Robert Irwin

I was really impressed with the way that Irwin views his pieces and how he feels about them. I thought it was very interesting when he decided to paint something that doesn't stop at the edge, and also how he doesn't see himself as a minimalist but he is more focused on a reduction that is a break from the past. He explains it very well that he doesn't see art as things and he doesn't see it as not things but it's really all about the concept of the piece itself. It is also interesting that he is said that he is never really sure how is work will occupy the space, and how he hopes that the large sections of color are going to take on the space, and not just be an element or an object. I was also intrigued that when he talks about whether an artist can create a work using the phenomena of nature to create something that artistically beautiful. This video very interesting in its many ways of explaining how Irwin's pieces are manipulating peoples perception of the world around them.

-Peter M.

Robert Irwin

Robert Irwin seemed very optimistic about his work and life in general. I found Irwin's simplistic concepts very interesting. His work using the reflective plastic sheets and his project using the lights were very simple yet intriguing.  Irwin works with a group of people who all have different skills, some that others may not have. This relates to my project so well. I don’t think that there is one skill that Leeandria and I share, but our skills together help to complete the project.

Robert Irwin

Even though I wasn't present last friday, I googled several of Irwin's works and Pace Wildenstein is one of my favorite. I like it because of the red lights on the wall, it reminded me of candy. I could relate this to the project that my group is working on. One thing that they both relate is the space, how the space is used. In our project we used the projector while he uses lights to be the main attraction of his project. His work is very simple.

Hanslee Garcia

ROBERT IRWIN

I really enjoyed watching Robert Irwin develop and create his ideas. On first glance I really didn't like his work, but after seeing the process he goes through to produce his pieces I began to appreciate his creations. He has very simplistic project ideas that are so big they engulf the viewer. He likes to play with perception and uses that as his muse. I really liked his moving magnify glass that scrolled along the windows of the gallery. That piece really clarified his idea of having a different perception on the world. He liked to use repetition and bright colors. His use of repetition and intense color on a large scale has really made his pieces successful. I especially like the red yellow and blue piece as well as the wall of triangle florescent lights. His work reflects my final project because we are using space as our boundary and also trying to keep it very simple. Instead of having too much going on that could drown out our main goal, we have less to get straight to the point.

Robert Irwin

I was really fascinated by Robert Irwin's work and the way his "final goal is inherently light." I was especially drawn to the installation made up of florescent lights that spanned the space of an entire wall in his show. The unexpected use of traditional lighting was really striking.
I also liked Irwin's definition of art. He said that art is to make you aware, to bring attention to what you're around all of the time but not focused on. His large, colored, plasticy looking sheets are a good example of how he used surfaces to bring attention to the way the room was lit; it made apparent what is often overlooked because there are other things to focus on. Irwin also stated that art is in a constant state of moving and resolving because art is a conditional activity. It's a curious thought; art is always changing and being compared and is conditional on what is going on around it. Especially with new media, the 'conditional' aspect is especially prevalent, since context is often a vital component in understanding the work.
Overall, I enjoyed this documentary, as well as Robert Irwin's work and thoughts on art.

Robert Irwin Response

I really enjoyed Robert Irwins' video and how he emphasizes that the key role if art is humans. I completely agree on his views that art should be something that brings you to a point where you're aware, and connected you to something you are around all the time but not focusing on that object or time. Life is the frame to art, and Irwin really understands this element of his work. By removing a direct frame, and letting the environment in which is work is shown be the frame, we receive the direct relationship with the art, and our ability to perceive his work is intensified. The video really demonstrates how art can be something, and it can be nothing to the viewers eyes. Art doesn't have to be interpreted as "it looks like something" it can be just art. Which is very much appreciated.


-Emily Racine

Robert Irwin

Robert Irwin Had very interesting ideas when it came to his works. He metioned that "art is art and so is everything else". I thought this was the most interesting because technically art is all around us. We just never notice it because we see it all the time but just not aware of it. His idea of their being a timeless painting was his main inspiration. I liked how in one of his works he avoids the edges on pupose because that limits the artist. Eliminating imagery from a painting was one of his ideas that i thought was very effective. This can be connected to the wind powered pieces of art and using sound in different ways because they are not suppose to be made into something that you can identify or compare with something else. I usually compare other art work with imagery which is why this idea was very interesting to me. His guess work when it came to his art was worked out as he went along. What also grabbed my attention was when he said "No one is there to make an argument about quality if we put 5 intelligent people at one table to work on a project". I thought this was a good observation. The quality in art work was his main focus through all the works that he has done and can relate to mine in that way. My project evolves quality because of the idea that I'm trying to bring a picture to life in a way.

Robert Irwin perspective

I really loved the video we watched about Robert Irwin and hearing his philosophy on art/life. He wants to make art that makes you aware you're around it all the time. He stressed the point of not having a frame so that the art is everywhere, it has no end and the viewer is surrounded by it and gets the real experience. His art requires constant moving and refining, because he wants to create a field of color with no top or bottom. This field of pure energy would radiate around your vision. Irwin uses prime colors and black and white almost in a way of sensory deprivation to make to extend human perception. His view on art makes me think of metaphysics as he was talking about energy that changes how the art is percieved by individuals.
His work reminds me of Olafur Eliason - who's work is similar in concept. His art also has no frame, he works with all colors and lots of geometry. It's also about realizing that art is all around you always and it's about how you perceive it. For example, his work "Beauty" of water droplets falling before a light, require the person to see the rainbow in the work, and each person sees their own rainbow. Another artist who Robert Irwin reminds me of is Mark Rothko, who was also an abstract expressionist like Irwin in the 50s-60s. His paintings are also huge canvaes of pure color and energy radiating out of them creating an ambiance for the viewer.
I could relate to what he was saying about creating an experience is a challenge, and hoping the art becomes part of the space, in relation to my project.
~Veronika

Response to Irwin Video

Irwin brought up the topic of art and how it is almost always viewed through a context. In history this context has mostly been conventional. He explained that art has come a long way from political positions and religious topics to art becoming a tool to focus the viewer’s attention. This makes me think of how the camera replaced the illustrator or painter and so on in technological advances, removing the conventional use of art as a recording device and replacing it with precision product without subjectivity. This makes an artist’s job that much harder. I enjoyed Irwin’s thesis that Art is constantly moving and resolving more and more complex ideas. This gives the idea that art itself is timeless. The statement, “Abstract expressionism slowly became line drawings I.E. “that looks like…” “ is something that is universal through many projects we have seen. No matter what media art is created in, the viewer will always have a context that they draw from and refer back to. I think this makes art more dynamic with endless possibilities for impact. You won’t always know how your art will be perceived, you can try for an intentional result, but this will not always be the case with every viewer. This directly relates to the project I am doing. I am using a “tool” to create an engaging space however I am not 100% sure how it will be perceived or even what the actual ambience will be once created. I will then resolve my statement by quoting Irwin, “ I have no idea what will happen” But I am excited for the potential outcome.

Tetris on Arduino!

tetris meets Arduino from Luyza Pereira on Vimeo.

It's like a mix between Tetris and Dance Dance Revolution. Follow the link for info on how it works!

On Robert Irwin

I find the documentary on Robert Irwin, and his works, very interesting. He wants to eliminate imagery to make his paintings more interesting. When often people try to have their art resemble or relate to things and he is avoiding it. He doesn't want to have his art have a beginning or an end.
His art can connect to many artist.He pushes his limits often, just like the many artists have with recent projects we have covered.
I can see how his projects and art relates to my own. That he strips away possibilities of his projects and asks why and how it can be otherwise. He states that when you put people together to work on a project, everyone can have different qualities to put but a equilibrium is needed. In our project I know things that my partner does not, thus we both no our place inside our group.

Goldsworthy and Pollock

I think that Goldsworthy and Pollock had similar thinking in how they made their works of art. Even though their styles of creating art so greatly differ, they both started off a piece with out a solid, thought out plan. Pollock did not know where every splash, line, or stroke was going to be placed. Goldsworthy's wife even asked him before he went out what he was going to make today, and he replied that he did not know what he was going to make yet. They both just let themselves be inspired by what they see. Pollock lets his forms become very natural by the way he approaches his paintings, and Goldworthy uses nature to create his forms. Goldworthy will walk around the land and when he sees something that interests him he just goes for it. I wonder if Pollock was as committed to his projects like Goldsworthy. Even if something broke 5, 6 times he would continue to stay determined and kept trying until he succeeded.

Jackson Pollock

I found the way the author of this article described Pollock's work very interesting. It seems that Pollock's work either caused intrigue or some feeling of darkness, or maybe even confusion. The article also says that he created magnificent paintings, but also destroyed painting. Because he was creating things people had never seen before and completely went against any traditional forms of painting I do not think it is necessarily fair to say that he destroyed painting. I do not feel that when I see his paintings, to me they are very freely formed and natural.

Nature

Our project related to the environment by letting the person entering the augmented space become like a force of nature. Just like wind, although you can not see it you know it is there, you can see moving tree branches and know that wind is there. This makes it like our project in that that person becomes like the wind. It is pitch black and although you can not see the person hit the strand of lights you know they did because of the sound about them , and the other light strand turning on. The idea of things you can't see effecting things you can see is a major aspect of both nature and our project.

Technology as an artificial environment

With applications from the previous texts and the documentary, my project too reflects the surrounding environment we create for ourselves. That environment is one that is purely artificial and almost techno-organic in some regards.

Our lives are more melded with technology rather than the natural world. Like Goldsworthy, I too use objects and materials that can be found anywhere within a chosen space. The space for my project being a contemporary, man made space. Objects like ipods, VCRs, televisions, printers, and headphones. I then reassemble them in the space in which they would be found.

Goldsworthy Documentary and the Article

I think the Goldsworthy Documentary and the Pollock article have similar ideas. Goldsworthy stated in the documentary, "make something that is effortless." I think Pollock was going for that same idea in his artwork, but he was doing it on a canvas instead of in nature. Neither Goldsworthy or Pollock represent the artists who have stuck to traditional ways and like to follow "the rules" that were once set by victorian artists. Although they are very different from each other in style, they both share the idea of if you understand your art then it will continue to grow. Also, they both create artwork our imaginations can run with. I think they both share the idea of creating something new by using the past. For instance, Pollock would use what he knew from traditional artists, and recreate a new meaning of art by making new strokes and new ways to show something totally different. Goldsworthy took something that was preexisting, such as stones, sticks, water, and created a completely new outlook of those objects. I think they inspire all artists to really be open-minded in your own artwork, and only greatness can come from that.

Our Project and the Environment

Our project can relate to the environment through movement such as wind. I think when people walk through our project and see strings of light moving, they will think of themselves as wind. In relation to wind pushing an object such as three branches, those who interact with our project will act as wind pushing the el wire. Since it will be dark, the only object that will be seen moving is the el wire, which will look like the natural force of wind that cannot be seen. Therefore, I think our project is a new interpretation of the natural force and simple act of showing movement like wind.

How My Project Interacts with the Environment

My project directly corresponds to the piece's environment. The dynamic-ness of the outside weather is what brings the idea to life and gives it movement. The weather then, in turn, uses technology to create a new environment indoors.

I feel as though the weather is therefore using and usurping technology's powers to further it's impact on the space and everything that occupies the space. This has become the opposite of the normal situation, in which technology is used by man to impact the natural world. Now the situation is that the natural world is using technology to impact man.

Interestingly, it seems as though from either direction, technology is a tool, whereas nature and man are live players in this back and forth game. I would like to image that in some situations technology is a live player as well, but I am not sure that it is in this situation. Perhaps my view of technology is too literal, meaning that I only think of it as inanimate objects, maybe I should expand my view to include the intellectual spaces and properties that go hand in hand with it.

Any suggestions? What do you think technology is? Can it ever be considered alive?

Mr. Goldsworthy

In relation to the previous article, there are some similarities that can be drawn from the previous author's approach to viewing these artists. That similarity is how the artists can augment existing environments.

Pollock augmented environments using artificial pigments, and manufactured canvas. Goldsworthy uses only found, natural materials on location. Both artists do augment space, simply in different ways and by different means. Both artists could spend hours or days on a single piece with each piece augmenting another space in a different way, thus adding new meaning to the space.

my project and the environment

My project is all about signs and how we respond to them. The environment is full of signs. Whether it be a simple street sign giving us driving instructions, an add, or even the weather, we know just how to respond to it. I think the meanings of signs can be implicit or explicit, in my case 100% explicit, and size often makes a difference. I'm sure we have all tried exiting a store by pushing the door open, and after being bewildered that it didn't work we see a small sign that says "pull." So in order for people not to miss my signs, I'm going to make them fairly large. The ending "thanks" will sort of take place of the joy we feel when following a sign correctly.

I'm not sure if I'm on the right track here, haha.

-Steph

technology??

As technology being a really big part of this society I think that the work that I am creating, in responsive art, fits right into it.

Unlike Goldsworthy this class deals with computers and technology. In his documentary I was really inspired when he was explaining his concept about the ocean tide covering his rock egg. "gift to the ocean" I have never thought that organic art could view in that kind of way. Give and take with nature.

I am used to making art with out technology so in a way this project that I am working right now is challenging. Inspired again by Goldsworthy's work and his ideas have given me a helping push of inspiration for my project in this class.

Andy Goldsworthy

Andy Goldsworthy's art perfectly corresponds with the Kaprow article. We just read all about exactly how and when art became open to all sorts of medias and this is obviously manifested in Goldsworthy. He only works with organic things, trees, rocks, leaves, ice, etc, and he creates incredible sculptures and photographs.

His pieces also follow the principles of quality design, like Pollocks, but, again like Pollock, he seems to have a very spiritual, ritualistic connection to his works. Goldsworthy uses a natural environment to create a new one, while Pollock created them with paint. The idea that you can create something incredible with something as ordinary as leaves is exactly what Kaprow was referring to at the end of his article.

Alchemies of Art

In this article, Allan Kaprow attempts to assert that, and describe how, Jackson Pollock revolutionized art-making. He said that Pollock destroyed painting by turning it into a ritual; dehumanizing and liberating it. At the same time, Pollock stayed true to a few painting traditions, such as the idea of quality of marks.

The article states that in order to truly appreciate Pollock's paintings we are forced to identify and identify with the hands that made the work, while also recognizing and valuing the marks themselves. He states that one of the truly revolutionary things about Pollock's paintings is the fact that the forms go on forever; there is no beginning, middle and end. One intriguing thing that the author wrote was the fact that we accept this conundrum created by Pollock because he "knew how to do it" and later describes how Pollock had an innate sense of what was quality when he was creating a piece.

Most importantly, Kaprow says that Pollock left mankind in a place where art MUST expand to include the entire world, so that everything and anything becomes art. And of course, history shows that Kaprow was right. Today, anything can be art (much to the dismay and frustration of my father. . . ). The art world today includes everyone and everything - to various degrees.

I think the first time I read this article I was not excited to write about it since, well, I already knew about that. I grew up in an era where everything is art, where concept is everything, where the revelations discussed in the Kaprow article are common facts in an art history class. But I also think that it is interesting to really understand from a first hand witness what it was like to live in a time where that was not the case and these ideas where fresh and mind-shattering. I get such a sense of wonder and excitement from the end of the article, and I actually find it really inspiring!

Documentary

I believe the documentary we saw relates to the reading because of the thought process that went into the creation of the pieces. It's a simple idea, but here me out. I think that both artists have some sort of idea in their heads, they don't simply just do it. There is a formula to that sort of thinking that creats such beautiful works.

I may be wrong on this, but I feel that that is how the film and the article were relateable. There is an interesting essence in both works that just makes you want to see more.

My Project

I feel that my project connects to the environment by the emotions portrayed in the narrative. I believe the colors and sounds have a very strong impact on a person because it "warms" the room which the piece is in up in a strange way. That the feeling that something so bright can be in a very simple room is an interesting concept. I also think that the story helps too. Because, we have all done something silly in our lives and this is a chance to remember them and laugh at the things we did fondly.

Mr. Pollock

Jackson Pollock is an artists who challenges all of art's principle's in terms of what is considered to be talented execution and content. His artwork is amazing to some and grotesque to others. Truly a, "love it or hate it" artist. His artwork of layered paint splatters rivals works of Da Vinci in terms of monetary value. I myself find it difficult to have respect for an artist who created works with such easy execution and pure rebelliousness. I myself did a series based upon his style and found little satisfaction or challenge other than the shear size of the works. However, after reading this article I found a quote that raised a point that I was not aware of. "Pollock's choice of enormous canvases served many purposes, chief of which for our discussion is that his mural-scale paintings ceased to become paintings and became environments." In this sense, I understand and respect his work. To be surrounded by paintings that size with balanced contrasts would be an eye opener. Few artists can make paintings quite that interactive. However, he is not an artist for everybody and it shall most likely stay that way as long as art has controversy.

Jackson Pollock reading

Overall, I thought the article had a lot of interesting ideas and facts of Jackson Pollock. For an example the article states, "He new the difference between a good gesture and a bad one." I think this is very hard for artists to distinguish in their work, and for him to be able to do this is quite impressive and inspiring. I think another idea of Pollock's that can be easily taken away is to create artwork people can be participants instead of just bystanders. In doing so, artwork will be more enjoyable and intriguing. Lastly, I think another important concept is to keep pushing your work further to enhance and entertain your audience even more. I think acting upon this idea will allow growth to all artwork and the next level will continue to be reached.