Anish Kapoor Sculpture

1.Research Kapoor's work in order to discuss whether it is conceptual art or not. Explain your answer, using a definition of conceptual art.

Conceptual art is considered to be something that does not necessarily need to take a form. It does not have to be something that we can hold or touch, or see with our eyes, but something we feel, or smell or taste. It creates a feeling within ourselves and because it has been created with artistic intention and that is how we can tell it is art. Kapoor's work is defined under the heading of conceptual art because it is more like architecture and has been designed with function in mind and we are able to use it however because it has been created with artistic intention, it becomes conceptual art as well. This is what Anish Kapoor was trying to achieve in her creations and she has done so.

2. Research 3 quite different works by Kapoor from countries outside New Zealand to discuss the ideas behind the work. Include images of each work on your blog.

The works here I have featured of Kapoor's work include that of a large door-like shaped piece of red wax that featured in an art exhibition at the Royal Gallery in London, called Svayambh or more commonly referred to as 'the train.' This piece was made by Kapoor in order to represent how he feels he can push the boundaries of what is art and what is architecture, for many artists or even people for that matter, would question whether this could be classed as architecture whatsoever. Here we can further begin to understand that nothing is what we first call it or how it seems. The work 'The Train' is a mere fragment of what architecture should be and what it is traditionally called, this work has no function, it is not a train the public (or otherwise) can use, it serves no purpose other than to be physically pleasing, yet it can still be called architecture.

The second work of Kapoor I have featured here is an outdoor architecture piece from Jerusalem, Israel, and is similar to his works titled 'The Sky Upside-down.' The piece itself is an 16foot hourglass shaped statue made of stainless steel, and is titled 'Turning The World Upside-down' and clearly, because of the way it has been made, it does just that. It shows the sky the earth and the earth the sky. Kapoor created this work because him and several other designers were asked to create pieces that were "permanent, site-specific works in harmony with the light and colours" (ArtePollino – Another South, 2009.) This piece of work is known throughout the city of Jerusalem as a reference to the city's combination of universal beliefs and controlled beliefs and holiness and profanities.

The final piece is a combination of two works, of which are the same, however in different places - the previously mentioned 'The Sky Upside-down' sky mirrors. The first one is situated in Chicago and is quite similar to the 'Turning The World Upside-down' just very much simplified version. These instalations are designed to be pleasing to the eye but again do not serve much function. These pieces, quite clearly, show the viewer the sky, and create a serene, tranquil feeling.

The second one of these sky mirrors is situated in New York.

3.Discuss the large scale 'site specific' work that has been installed on a private site in New Zealand.

This piece is known as Dismemberment Site 1 and was commissioned on New Zealand's private art park known famously as 'The Farm' by New Zealand businessman and patron to the arts, Alan Gibbs.
This piece was created with the intention to ""make body into sky" (Kapoor, 2009) meaning that he wanted to create something so expansive it could be comparative to the sky, or this is how I have interpreted this quote.

4. Where is the Kapoor's work in New Zealand? What are its form and materials? What are the ideas behind the work?

Kapoor's work is situated (as stated above) at the Gibbs Farm of the Kaipara Harbour, which is the largest harbour is the southern hemisphere. It takes the form of a long, tube like mass of metal, that stretches out at each end into eclipse like shapes and then scoops into the middle. It is created from steel tubes and distressed fabric and it massive in size at a length of 85metres. The ideas behind the work were to create something expansive that would stand out against the sky, a difficult task, however Kapoor received huge amounts of praise for this work so was in turn successful.

5. Comment on which work by Kapoor is your favourite, and explain why. Are you personally attracted more by the ideas or the aesthetics of the work?

My favourite work of Kapoor's is defiantly the piece 'Turning The Sky Upside-down' for many reasons. Firstly, yes, I am attracted to the appearance and aesthetics of the work, it is a very pleasing piece to look at, especially how it in itself is so grand, standing at 16feet tall, but I also enjoy it because of the religious connotations it holds. Being in a country such as Israel there are many beliefs that require upholding and they are very strict on those beliefs, so to create a piece that so boldly portrays the polar opposites of holy and unholy, good and bad, poses to mean something very great in the context that it is in. I think Kapoor did well with this piece.

References

Anish Kapoor @ Rockefeller Centre (unknown) http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003711.html

Anish Kapoor (2009) http://www.gibbsfarm.org.nz/kapoor.php

Baume, N., (2008) Anish Kapoor: Past, Present, Future. The MIT Press.

Peyton - Jones, J., (2011) Anish Kapoor: Turning The World Upside-down In Kensington Gardens. Walther König/Koenig Books

Pluralism and the Treaty of Waitangi

Shane Cotton (2011) Forked Tounge

Shane Cotton (2004) Welcome

Tony Albert (2008) Sorry

1. Define the term 'pluralism' using APA referencing.

"Pluralism is used, often in different ways, across a wide range of topics to denote a diversity of views, and stands in opposition to one single approach or method of interpretation.." Connolly (2005)

Pluralism has many different meanings, we cannot simply pin it to one idea or one translation of this word. As Connolly says, there are so many. Although for the most part they tend to have similar kinds of connotations of the word, it just depends on what context they are being placed under. Some of the different contexts could include; cosmic pluralism, cultural pluralism, economic pluralism, legal pluralism, and so forth. There is also pluralism as a philosophy for life and life's meanings and also there have been schools relating to the idea of pluralism, mainly for in ancient Greek times.

2. How would you describe New Zealand's current dominant culture?

I would describe New Zealand's culture as being supremely New Zealand European dominated. When people think of New Zealand they do think of the Maori culture, but this is mostly being used as a marketting ploy by the tourism industry to give New Zealand something that the rest of the world does not have or cannot relate to because Maori is ours and ours alone. The dominant culture, to put it plainly, is white Caucasian, with all of us having some relation to overseas European cultures.

3. Before 1840, what was New Zealand's dominant culture?

In this time New Zealand's dominant culture was Maori. It was around this time that the first travellers came from the United Kingdom and took over, killing out a lot of the Maori and reproducing with them, so that the Maori culture became greatly watered down.

4. How does the Treaty of Waitangi relate to us all as artists and designers working
in New Zealand?

It relates to us because it meant the turning of an era. As New Zealanders the Treaty of Waitangi made it possible for all New Zealanders - white and Maori, to be able to relate to it's fore-running heritage. We can become unique as artists and designers around the world because we have a stake in this claim, just from being born here and perhaps not being of Maori descent whatsoever.

5. How can globalization be seen as having a negative effect on regional diversity in New Zealand in particular?

Because globalization has begun to mean to us as New Zealanders that in order to truly OWN our culture and call it OURS for us and us alone to use, we have to place a copyright on it. New Zealand is no longer unique to itself in the greater scheme of things, because overseas people are looking for anything new to be able to put their name on. Humble New Zealand in completely unable to put a stop to this.

6. Shane Cotton's paintings are said to examine the cultural landscape. Research Cotton's work 'Welcome'(2004) and 'Forked Tongue' (2011) to analyze what he is saying about colonialization and the Treaty of Waitangi.

The symbols that are in-cased in these two works stand for something great when it comes to identifying links between between globalization and the treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, as well as how it was when the British first came here from England to take over (so to speak) from the Maori. In Cotton's work 'Forked Tongue' we see a cliff face as a background with red lines tracing some kind of pattern as well as a fan tail and some traditional Maori designs; merely simple patterns and so forth. The subject matter combined means a lot of different things relating all to the way we can link New Zealand as being a traditionally Maori inhabited land to growing as it has done from the arrival of the British, to the Treaty of Waitangi to make an agreement for these two races to live harmoniously and then to how we interact with our native culture in this day and age. 'Forked Tongue' is a painting which relates all of this in spiritual ways, physical ways, and historical ways. (Daly - Peoples, 2011)

The other work by Cotton - 'Welcome' shares some similar views on to the insight of colonization in New Zealand, it depicts what appears to be Jesus Christ as the representation of Christianity and also British European face over that of a Maori shrunken head one over the other, with 2 fan tails on either side. Cotton seems to like using these fan tails of way of representation of the collaboration of races in New Zealand as this frequents his work. In 'Welcome' we see the Jesus Christ to be in the slight background in comparison to the Maori head, as if to say that the British came later; and then the Maori head slightly in the foreground however he is below the British face, as if to then say that the British and with them bringing ideas of Christianity favour themselves as being above the Maori race. I think this picture is a great depiction of the way New Zealanders can view colonization and the treaty of Waitangi.

Some other works by Cotton I think relate to the previous two include;

The Hanging Sky (2007) Shane Cotton

7. Tony Albert's installation 'Sorry' (2008) reflect the effects of colonization on the aboriginal people of Australia. Research the work and comment on what Albert is communicating through his work, and what he is referring to. Describe the materials that Albert uses on this installation and say what he hopes his work can achieve. Define the term 'kitsch'.

Albert is communicating something similar to what Cotton has done, except using the arrival of European Australian's to Australia disrupting the native Aboriginal. In his featured work 'Sorry' we see a large letters made up of Albert refers to as 'Aboringinalia' meaning paraphenalia of the Aboriginal. Include in this are portraits of the Aboriginal which have been labelled 'kitsch' and also these portraits were very stereotypically Aboriginal. Through this work he is trying to express how 'sorry' the European Australians were for how they treated the Aboriginals. The reason for why this means something to Albert is because he is half Aboriginal. The term 'kitsch' is commonly known as something cute and quaint but the actual meaning of it is something that is inferior to other types of work. It is not particularly aesthetically pleasing nor is it worth much in value.

8. Explain how the work of both artists relates to pluralism.

We can relate both these artists work back to Pluralism because they are relating juxtaposing views of different races in the same country in order to help each race understand one another.

References

One Foot In The Art World (2010) http://best-of-3.blogspot.com/2010/09/surrender-experiment-in-looking.html

Daly - Peoples, J. Shane Cotton, New Work (2010) http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/shane-cotton-paintings-examine-cultural-landscape-126412

Cotton, S. (2010) Shane Cotton, to and fro. Rossi and Rossi, LTD.

The James Wallace Art Trust (unknown) http://www.wallaceartstrust.org.nz/

Sorensen, R., Tony Albert (2009) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/curios-of-the-contemporary/story-e6frg8n6-1111119151528

Kehinde Wiley and inter-textuality

3. Kehinde Wiley Count Potocki, 2008 oil on canvas, 274.3 x 274.3cm

4. Kehinde Wiley Support Army and Look after People, 2007 oil on canvas, 258.4 x 227.3cm


1. Find a clear definition of Intertextuality and quote it accurately on your blog using the APA referencing system. Use your own words to explain the definition more thoroughly.

"Intertextuality is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts. It can include an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another. The term “intertextuality” has, itself, been borrowed and transformed many times since it was coined by poststructuralist Julia Kristeva in 1966"
Agger, Gunhild Intertextuality Revisited: Dialogues and Negotiations in Media Studies. Canadian Journal of Aesthetics, 4, 1999.

This means that an idea is nothing without ideas to create what it means. Almost every single idea comes from something that has made it. Everything that we see in the world around us, especially in art, because it comes from a previous influence. The thought that 'the artist is the con-artist' comes in to this, regardless of who create what previously, it is what we as viewers are seeing at the times counts. Therefore anything before this is disregarded.

2. Research Wiley's work and write a paragraph that analyzes how we might make sense of his work. Identify intertextuality in Wiley's work.

We make sense of Wiley's work that coming to the understanding that he probably has grown-up surrounded by African Americans who act tough and perhaps a certain way and then adding his own twist to the work, this being flowers and the African Americans in the subject matter of his work acting 'camp' and more blatantly - homosexual. He is combining two unlikely stereotypes and making it work, whilst probably offending many blacks. We can see intertextuality in Wiley's work because although this is a bold statement, like many artworks we see in this day and age, we have seen it before and this is nothing new, so to speak.

3. Wiley's work relates to next weeks Postmodern theme "PLURALISM" . Read page 46 and discuss how the work relates to this theme.

Pluralism is used to describe juxtaposing ideas in one particular piece of work. In this case Wiley has used black men posing in flamboyant clothing that is related to that of the renaissance. Other than the obvious of how this is clashing because of how ridiculous these black men look in these outfits the time of the renaissance was when the black man was still considered a lower race, and these men, should they have existed in this time, would be in slavery or something similar, not in such extravagant clothing. Wiley has preented the idea, of what many people were clearly thinking, and these ideas can be represented as pluralism.

4. Comment on how Wiley's work raises questions around social/cultural hierarchies , colonisation, globalisation, stereotypes and the politics which govern a western worldview.

Wiley's work, for obvious reasons, has raised many questions in different areas. Some cultures feel as though homosexuality is a sin and is extremely frowned upon, different stereotypes feel as though his work is an insult and a poor portrayal of their way of being. Wiley plucks his subjects from the streets- largely in New York. Many of his subjects are asked to pose in ways that renaissance painters were done in, making them seem very old fashioned and because of how they are done, gay. This is way out of its time and this is also against the way things are done in this western world.

5. Add some reflective comments of your own, which may add more information that
you have read during your research.

I think that Wiley has done a very good job of creating a new way of thinking in the western world. Although this has been done before we would be hard pressed to find something like this. I like how he has painted his subjects in the era of the 1800's and renaissance, and how because this when placed in this day and age feels completely different to how it would back then.

Wiley's paintings have been said to "blur the boundaries between traditional and contemporary representation.." I believe this statement to be very much true.

References

Unknown., (2006) Textuality and Inter-Textuality in the Mahabharata: Sarup and Sons

Wiley, K., (2010) Kehinde Wiley: The World Stage Brazil: Roberts and Tilton

Kehinde Wiley, USA (2006) http://www.usanetwork.com/characterapproved/honorees/kehinde/

Hussein Chalayan

Burka (1996) Hussein Chalayan

Afterwords (2000) Hussein Chalayan

1. Chalayan’s works in clothing, like Afterwords (2000) and Burka (1996) , are often challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. What are your personal responses to these works? Are Afterwords and Burka fashion, or are they art? What is the difference?
Not all clothing is fashion, so what makes fashion fashion?

My Personal response to this particular work is that the work is clearly a western spin on an eastern concept. The artist is implying that when a part of eastern religion or culture is placed in the west, instead of taking that idea away, they turn it in to something the people of the west can relate to, by making it sexual and therefore more appealing, so to speak.

I think that both these pieces can be called art, just as both can be called fashion. The reason for this being that in fashion, the extreme pieces you see on the runaway and so forth look like this- they are inventive and crazy and not intended to be worn. Henceforth making them fashion and art. Also, who to say what is art and what art is not, this depends all on what the artist or designer wants to call it and how the audience wants to interpret this piece.

Fashion is made fashion because it is created with an idea in mind, it follows a thought process and interests people. I disagree that not all clothing is fashion, because I think that it is. The reason I think this is because all clothing is fashion to SOMEONE, or has been fashionable at SOMETIME.

2. Chalayan has strong links to industry. Pieces like The Level Tunnel (2006) and Repose (2006) are made in collaboration with, and paid for by, commercial business; in these cases, a vodka company and a crystal manufacturer. How does this impact on the nature of Chalayan’s work? Does the meaning of art change when it is used to sell products? Is it still art?

When this happens I believe that yes, it is still art it just means that the idea behind the create has changed and instead if being art for the sake of art it has become art for commercial reasons. The opinion of him as an artist would absolutely change and a lot of respect probably had been lost for him as fellow artists would say he had sold out. No one is really to say for sure whether this is true or not, it is just personal opinion.

3. Chalayan’s film Absent Presence screened at the 2005 Venice Biennale. It features the process of caring for worn clothes, and retrieving and analysing the traces of the wearer, in the form of DNA. This work has been influenced by many different art movements; can you think of some, and in what ways they might have inspired Chalayan’s approach?

There are many movements that Chalayan could have been influenced by. In his work 'Absent Presence' he relates the work to ideas such as identity, geography, genetics, biology and anthropology. I think he has been influenced by post-modernism, as he shows a disregard for previous ideas of modernism.

Absent Presence (2005) Hussein Chalayan

4. Many of Chalayan’s pieces are physically designed and constructed by someone else; for example, sculptor Lone Sigurdsson made some works from Chalayan’s Echoform (1999) and Before Minus Now (2000) fashion ranges. In fashion design this is standard practice, but in art it remains unexpected. Work by artists such as Jackson Pollock hold their value in the fact that he personally made the painting. Contrastingly, Andy Warhol’s pop art was largely produced in a New York collective called The Factory, and many of his silk-screened works were produced by assistants. Contemporarily, Damien Hirst doesn’t personally build his vitrines or preserve the sharks himself. So when and why is it important that the artist personally made the piece?

Once upon a time this was not the case whatsoever. However now that the times have changed, if an artist has money then he can do whatever he chooses. It would be deemed necessary that before an artist of any kind start off from the bottom, creating his own works, in order to establish himself. When he has made this establishment and created a large enough revenue then no one really cares whether it is the 'artists' or the 'unknown workers' create the piece.

Readings, Spring, Summer (2007) Hussein Chalayan

References

Hussein Chalayan, Art 100, (2011) http://art100.wikispaces.com/Hussein+Chalayan

Hussein Chalayan, 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Chalayan, H., (2011) Hussein Chalayan - From Fashion and Back: Bss Bijutsu