An outdoor installation done by Nicole, Judith, Annette and Simon. At London Met.
]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080422-1856102008-04-22T00:00:00Z2008-04-22T00:00:00ZDog Series at London Met Spring Semester 2008]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080410-1517242008-04-10T00:00:00Z2008-04-10T00:00:00ZPainting Fall Semester 2007 Rose Sandman Jazz Band]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry071217-1546192007-12-17T00:00:00Z2007-12-17T00:00:00ZArt and imitation We return to the idea that nature is the most beautiful, the beauty that cannot be entirely defined, the most universal. Therefore depiction of objects and figures of nature are easily recognized as works of art, easily recognized as representation of something, a thing that exists. Gadamer does state that this representation is a reflection of the permanent infinity of humanity and/or nature, as the individual thing or person has temporality and from its genes springs forth yet another incarnation. The representation is the imitation of the perpetual being or nature. It is in reflection of this nature that we appreciate the representative. However the imitation is not required to be identical to the object or thing or the ideal to be recognized and appreciated as the representative. In this form the representative allows the liberation of interpretation.
Recognition is the acknowledgement that we now judge the being/work/creation independently from the initial encounter. It is not solely recording the familiar. Gadamer gives the example of the use of effigy in festival, our joy in recognition of these and describes the a social inclination towards the imitation or mimesis. With this in mind, Gadamer refers to the fact that the concept of modern non-objective art seems to be to not explicitly represent nature and the familiar. He explains that modern art is seemingly done for love of experimentation, almost purely. Gadamer also refers to modern atonal music, experimentation in theater and literature in example. Yet however abstract or atonal, there is some recognition that we find in these creations as well.
After imitation, Gadamer refers to the concept of expression. He regards its rise into dominance in the eighteenth century due to the inability to apply the ideology of imitation to the media of music. With the nature of sound or rather sound of nature there are some apparent limitations and so expression grew to reign in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Gadamer describes how expression could be most fulfilling for the artist or composer as they give such a unreserved and absolute contribution to a work/creation that the potential for interpretation is assured.
Then we proceed to the concept of sign, in which the suggestion that modern work can be read as a collection of signs. As perhaps we read or interpret language and literature, the signs being likeable to the characters of an alphabet. Gadamer states that the reading of language has profoundly influenced the manner in which we view a work of art, how we may view an image from left to right, down the image ending in the bottom right. He suggests that we must decipher an order of events in a figurative work so that we may decide the separate elements relation to one another and interpret the meaning of the interaction of those elements, e.g.: Malevich's "Lady in the city of London". Gadamer, returning to the idea that modern non-objective art has a quality which is unreadable, states that it is disallowing the concept of sign, in reference to the works of Picasso or Juan Gris. If we view each of the works of these artists, initially identifying the elements, we are driven back to the work as a composition; therefore we cannot decipher the elements and composition with the theory of sign or the idea of reading of language.
Gadamer finally refers to Aristotle divination of Plato, in which he declared that mimesis is reflection of the order of the universe, of numerical order in which we can apply to harmony, etc., that all things are mimesis or imitation according to numerical relation, perhaps that mimesis is the sum of the order of the apparent miracle of the universe while Aristotle himself suggests that mimesis is the attainment, "fulfillment", that we may look to the mimesis to encounter the universe. Gadamer considers further the doctrines of Pythagoras, which suggest that numerical order is determined by celestial force or visa versa. Since music was a means for cleansing of the soul, Pythagorean idea implies that the concept of imitation encompasses "the order of the cosmos, the order of music, and the order of the soul". Perhaps we can conclude that imitation depicts such order that we recognize as the representation of divine order above the representative of factual sum of the divine order in modern non-objective art.
Gadamer concludes with the concept that with the shift to modern industrial times we have reduced the significance of the "thing", object or perhaps even nature. With the fervent rise of consumption, all things have become disposable (including nature itself). There is the suggestion that production and more precisely marketing have deemed these things for lack of real significance. One can imagine that the desire to possess such a thing is not based on existent need due to marketing. Yet one might consider the other theories of Gadamer from the essay "The relevance of beauty; art as play, symbol and festival" in application to the evaluation of the mass-produced object. There is the possibility that the mass-produced thing may symbolize the absence of "thing", effigy, figure, beauty of nature.
Gadamer finally rests his dialogue with the proposition that Pythagoras' doctrine includes the celestial order, universal order which licenses us to portray the world as we know it, in it's mutable form, with suggestion that art restores order to an endangered culture.
]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry071206-1933092007-12-06T00:00:00Z2007-12-06T00:00:00ZThe relevance of beauty The third, being the subject of the essay, "The relevance of the beautiful; Art as play, symbol and festival." expresses his belief or system of ontology: the studies of the nature of being and existence and is perhaps based on his study of hermeneutics, in terms of his ideology of interpretation of contemporary and classical works of art, aesthetics. While relativism could be put simply as the theory of conceptual truth deemed by circumstance of environment and experience, Gadamer expands the theory of ontology, introducing that interpretation of the contemporary work of art is not possible without prior knowledge of the relic. In a sense the significance of the relic is revived through interpretation, viewing and coming to know, to understand. Gadamer stresses that the "beautiful" is in fact most pure in nature and that an art work of exceptional quality can be described as an object of nature or perhaps of natural inspiration, complete. This artwork however is not bound by its completeness. It can be both finite and infinite.
Although Gadamer dismisses the genre of kitsch as being obviously manipulative of the senses, he praises Cubism and artists such as Picasso and Braque, artists whom have eliminated linear perspective such as Hans von Marées and Paul Cézanne as well as the founder of readymade art, Duchamp. One could see how Gadamer could possibly register the works of Duchamp with the kitsch art world as he describes "viewing an every day object on it's own and thereby produces a sort of aesthetic shock reaction", however Gadamer believes that Duchamp is truly gifted in the language of transmission or expression of the truth that can be linked to the experience of viewing classical works. I would personally challenge the diminution of kitsch as it is defined as art or literature with popular sentimental appeal, therefore theoretically fitting with Gadamer's proclamation of "Art as symbol". The credible differences between "aesthetic shock" and "sentimental appeal" are not extreme enough for which I would invalidate the kitsch over the readymade.
We come to the three theories of "Art as play", "Art as symbol", "Art as festival". Firstly, Gadamer considers "Art as play". With the existence of mankind and it's exercise in excess as a form of self challenge, practice and establishment of permanence, it is with one's observance of the self, mankind's observance of mankind that we can compare the to and fro activity of all sorts of play, as well as the role play of artist and viewer. Yet the play, which is involved in a work of art, becomes an expression of truth as it is inspired with no means to an end, no intended objective. The art work as a result of this kind of play it seems to have been created within the boundary of rules and yet without limitation, referring back to the description of a work of genius or to quote Gadamer, quoting Kant "a favorite of nature" being universal.
We are led to concede the importance of the viewers relation to the artwork. Through interpretation or "reading" the viewer is essential as one that decodes the message of classical works of art, as translator and decipherer of truth. Comparing these roles to the role of sportsman and viewer, the exchange is irresistible. The artwork, not the imitation, always offers a space or void for the viewer to read or interpret or make an addition. In this observation we could be led back to the theory of ontology, as we acknowledge the existence of the creation and acknowledge the more profound vehicle of the independent fact of the creation, the noumenon. This perhaps harkens to Gadamer's study of Kant as an elaboration of Kantianism.
His second theory of "Art as symbol" introduces the idea that through symbolism we are given the key to passage. We are led to conclude that the allegory present in work of art suggests the existence of the phenomenon, a predetermined fact, a truth. However with the presence of allegory, we are again given this freedom to read the creation, as there is more to interpret than the blatant story. The role of the viewer is crucial to any work of art. There is also suggestion that artworks are symbols of nature, which is the truly free beauty. Gadamer concludes of nature that it is unreadable, in fact unknown or indescribable. He also suggests that the work of art, as a representative is itself the symbol, an ontological symbol. The symbol indicates the shrouding, concealment of humanity, the perfection of nature that is unspeakable.
The final theory of "Art as festival", introduces the ritual of gathering, it's timeliness. We can refer to Gadamer's observation of the opera in which a reproduction of an art piece is conducted. We are able to recognize a superior rendition of an operatic one over an uninspired one. For the Gadamer, the real difference is again the space for reading, or hearing as he refers to "the inner ear". He suggests through the nuances of rendition that we recognize the uniqueness of the performance, pointing out the temporal independence of the performance, the festival. The "inner ear" must be satiated then we have experienced a truly artful performance.
In the timeliness of festivity, we note that once it has come, all else is abandoned. It has autonomy, the passing of time is perhaps uncalculated, it is the free time or comparable to the time allotted for play. However Gadamer notes the quite distinct difference between the temporal structure of festival and the "free" time of play. He states that the time of festival is a time of enactment and the time of play is a time of excess in which we practice or exercise. The definition of enact is to perform (a story or play) by acting. Gadamer suggests that the festival, being a temporal entity is the actual goal of attainment and that there is no determined goal other than the enactment. I am led to conclude that the theory of "Art as festival" that humanity is drawn to art by obligation of ritual, temporality and an experienced liberation as the festivity is autonomous.
These theories appear cyclical as the "Art of festival" could lead to the "Art of play" or visa versa. The three also have references to one another; play, symbol, festival as the symbol is included and is a vital part of festival.
In Gadamer's final pages of the essay he refers to the familiar as the origin of all bad art and kitsch. In my opinion he is ignoring the possible application of his own theory, "Art as symbol". There is much in the theory of allegory in the representation of the familiar, something that could be considered the key to passage. The familiar offers satisfaction but there is some shrouded mystery as to why the familiar offers satisfaction. We must consider the allegory of the original works and the original sentiment of the act of manipulation. It is just as profound and makes an anthropological statement as classical artworks and a viable contemporary art form.
He does seem to conclude that we must settle somewhere between the extremes of art without purposeful appeal and kitsch. Theoretically he seems to return to subjectivism.
]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry071206-1931562007-12-06T00:00:00Z2007-12-06T00:00:00ZAesthetic Pleasure In introduction to cognitive skills we are taught about opposite, the purity of opposites. It is the ability to distinguish the contrary that is our primal experience in aesthetics. The purity of the distinction renders the object laudable. When we speak in adjectives, we are praising the proposed noun (the object of art, a general object) for its purity or attribute. So is has shown with the some experiences of society, for e.g.; isolation, desolation, links in symbolism, references to adjective and noun, object of certain distinction, for e.g.; black sheep /black cat.
In lessons of morality symbolism is used to depict good and bad, good versus evil. We suggest that good perhaps described as predictable, that a positive end can be met with prudence, that good is "as plain as day", as foreseeable as a scene saturated with daylight on a cloudless day. Whereas bad has often been associated with obscurity of the night, in which occurrences are unforeseeable. Hence little is known of the occurrences of the night, all comes to light in the break of day. I offer the e.g. of the saying of dark horse, definition given as "a person of little is known"; it is the fear of the unknown that hence becomes the evil, the fear of the dark.
Pre-dating Christian idealism are mythological characters and deities whom were strong in certain attributes, that often acted as human do, rather hastily. Those characters and deities were not necessarily deemed as wholly good or wholly evil but identified by the distinction. This allowed for a depiction of a colorful world, a scene permitting contrasting ideas, beings. In this way humanity allowed its' own varied palette of emotion and action.
The myth is a reflection of human experience. In some myth all the attributes coexist together while in others there is a constant check and balance of the attributes with the insistence that one attribute reign over another.
I refer to the tale of Greek myth of King Minos and his Minotaur. King Minos learns a valued lesson upon his refusal to sacrifice his divine bull. Conceived out of a union between his wife Pasiphae and a white bull acquired as an answer to prayer of success to Poseidon, the bull-manchild Minos was the symbol of the ego King Minos. Having allowed for the conception of a monster, rather than destroy it Minos decides after considering the advice of Oracle of Delphi, to commission a palace for the Minotaur, the labyrinth. To satiate the onslaught of a plague, King Minos orders a sacrifice of virgin men and women to the Minotaur within the labyrinth. The eventual destruction of the Minotaur at the hand of Theseus could be considered the final end to the ego of King Minos, deemed a tyrant.
It is through the vehicle of the violence of sacrifice, the preservation of the ferocious Minotaur that his concluding salvation from ego is determined.
If we look at the relevance of, for e.g.. the Farmers' Almanac, it is certain that it is a fleshed-out moon calendar. The Farmers' Almanac was first published in the year 1818 in North America. Included in the Farmers' Almanac are long-term weather forecasts, which are based on astronomical formula, planetary and lunar positioning, most definitely showing the phases of the moon. A kind of pagan almanac, it has proven to be valuable for farmers, gardeners and homemakers alike. We can determine that the existence of this kind of publication proves that more is required for a successful harvest than rain and sunshine. Certainly more is required than light, the so-called good.
The study of astronomy had not been completely accepted by the Roman Catholic Church because it challenged it's theory that hell existed upon the Earth, that Earth was impure while the heavens, the universe, was unchanging and pure. If we observe this theory of the Roman Catholic Church we can note that the universe reigned over the earth, according to their theory. However, much was known about our Earth as oppose to the heavens. We must look further back to find the purity of the distinctions of dark and light, unknown and known. If we dare to reject the study of astronomy, useful information, we dare to divorce ourselves from nature. It is the unnatural reigning of light over dark that lead us to Mainstream principles of aesthetic beauty. This leads us to the depiction of an unbalanced scene, devoid of challenge or contrast. We reject the contrary therefore we reject human nature. To redeem an ingenuous morality would be to reveal the parity of the opposites. We would step outside of the true moral obligation to present a resolved image/story/moving image.
With depiction of the failures of character, the unexplained, we can have a fuller understanding of our possible reinstatement of the original idea of self. Whether flight from the inevitable, the recovery of some kind of order, is experienced through brutality or nihilism, it is worthy to tell a complete story. In my opinion it is the complete story that gives us the most pleasure. Simply for the lack of real depiction of psychological conflict in Mainstream art, we are refreshed, even made hopeful by works that stray away from contemporary ethical model.
It is essential to refer to the egocentricity of Underground art as it is truly expressive. It is not artisan crafting a work with a deliberate and self-conscious end result, commissioned for the consumption of the masses therefore compromised for end result. The Mainstream is designed for the inexperienced individuals whom are not yet weary of the moral confines of Popular culture. The Underground art scene is the artist revealing the underbelly of humanity, the underrepresented inspiration of a great amount of action of humanity. When one sees a Mainstream film, there is usually little room for improvisation. The strength a definite action done for the means of good or bad is quite clear. However there is no real humanness, we see persons in the role of Hero and doubt or contemplation are underplayed. The lead characters tend to be very contrasting, as if to suggest that it is not morally possible to be a possessor of more than one attribute. The action of the Hero would characterize them as a Redeemer. These kinds of plot ideas can be applied to Underground film as well, however more so when reversing the lead characters attribute to a negative.
]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry071206-1931012007-12-06T00:00:00Z2007-12-06T00:00:00ZCable Factory Pier ]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070712-1156082007-07-12T00:00:00Z2007-07-12T00:00:00Z'If This Ain't Love' Video Shoot]]>http://www.nicolewillis.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070712-1154482007-07-12T00:00:00Z2007-07-12T00:00:00ZNicole & Tiina at Jimi's birthday party
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
]]>
]]>
