Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Art Deco Icons
The four-part art deco icons series, presented by David Heathcote on BBC4 made rivetting, yet easy-going and entertaining viewing. Def recommend!
Documentary observations
This is a list of quick observations about film-making which I shall continue to update with each art documentary I watch from now on. You'll find much more interesting posts than this one!
Anish Kapoor = Imagine
Must find out whether it is the BBC or a private film company that makes the Imagine series.
Occasional personal camera asides from the presenter ... the look on Alan Yentob's face sometimes was priceless.
Observing people interact with his sculptures and having short comments from visitors worked very well
When photographs are shown the picture is slowly zoomed in, perhaps moving in to one detail. The camera rarely stayed still over a photo.
Sometimes when an expert was talking, we would still be looking at a different shot before it switched to an image of the person talking.
Good mix of artist, viewers and art experts and an unintrusive presenter who brings the whole thing together.
Where is Modern Art Now?
Finally a black art history presenter! Loved the understated scene of a black art historian, interviewing a black artist about sculptures of the black male nude and the black gaze.
The programme was rich in scenery – from tatty Hackney galleries to whitewashed studios and a Hayward gallery private view.
Interviews with a range of artists -- from the well-known to emerging
Bustling events and chats over drinks at private views rather than the silent art gallery of say the usual Tim Marlow or Andrew Graham Dixon approach
Personal asides to the camera made by the presenter.
Unusual shots --angles from above, and below to give a sense of scale of the artwork
Seeing artists at work in their studios is always exciting. At one point Casely-Hayford helps an artist move her works
Art Deco Icons, BBC 4
David Heathcote, slightly scruffy but very personable presenter
Loved his informal, chatty style.
He talks about quite complex architectural issues in a very simple (but not patronising) style - you hardly notice that you are learning... and yet in fact you are taking a lot in.
Really focuses in on details of the architecture. The programme was as much or more about looking as listening to him. You never felt lectured at whilst looking... just gently guided.
His presentation reminds me of Carol Jacobi's teaching style
He gets involved... has a bath, makes cocktails, unpacks his case
The last episode, set on the Orient Express, took the opportunity to use the journey time to sit in the carriages summing up art deco
The journey gave the programme a clear shape
In the visit to the art deco house, the walk around the building gave his programme shape.
SCHOOL OF SAATCHI (BBC 2 9 PM)
Narrated by Hugh boneville
Mathew colling looking straight into the camera and then talking over archive footage
Personal candid commentary from Tracey Emin
Anish Kapoor = Imagine
Must find out whether it is the BBC or a private film company that makes the Imagine series.
Occasional personal camera asides from the presenter ... the look on Alan Yentob's face sometimes was priceless.
Observing people interact with his sculptures and having short comments from visitors worked very well
When photographs are shown the picture is slowly zoomed in, perhaps moving in to one detail. The camera rarely stayed still over a photo.
Sometimes when an expert was talking, we would still be looking at a different shot before it switched to an image of the person talking.
Good mix of artist, viewers and art experts and an unintrusive presenter who brings the whole thing together.
Where is Modern Art Now?
Finally a black art history presenter! Loved the understated scene of a black art historian, interviewing a black artist about sculptures of the black male nude and the black gaze.
The programme was rich in scenery – from tatty Hackney galleries to whitewashed studios and a Hayward gallery private view.
Interviews with a range of artists -- from the well-known to emerging
Bustling events and chats over drinks at private views rather than the silent art gallery of say the usual Tim Marlow or Andrew Graham Dixon approach
Personal asides to the camera made by the presenter.
Unusual shots --angles from above, and below to give a sense of scale of the artwork
Seeing artists at work in their studios is always exciting. At one point Casely-Hayford helps an artist move her works
Art Deco Icons, BBC 4
David Heathcote, slightly scruffy but very personable presenter
Loved his informal, chatty style.
He talks about quite complex architectural issues in a very simple (but not patronising) style - you hardly notice that you are learning... and yet in fact you are taking a lot in.
Really focuses in on details of the architecture. The programme was as much or more about looking as listening to him. You never felt lectured at whilst looking... just gently guided.
His presentation reminds me of Carol Jacobi's teaching style
He gets involved... has a bath, makes cocktails, unpacks his case
The last episode, set on the Orient Express, took the opportunity to use the journey time to sit in the carriages summing up art deco
The journey gave the programme a clear shape
In the visit to the art deco house, the walk around the building gave his programme shape.
SCHOOL OF SAATCHI (BBC 2 9 PM)
Narrated by Hugh boneville
Mathew colling looking straight into the camera and then talking over archive footage
Personal candid commentary from Tracey Emin
Modern Beauty series
BBC Two: Matt Collings – What is Beauty?, Saturday 14 November, 8.30pm
BBC Two: Sue Perkins – The Art On Your Wall, Monday 16 November, 9.00pm
BBC Four: Gus Casely-Hayford – Where Is Modern Art Now?, Wednesday 18 November, 9.00pm
BBC Two: Waldemar Januscszak – Ugly Beauty, Saturday 21 November, 8.45pm
BBC Two: School Of Saatchi, Tuesday 24 November, 9.00pm (4 x 60-minutes)
BBC Two: Roger Scruton – Why Beauty Matters, Saturday 28 November, 8.45pm
BBC Two: Sue Perkins – The Art On Your Wall, Monday 16 November, 9.00pm
BBC Four: Gus Casely-Hayford – Where Is Modern Art Now?, Wednesday 18 November, 9.00pm
BBC Two: Waldemar Januscszak – Ugly Beauty, Saturday 21 November, 8.45pm
BBC Two: School Of Saatchi, Tuesday 24 November, 9.00pm (4 x 60-minutes)
BBC Two: Roger Scruton – Why Beauty Matters, Saturday 28 November, 8.45pm
Which came first, the artist or the art?
Gus Casely-Hayford: Why are your pots art and not craft?
Grayson Perry: They are art because I am an artist and I exhibit them in a gallery .... isn't painting a craft?
It would be interesting to researhc artists perceptions of the differences between art and craft. The 'it is art because I am an artist’ answer though begs the question, what is an artist? I suppose Perry would answer an artist is someone who produces art. And round we go...
Grayson Perry: They are art because I am an artist and I exhibit them in a gallery .... isn't painting a craft?
It would be interesting to researhc artists perceptions of the differences between art and craft. The 'it is art because I am an artist’ answer though begs the question, what is an artist? I suppose Perry would answer an artist is someone who produces art. And round we go...
An end to ‘I could have made that’ art?
Lots of interesting ideas were bounced around in tonight’s Where is Modern Art Now, presented by Gus Casely-Hayford (former Arts Council exec). This hour long documentary explored the state of British art today, in the light of the recent collapse of the contemporary art market. He talked to a range of artists from Grayson Perry (surprisingly conservative, normal and intelligent) to Michael Landy (shy, surprisingly cute) to more low key artists such as the sculptor Tom Price, to find out what they are making, where and why.
For too long art has been in the shadows of the Sensation crowd. The YBAs opened up everything so that now anything goes, but in this world of infinite possibilities, so much choice can be stultying. Art of the last ten years has lacked tradition and focus. A trip to a rather uninspired exhibition at Goldsmith’s brings this home. The desire to shock is no longer shocking. It has just become formulaic and besides, arguably nothing much shocks us anymore anyway, or at least not when we are expecting it, as we do in the gallery. Art needs to be challenging and controversial but it is not entertainment, argued Casely-Hayford. I quite agree and yet despite what he said, I couldn't help getting that feeling that he was struggling to emerge from that 'shock' mindset that has dictated contemporary art for so long. Its a fine line between 'art that you can hang in your dining room'(and what's so wrong with that anyway?), sensational but shallow shock pieces and really thoughtful and challenging pieces. Grayson Perry is right: The most shocking thing you can be in art today is conservative.
Thank goodness things are changing. Casely-Hayford makes a compelling case for a new era that he believes to be dawning in contemporary art. We are so used to hearing about how the recession is leading us all to be more self-reflective, tighten up our purse strings, make do and mend and return to traditional values. (This Christmas, I bet you anything the magazine’s will be selling copy based upon telling us how to sit around the fireplace knitting stockings and playing Blind Man’s Bluff with the family with not an Xbox bought on credit in sight.) Anyway, it seems art is likewise becoming more reflective. Finally, it seems, we are moving away from that over confident, mass-produced, commodified art whose runaway prices are out of kilter with the more thoughtful art-world (the endless dot pictures produced by Damian Hirst’s little dwarfs in Damian warehouseland comes to mind) towards more challenging, thoughtful and thought-provoking pieces that are not produced to satisfy the market, but which are genuine and first and foremost reflect the ideas and feelings of the artists. As Casely-Hayford puts it, 'the market should come to the artist and not the other way around'.
This new kind of modern art takes time to produce. Though just as likely to be produced in a few strokes and splatters as anything Jackson Pollock or the YBAs made, these works will typically be the distillation of years of deep thought and research, as well as great concentration and skill. Casely-Hayford sees the end of the age of the bright young things, fresh out of college, achieving great success. It is the chance for the slow-burners to come to the boil, as their artworks and ideas reach a new maturity. One such slow-burner is the sculptor Tom Price, whose portrait heads and figurines of black men as individuals rather than racial types, are uncomfortable reminders of our colonial history of anthropology. These are not radically shocking, but instead thought-provoking, informed and challenging pieces.
A new kind of art is going to require a new kind of viewer. These works will not satisfy the ‘pop in, pop out’ approach to art viewing that Tate Modern’s basic themed hangs promote. Rather, they take time to look at and understand. Grayson Perry feels that this new kind of art is going to require a new type of audience, or rather a return to an older more connoisseural viewer whom appreciates that learning to look at and understand art is like learning a language, a long slow process that takes time to develop. ‘To be soaked in art’, he says, ‘takes a long time.’ His argument that we undervalue the visual and think that looking is easypeasy and second nature struck me as fascinating. Although visual literacy is a skill I am still learning a decade on from first beginning my studies in art history, the idea that we undervalue sight is so different from my own arguments about the celebration of ocularcentricism and the neglect of the sense of smell.
Finally, this new dawn in modern art is to see a new kind of artist. Finally, it seems that the new generation will not be the attention seekers of the YBAs, but a rather more modest crowd. And about time too. Celebrity culture has never felt cheaper. Has Jordan brought down the cult of celebrity? Can this really be the end of the Tracey Emin-ses?
For too long art has been in the shadows of the Sensation crowd. The YBAs opened up everything so that now anything goes, but in this world of infinite possibilities, so much choice can be stultying. Art of the last ten years has lacked tradition and focus. A trip to a rather uninspired exhibition at Goldsmith’s brings this home. The desire to shock is no longer shocking. It has just become formulaic and besides, arguably nothing much shocks us anymore anyway, or at least not when we are expecting it, as we do in the gallery. Art needs to be challenging and controversial but it is not entertainment, argued Casely-Hayford. I quite agree and yet despite what he said, I couldn't help getting that feeling that he was struggling to emerge from that 'shock' mindset that has dictated contemporary art for so long. Its a fine line between 'art that you can hang in your dining room'(and what's so wrong with that anyway?), sensational but shallow shock pieces and really thoughtful and challenging pieces. Grayson Perry is right: The most shocking thing you can be in art today is conservative.
Thank goodness things are changing. Casely-Hayford makes a compelling case for a new era that he believes to be dawning in contemporary art. We are so used to hearing about how the recession is leading us all to be more self-reflective, tighten up our purse strings, make do and mend and return to traditional values. (This Christmas, I bet you anything the magazine’s will be selling copy based upon telling us how to sit around the fireplace knitting stockings and playing Blind Man’s Bluff with the family with not an Xbox bought on credit in sight.) Anyway, it seems art is likewise becoming more reflective. Finally, it seems, we are moving away from that over confident, mass-produced, commodified art whose runaway prices are out of kilter with the more thoughtful art-world (the endless dot pictures produced by Damian Hirst’s little dwarfs in Damian warehouseland comes to mind) towards more challenging, thoughtful and thought-provoking pieces that are not produced to satisfy the market, but which are genuine and first and foremost reflect the ideas and feelings of the artists. As Casely-Hayford puts it, 'the market should come to the artist and not the other way around'.
This new kind of modern art takes time to produce. Though just as likely to be produced in a few strokes and splatters as anything Jackson Pollock or the YBAs made, these works will typically be the distillation of years of deep thought and research, as well as great concentration and skill. Casely-Hayford sees the end of the age of the bright young things, fresh out of college, achieving great success. It is the chance for the slow-burners to come to the boil, as their artworks and ideas reach a new maturity. One such slow-burner is the sculptor Tom Price, whose portrait heads and figurines of black men as individuals rather than racial types, are uncomfortable reminders of our colonial history of anthropology. These are not radically shocking, but instead thought-provoking, informed and challenging pieces.
A new kind of art is going to require a new kind of viewer. These works will not satisfy the ‘pop in, pop out’ approach to art viewing that Tate Modern’s basic themed hangs promote. Rather, they take time to look at and understand. Grayson Perry feels that this new kind of art is going to require a new type of audience, or rather a return to an older more connoisseural viewer whom appreciates that learning to look at and understand art is like learning a language, a long slow process that takes time to develop. ‘To be soaked in art’, he says, ‘takes a long time.’ His argument that we undervalue the visual and think that looking is easypeasy and second nature struck me as fascinating. Although visual literacy is a skill I am still learning a decade on from first beginning my studies in art history, the idea that we undervalue sight is so different from my own arguments about the celebration of ocularcentricism and the neglect of the sense of smell.
Finally, this new dawn in modern art is to see a new kind of artist. Finally, it seems that the new generation will not be the attention seekers of the YBAs, but a rather more modest crowd. And about time too. Celebrity culture has never felt cheaper. Has Jordan brought down the cult of celebrity? Can this really be the end of the Tracey Emin-ses?
Anish Kapoor
Last night I watched the Anish Kapoor documentary, which was part of BBC1's Imagine series, in which Alan Yentob followed the artist for the 12 months preceding the opening of his solo show at the Royal Academy exhibition. I find myself captivated by his works, with their shiny curves and saturated colours. I especially love the giant curved mirrors polished to invisibiity. I love the idea that during the day visitors mill around, cooing at their reflections and that of the green grass and the blue sky and at night it stands there, eery and alone, with just a stray sheep passing before it, staring at its reflection in the night sky.
I loved the way in which many of his art works seem to collapse form, colour and material, a big pile of cobalt blue pigment here, blood red drips of wax there. Kapoor is an artist who, more than anything is in touch with his materials: he allows rusty steel to do what it does best, rust. The interiority of many of his works is fascinating. As Yentob observed, Barbara Hepworth and Henry Moore had holes in their pieces but these make you think about space, and seem to be almost 4D - with an experimential element of time as you ponder it, walk around it and become consumed by it.
We often hear about Damien Hirst's giant warehouse operations, but this was a rare insight into another modern day artist's workshop. We saw his working practices and his relationship with his technicians, who at times have to almost mindread him: No mean feat considering he says he doesn't really know how his work will turn out until it is finished, and, who claims not to think too much or to have too much to say. Like with Bacon, who always said his works were just down to pure chance (utter bollock when you consider that he sketched frantically, kept cuttings of pictures and continually reproduced and developed motifs in his art), Kapoor is clearly very much in control of every stage of the development of his works, even if he is open to change and accidents and stages opportunities for randomness. It was also interesting to see how he deals with the practicalities of working on such a grand scale.
I've not yet been to the Royal Academy exhibition but now I'm inspired to go. I loved the way in which he has sullied the pure white classical space -- splattering red wax over door lintices and driving a runaway train train of blood-red molten wax through an entire room. Kapoor is the first living artist to have his own major exhibition at the gallery. Let's hope this is the start of an exciting new trend.
I loved the way in which many of his art works seem to collapse form, colour and material, a big pile of cobalt blue pigment here, blood red drips of wax there. Kapoor is an artist who, more than anything is in touch with his materials: he allows rusty steel to do what it does best, rust. The interiority of many of his works is fascinating. As Yentob observed, Barbara Hepworth and Henry Moore had holes in their pieces but these make you think about space, and seem to be almost 4D - with an experimential element of time as you ponder it, walk around it and become consumed by it.
We often hear about Damien Hirst's giant warehouse operations, but this was a rare insight into another modern day artist's workshop. We saw his working practices and his relationship with his technicians, who at times have to almost mindread him: No mean feat considering he says he doesn't really know how his work will turn out until it is finished, and, who claims not to think too much or to have too much to say. Like with Bacon, who always said his works were just down to pure chance (utter bollock when you consider that he sketched frantically, kept cuttings of pictures and continually reproduced and developed motifs in his art), Kapoor is clearly very much in control of every stage of the development of his works, even if he is open to change and accidents and stages opportunities for randomness. It was also interesting to see how he deals with the practicalities of working on such a grand scale.
I've not yet been to the Royal Academy exhibition but now I'm inspired to go. I loved the way in which he has sullied the pure white classical space -- splattering red wax over door lintices and driving a runaway train train of blood-red molten wax through an entire room. Kapoor is the first living artist to have his own major exhibition at the gallery. Let's hope this is the start of an exciting new trend.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
