a piece on Second Life:
In all, I think Kurtz is seeing a loss in Leeson's work because she has new technology available. When things are harder, one finds a way of doing what you need to do, even if the outcome is not what you see in your mind. It is only after the technology comes available that you are finally able to do what you've always wanted to do. This I believe is the case with Leeson, and her works will continue to evolve as she learns new technologies and factors them into her work. I find her adaptable and changing and this to me means artistic freedom and should not be criticized. Eventually I think we will find that Leeson will go back to a more physical relationship with her works, only because she will get bored of the new technology and will want to change it herself again.WORKS CITED
http://www.lynnhershman.com/
ROBERTA BREITMORE
"ROBERTA represented part of me as surely as we all have within us an underside; a dark, shadowy anaemous cadaever that is the gnawing decay of our bodies, the sustaining growth of death that we try with pathetic illusion to camouflage. To me, she was my own flipped effigy; my physical reverse, my psychological fears."
I found this article disturbing, because it shows once again that "art" has a fine line inherently whithin it which many refuse to acknowledge. The term "art" has become so broad that just about anything one does can be seen as "art", especially when we are speaking of performance. In many pieces I've seen in the past, especially in video, filmmakers will reveal a side of themselves that is dark and sadistic or raunchy, and display this openly for the camera. In a sense, the term "art" gives them an avenue, an excuse if you will, to act out on desires and to test boundaries that no normal person should or would do. As long as there is a concept behind the work, the grotesque is allowed to happen. It's gotten so ridiculous that I wouldn't be surprised if some day somebody decided killing was art, and they openly display murder in a gallery or on film. Technically this is against the law, but what if we were to go a little more grey area and I were to say, as an artist, that I thought abortion was a type of art? What if I were to take a small camera, since the technology exists, and insert the camera into the womb to record the death of an innocent child? Now what if I were to display this in a gallery as an installation piece that reacts to movement of the gellery goers (since that technology also exists now) and each time a person walks by, the baby gets killed? Am I an artist, or a sadist? Am I both? Am I to be considered an artist at all?
"ROBERTA represented part of me as surely as we all have within us an underside; a dark, shadowy anaemous cadaever that is the gnawing decay of our bodies, the sustaining growth of death that we try with pathetic illusion to camouflage. To me, she was my own flipped effigy; my physical reverse, my psychological fears."http://www.lynnhershman.com/
ROBERTA BREITMORE
"ROBERTA represented part of me as surely as we all have within us an underside; a dark, shadowy anaemous cadaever that is the gnawing decay of our bodies, the sustaining growth of death that we try with pathetic illusion to camouflage. To me, she was my own flipped effigy; my physical reverse, my psychological fears."
I found this article disturbing, because it shows once again that "art" has a fine line inherently whithin it which many refuse to acknowledge. The term "art" has become so broad that just about anything one does can be seen as "art", especially when we are speaking of performance. In many pieces I've seen in the past, especially in video, filmmakers will reveal a side of themselves that is dark and sadistic or raunchy, and display this openly for the camera. In a sense, the term "art" gives them an avenue, an excuse if you will, to act out on desires and to test boundaries that no normal person should or would do. As long as there is a concept behind the work, the grotesque is allowed to happen. It's gotten so ridiculous that I wouldn't be surprised if some day somebody decided killing was art, and they openly display murder in a gallery or on film. Technically this is against the law, but what if we were to go a little more grey area and I were to say, as an artist, that I thought abortion was a type of art? What if I were to take a small camera, since the technology exists, and insert the camera into the womb to record the death of an innocent child? Now what if I were to display this in a gallery as an installation piece that reacts to movement of the gellery goers (since that technology also exists now) and each time a person walks by, the baby gets killed? Am I an artist, or a sadist? Am I both? Am I to be considered an artist at all?
"For years my daughter denied she was related to me. People assumed I was schizophenic."
This is a very disturbing quote by the artist, because it shows manipulation of the mind. The mind is very inflencial on the spirit, and we must guard what we do with it or it can affect us forever. People assumed she was schizophrenic? I'd say she was! Or if she wasn't, she was adjusting her mind into the state which eventually she might be clinically considered to be schizophrenic! She was taking her "art" into the realm of mind manipulation, like her brain was the canvas, and suddenly "art" has crossed the line and become destructive. Her ealier quote:
is not talking about an "alter ego"; she's talking about the flesh, the Satanic influence that all of us have inside of ourselves when we are not saved by Jesus Christ. By allowing herself to embrace this flesh side of her soul, she is injuring herself more and more and leading herself further and further into that flesh, or as she puts it, her "alter ego." The more she encourages this behavior, the more schizo she'll become and the more fearful and depressed she will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment