(Kinda) Art History: Lana Newstrom and "Invisible Art"

Imagine you're in an art gallery. It's the weekend, you've gotten out of the house, out on a day of fun and experiencing the local culture. You're excited. You've heard so much about this new, breakout artist that everyone's up in arms about and now you desperately want to see their exhibit. 

You've always loved controversy, especially in the art world. Always challenging what art means, how it can be made. You think you're an innovator, open-minded, that you can be accepting of odd or unconventional forms of art. You think Duchamp's work with readymades was revolutionary, and that art should be for everyone.

 And then you walk into the exhibit, the artist's name, Lana Newstrom, plastered on the wall, look around and think, much like I did when I first "saw" her work, 'What the f---?'

This young lady looks about confused as I do when I tried
to "look" at some of Lana's work.

I'm now too tired to continue on with this example so we're just gonna move on. In the fall of 2014, Lana Newsroom burst onto the art scene and started selling her "pieces" for up to $30,000 each. This in itself is kinda odd, most artists don't find such commercial success so early in their careers, but what made Lana's success worthy of what seemed like thousands upon thousands of controversial think pieces and articles filled with condemnation, was that her work is invisible. 

More than that actually, seeing as invisible implies that it exists and it just can't be seen. Lana's art only exists in her own mind. She says that she creates an idea of what she wants to make, thinks about the materials she would use, thinks about the process of creating it, and then.... doesn't.

Listen, I know that throughout this semester and last, I constantly repeated the whole 'no one can define art because the human race isn't a monolith", I mean at this point its practically my brand, but this is where I draw the line (ha, art puns). I'm about to become my own worst enemy but friends, this isn't art. Apparently, I do have a limit on what art is, cause this it.

However, unlike most people dismissing Lana, and any other art they don't like, I actually have reasons. I remember at the beginning of the year, Mrs Rose sat us down in a circle and had us go around answering some basic questions. One of those questions was: how do you define what is and isn't art? Most of us had no idea how to define it, what was allowed to be considered art or not, but something Mrs Rose said stuck with me, and I think it's become my kinda guiding principle in defining what art is.

She said that, for the most part, it's impossible to define art. That you can't dictate what will affect every person ever. But that for her, one of the only things that can make her feel like something isn't art is when it feels like the artist is trying to take advantage of its viewers. When she feels like there's some kind of manipulation or lie done/told to the viewer. And that's what this feels like. It feels like Lana knew that her normal work wasn't being recognized, so she decided to do something so outrageous and new that they'd have to buy it. It feels like a lie like she's taking advantage of her audience.

And that, apparently is where I stop calling something art.

P.S. So, after doing a bit more research into Lana and her "art", I learned that she's actually a hoax. The original reporting on Lana was done on a podcast, where you wouldn't be able to see Lana, her fake art, her gallery, etc. CBC radio decided to just play a little prank on the art community. So essentially.... I did all this work, and had a rather extreme personal crisis of my own judgement, for nothing. Huh. *flips desk and storms off*

#DoodleADay Experiment

#DoodleADay was an experiment that was created by Royan Lee, that challenged everyone to create something, even if it was a tiny little doodle, every day throughout the month of March. Earlier in the month, Mrs Rose introduced this project to us and challenged us to go through the prompts for each of the days, see if one stood out to us, and then doodle it. I thought this whole challenge was really great, as I like the idea that creating something every day expands your creativity, instead of depleting it.

As I was going through Royan Lee's Instagram, looking for prompts, I found two that really struck me: pick a song and doodle to it without stopping until it's done and doodle a representation of love without using hearts or the colour red. I decided to combine these two challenges, and doodled a picture of hands holding while listening to the song 'Sick of Losing Soulmates' by dodie.

(I was going to put a picture of the doodle here, but it's currently lost in the vortex of mess that is my bedroom so you're just gonna have to use your  *i m a g i n a t i o n* )

I really liked the prompt of representing love, there were probably a lot of different ways I could have gone with it, but I decided to draw hand holding because I liked the significance of it. I feel like too often in our hypersexualized society, love and intimacy has to be shown as sex or extreme physical contact (that kinda sounds like a sports term, but whatever). And I kinda resent that. For a lot of different reasons, but mostly because it means that something as simple as hand holding isn't seen as a "real" expression of intimacy. Which is stupid and untrue, but seeing as my last three posts way to long as it is, we don't need to get into my feelings on that.

Anyway, I thought the challenge and the idea behind it were really cool, and I enjoyed the experience. I might try it again eventually.

Curiosity Journal #2: Zine Planning

Okay, fair warning this post is gonna be hella rant-y and angry and it might take a little while to get to the actual art part so just hang in there. If you really want to, you can skip down to where the next section of bolded text is to get to the actual art discussion.

So in my last curiosity journal, I asked how I could translate what I'm passionate about into art. It's important for me to care deeply about what I'm making, otherwise I won't do it and will most likely forget about it. One of the many benefits of having the attention span of a goldfish.

While I was writing that journal entry, I mentioned zines as a potential way for me to translate my love of social issues into art. In fact, at the end of that entry, I mentioned that I was already following through with that idea and that I was making a zine about a topic very close to me: body confidence and self-acceptance.

It's something that I have personally struggled with and have wanted to talk about for quite a while now, so I thought why not take advantage of the opportunity when it presented itself. Body confidence is always something I've always had problems with, ever since about Grade 2. I don't think I'm alone in saying that television and magazines didn't exactly help with said problems. In the last few years, however, I've not only accepted the way I am, but I happen to think that I look pretty damn fabulous.

I mean, just look at me. Stunning, amirite?

Now, I'm fat. I already know that I'm fat. And I'm not just saying that because I saw some magazine with a skinny model on it, compared it to myself and thought 'oh wow, in comparison to what these magazines are saying is beautiful, I'm fat'. Because no. When I say I'm fat I mean I am actively aware of the fact that I weigh quite a bit more than what a BMI calculator says I should weigh. Don't worry, I don't have bad self-esteem. (I think I'm pretty great. I'm the bomb dot com. In fact, I might have too much self-esteem.)

So yeah, I don't have bad self-esteem; I just the have the radical notion that just because I'm fat doesn't mean that people should be able to erase my humanity and treat me differently because of it. Cause that's what a lot of people do to fat people. Especially fat girls. Especially on the internet. They bully and harass us with the excuse that they're doing it because they care about our health. Which is a bunch of B.S because:

1) No one has that much "concern" over the health of another person on the internet that they don't even know. And
2) If this was really about health, they wouldn't be such hypocrites. When a skinny girl on Tumblr posts a pic of her eating a whole pizza, it's funny and cute and relatable. But when I do it, I'm disgusting and what's wrong with the world. The folks who are telling me about my terrible eating habits are also the ones who picked up Taco Bell or McDonald's on their way home from their kid's soccer practice not once, but twice this week. You think I don't see you? Careful hon, you're hypocrisy is showing. And
3) When companies like Nike come out with plus size exercise wear, these same people that were just yelling at to me get off the couch and go for a run then dogpile on this company for promoting an "unhealthy lifestyle". Tell me, how exactly am I supposed to become healthy and exercise more if I don't have any clothes to exercise in? Quite the riddle, I know. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

If you're still here, thank you for sitting through a rant of such magnitude. I promise I'll get to the art stuff now.

Anyway, so I wanted to create a zine that would be the exact opposite of what fat girls experience online. I wanted it to be full of positivity and happiness and rainbows. I planned the majority of the zine over a two-day period during March Break, and I've been periodically working on the actual zine since then. It's a lot different from the first one I made, partially because it's a lot better produced and also because it doesn't have the same gritty, punk kinda thing that the other one had going on. This ones gonna have a lot more pastel colours and general cuteness than the last. It's going to be all uplifting messages, positive looks at bodies, and adorableness.

Here's just an overview of all the planning I've done so far.

While it will be larger than the four page zine I did last year, it will still be small, confined only to around eight pages. I've plotted everything out and now it's just a matter of making the thing. This zine will be a little more text heavy than the other, but I do plan to try to balance it out a bit. I've already got a title, which I mentioned in my last curiosity journal post, "Thique". I would go into the symbolism behind the title and my decision to use it but this post is already wayyyyy to long and we've both probably got other stuff to do, so I'll leave you with some pics of my plans and such:

Here are my really rough drafts.
This was mostly from the stage that I was just writing down all my ideas.

And here's a rough plan of what each panel/page is going to look like.
Though they are subject to a little bit of change.

Art History: Dadaism

A few days ago, Mrs Rose showed us a video about a type of art called 'Dada'. I was informed by the delightful hosts of the podcast that it got its name because of what it represented. Dada is a nonsense word, it doesn't really mean anything, kinda like the art it represents.

Dada was formed during, and was kind of based around, World War I. See, Dada was developed and began to rise in popularity; mainly in Europe, which, at the time, was in an understandably uncomfortable place. You know, seeing as there was an Austrian archduke missing a considerable chunk of his head and countries were starting to dust off those handy-dandy treaties and alliances that had been formed decades ago. 

The artists who eventually created the art movement known as Dada were all pacifists, who didn't believe in war and didn't want to see their countries ripped apart. So they protested in really the only way they knew how. 

They protested through their art. They created while the rest of the world revelled in destruction.

And they didn't just stop at simply creating, oh no. Their stance wasn't just War = Bad, they deconstructed the reasonings behind the war and what they thought caused it, and then actively rejected it and did the opposite. Unsurprisingly, as most hippie/peace-loving types do, they blamed capitalism.

(No sarcasm intended, I just don't believe that money is the root of all evil. That's a title that's reserved for those who use the word 'yolo' unironically and people who think it's okay to talk in the theatre.)

Dadaists (is that even a word?) essentially formulated the idea that the war was started because of a mix of capitalist ideals, nationalist and colonist self-interest, and conformity to widely held beliefs. They protested these things by creating a form of art that was the exact opposite of these values that they could not stand; they created something that was chaotic, that rejected logic and embraced irrationality. And more than anything else, they created a form of art that the rich, snobby, bourgeois that they thought had caused the war would hate. They threw away anything they knew about traditional art and aesthetics and instead tried to create art that would offend, to shock. They actively tried to elicit the response: 'this isn't art.'

And too many still, it isn't. They look at the work of Marcel Duchamp, at his "ready mades" and "anti-art" (just everyday objects, sometimes combined together) and scoff.

One of Duchamp's many ready mades.
 "Prelude to a Broken Arm"

However, defender of (almost) all forms of art that I am, I would argue that what Duchamp and so many others that participated in Dadaism did is art. Sure, it's a different kind of art, but its still art. And more than art, the whole movement almost feels like a challenge. It feels like a bunch of pent-up artists, tired of conformity, and tired of capitalism tired of a snobbish elite hogging art to themselves,  who stood up and said that art is for everyone. That art doesn't have to perfect and beautiful. That art can be chaotic, ugly, and not make a lot of sense and that that's okay.

 I have a special place in my heart for those who question and challenge the status quo, it's part of my activist nature. And despite whatever I might feel towards Dadaism, whether it was good or effective, I can't not appreciate that it looked at the art world at the time and said: 'this isn't for everyone. This is for the rich and the snobby. And we're gonna change that.'

Art History: Jackson Pollock, Autumn Rhythm

For my first art history assignment, where we focus on critical analysis, I chose to analyze a painting from Jackson Pollock; mostly because I chose to write about Abstract Expressionism, and when I was looking through the movement his name was the only one I recognized. 

Boy, do I regret that decision. How the hell are you supposed to analyze squiggles? 

It's not that I don't appreciate what he did; just because it doesn't move me doesn't mean that it's worthless, or that it's not art, but come on. Unless you really dig for context, it's hard to just figure out of the top of your head what the meaning behind his paintings is.

Once I had narrowed down the artist I wanted to focus on, I had to pick a painting. I chose one called Number 30, otherwise known as Autumn Rhythm; mostly because I was drawn to the colours and title.

Initial Reaction: 

My first impression of this work was that I was going to have a hell of a time writing this blog post, given how Jackson Pollock chooses to create. Just looking at the painting, not analyzing, I can say that I both enjoy and dislike the painting on an aesthetic level. I love the colours he used, and I think that they came together a really nice way. However, my eyes can also have a bit of a hard time processing the chaos of the drips and they tend to go blurry and unfocused after a while. The painting doesn't really bring much to mind, except that I'm kind of confused as to what it all means (which I get is the point of this whole thing but still, Pollock couldn't have made it a little more easy for me?). I understand this can maybe move some people and invoke emotion in them, and while I'm not going to say that they don't have a right to feel that way, I just didn't get the same experience as they did. I didn't feel anything except puzzlement and aesthetic appreciation.

Analysis:

Analyzing a painting like this is incredibly difficult, I would go so far as to say that analyzing a Pollock work specifically is incredibly difficult when just looking at the painting alone. So for this analysis, I'm going to pull more from the author and what he said about his art, more than I do the actual painting. Pollock sometimes used his paintings to show entrapment of a mind within its body, the chaos of consciousness stuck within the confines of the canvas (which is fitting for someone who struggled with alcoholism, and, some scholars hypothesise, bipolar disorder), and others times he seemed to be trying to portray the chaos and force of life or nature itself; which, for a painting called Autumn Rhythm, I believe in this case to be the more likely of the two.

Interpretation:

Like I said earlier in my analysis, I think that with his painting, Pollock was trying to comment, or maybe display, what can sometimes be the complete disorder of nature. Instead of seeing nature as calm and tranquil, Pollock saw the world as something chaotic and disorganized but still considered it beautiful, not in spite or its disorder but because of it. I think the way Pollock decided to create this painting also says a lot about what he was trying to convey; he started the painting with a linear framework of black lines, and slowly built his way towards other colours and drips. It's a perfect mixture between control and chance, something that Pollock seemed to appreciate, especially within a painting like this.

Consideration of Cultural Context:

When it comes to art, context is everything; without it, art can be meaningless, just something pretty or weird to look at. Context is incredibly important, however, when it comes to Pollock's work because of its the only real way we can infer anything about his paintings and their meaning. Pollock grew up in the American West, in an unsettled and tough environment, which shaped his character and personality greatly. As a child, Pollock moved around a bit and was later expelled from two different high schools. It's safe to say that his early life was surrounded by chaos and constant change. He was an alcoholic and sought treatment for his addiction by visiting a Jungian psychologist, who later told him to paint his feelings. I think that Pollock's unsettled early life has shaped a lot of his worldview and that it can definitely be seen through his fondness for upheaval within his work.

Expression of Aesthetic Judgement:

I've said it once, I'll say it a million times: I really don't like making judgements on whether something is art or not. I shouldn't get to decide if a piece has value just based on whether or not it moved me specifically. Because I'm not a monolith for the entire human race. I can't say definitively that this will never affect or move another person. But seeing as this is an assignment that should have been done a month ago, we don't really have time to get into the philosophical question of what is and isn't art; so I'll just say that while this might work for some people, it doesn't for me. I look at Pollock's work and I just see squiggles, drops of paint on a canvas, which, in the long run, mean nothing to me. I don't like how much I had to dig into Pollock's past to even partially understand what he was trying to do. I think that a painting should be able to stand on its own, at least a little bit, and shouldn't rely so heavily on someone knowing the context of the artist's life or what he was trying to do; and so for that reason, I saw that no, this painting is not successful.

Curiosity Journal #1: How Can I Translate My Passions Into Art?

For my first curiosity journal, I asked the question: How can I translate my passion into art? This is a topic that means a lot to me, because I believe that I do my best work in any subject when I care about what I'm working on. My passion for the subject, and translating that subject into a different medium, helps me keep on track and motivated to keep working.

So I got a pen and my sketchbook and started writing out the things that I loved, things that I'm passionate about. It was a bit more difficult than expected, as I've come to realise that no one can really summarise who they are in the same amount of characters as a tweet. Bullet lists don't really allow for much complexity, but it worked well enough for the assignment, so it's what I went with. After that, I made a list of ideas on different mediums I could use to express these passions, but what method worked best for each thing I cared about.

I then expanded on those ideas farther down on the page. I made quick, easy notes on what each idea was, why I wanted to try it, and what I thought it would be good for; sometimes I even mention certain ideas or topics I would want to cover in each art form. These notes are just short little comments just to get the ball rolling, I'd like to expand them further in later journal entries.

I'm already working on my first project, which was based off one the ideas I wrote about in this entry; I decided to create a zine, as I'm more familiar with the medium and have worked with it before. It's going to be about body confidence and self-love, and I'm really excited about it. I've decided to call it "Thique".