‘Unlike other professions the arts occupy a special, anomalous position in our society. Practitioners aren’t licence, Its members are entirely self-declared and self anointed, lacking any visible signs of status.’ - Image Annotation - Study Task 2

Looking at an image, when considering my chosen quote helped to open up so many new doors in terms of research. I started to conceder how people view artists today and the artist stereotype in addition to why people's view on art has changed and the effect of contemporary art upon this shift. It also made me consider the negative stance of politics towards art and all of the cuts the Government are making toward art education, contradicting what they are saying about needing more creatives. 

Questions Raised:

• Do people mock contemporary art because they can't engage with it? 
• Is it because of a lack of understanding?
• Are we stuck in a loop of questioning what art is?
• How do we communicate that we are professionals?
• Can this be done by allowing people into our 'shared understanding'?
• Why do people have the stereotype of the 'struggling artist'?
• Why are the Government making cuts to art education?
• Why is an education in art so important?
• What is this 'anomalous' position that the arts hold?
• How do artists fit into society?
• Can just anyone be an artist?

My 20 images - Study Task 3

Lecture 1: What is Visual Communication

In the lecture today, the lecturer spoke about ‘visual communication’ as a concept. A way of sending and receiving messages through type and image. The first thing that he spoke about, which makes visual communication possible was our shared understanding and visual literacy, us bing the most visually literate generation. It is possible to construct meaning within an image through our accumulated knowledge of symbols. For example, we all know the male and female symbols for the toilet. Even if we went to the loo in Korea we would be able to recognise the symbols and read the sign for the loo. The fact that we re so aware of these symbols allows designers to manipulate and have fun with them, yet they are still recognisable and readable to us.

He also talked about the significance of context, something which he made really clear by using this cross symbol as an example. If we look at it alone we can interperate it as a plus sign, a pharmacy sign, the christian cross, the swiss cross etc. However, as soon as you place it next to a divide sign everyone would say it was an addition symbol. 

Another thing that the lecturer talked about was that a visual language requires an understanding of the relationship between syntax (the structure and organisation of elements within an image, i.e. cool, shape, texture etc.) and semantics (how an image fits into its context). Even though I had never heard the words syntax and semantics before I know this statement to be true. These are all elements that I am constantly aware of and try to balance in my own work. Looking at other illustrator's work there is also almost always a focus on context in addition to the aesthetics of an image. 

                     

He used lots of words, which I was unfamiliar with when defining ‘visual communication’ He used New York City as an example to explain the difference between a visual synecdoche, a visual metonym and a visual metaphor. A visual synecdoche is when you use a part to represent a whole, an example would be using the Statue of Liberty to represent NYC. Whereas, a visual metonym is when you use something which is associated with something to describe it. An example would be using a yellow cab represent NYC, even though yellow cabs are found in cities across the world. In contrast, a visual metaphor is when you use something to describe something which may have no relationship at all with what you are describing but it is what we have been told. An example would be using an apple to describe NYC or 'the Big Apple'. These are all things that I have seen within illustration but have never been able to define. I will now be able to identify these different means of representation more easily. The lecturer really made something quite complex really easy to understand by using NYC as an example. This worked really well for me as a visual learner. 

Lecture 2: A 20,000 Year Non-Linear History of the Image

I really enjoyed todays Cop talk. I loved the fact that there was quite a strong fine art angle to it, as it is something that I find fascinating. I was already very farmiliar with a lot of the art presented in the lecture, but we looked at it from a very different angle to how I have in the past. This made me think about the art in a new light and raised new questions. 

The lecturer spoke a lot about institutional framing, which I found interesting. He gave Rothko’s room in the Tate as an example. Rothko intended for his paintings to present their viewers with a spiritual, emotional experience. He wanted to suck them into the ‘abyss'. Many people even cry when they see this work. However, this raises the question of weather or not the work is generating a soul touching, genuine response or is it all down to institutional framing. This is the idea that the institution has created a sense of importance surrounding the painting which tells you how to behave.

Another example of this is the Mona Lisa, the most famous painting in the world. People flock from all over to see the Mona Lisa, but why? Is it because it is the world’s most skilled and magnificent painting or is it because it has been agreed and we’re told its the most famous painting? It has been placed in a posh gallery and put behind  bulletproof glass, surrounding it with a sense of importance. However, since the rise in social media, you no longer have to make the journey (or essentially the pilgrimage) to see the piece. Artwork now comes to you. Does this not in someway degrade the authority of the institution, now that you can eat a sandwich off a plate of the Mona Lisa’s face. Once someone photographs the original artwork it is no longer in the possession of the institution. Duchamp, for example vandalised an appropriated image of the Mona Lisa with a moustache. He did this to poke fun at the institution, creating the ultimate people’s art.

 

Another thing which the lecturer discussed in detail was the power of image making. He gave Shepard Fairey’s ‘Hope’ poster as an example. This was the poster used to represent Obama in the 2008 presidential election. It was a piece which succinctly communicated his values and helped him claim his seat as president. However, in 2011 when things hadn’t changed since Obama had been in power, Fairey re-designed his poster. He swapped Obama’s face with the Guy Fawkes mask from ‘V for Vendetta’ used by Occupy Wall Street protesters. This reflected a new idea that hope was now in the hands of the people not the government. Here, the use of the same altered image is really effective. It reflects Fairy’s swift change in judgement in a clear, high impact way.

Another interesting way in which the lecturer spoke about the power of image making was by talking about the way in which commercial art is often used to attack ‘high art’ or gallery art. He used the Guerrilla Girls as an example. They commented upon the fact that galleries were dominated by male artist’s work in the late 1980s. They did this by plastering billboards outside of galleries with this image, the lurid colours and bold text grabbing the attention of passers by. I think that this is a really interesting way of making a point. By placing the artwork directly outside the gallery, they make the viewers aware of their message before entering the space, therefore perhaps altering how the viewer thinks about the work inside. 

‘Unlike other professions the arts occupy a special, anomalous position in our society. Practitioners aren’t licensed, its members are entirely self-declared and self anointed, lacking any visible signs of status.’

This quote states that as an artist you can not receive a title, as you might in an industry like medicine (i.e.Dr). There is therefore no hierarchy within the arts as there is within most other industries. You also don’t require any credentials to be an artist as you might with other jobs, a degree is not obligatory. As a result anyone can be an artist meaning no clear sense of status exists within the arts.

Through discussing the artist's status, this quote places the artist or illustrator within society, at the bottom of the social ladder. This quote also uses some interesting words like ‘anomolous’ suggesting that the arts don’t fit within the norms of society, they are difficult to place. ‘Practitioners’ is also an interesting word, one which refers to anyone engaged with an art, discipline or profession. It then doesn’t make sense to me, when it says ‘a practitioner doesn’t need a licence’, as a Dentist for example is a practitioner and they need a licence. This is unless they are referring to a practitioner of the arts. 

When it uses the words ‘self-declared' and 'self anointed’ is it saying that anyone can do it as you are not selected? As within any other profession, lots of artists have degrees. In order to get onto an art degree you need to be selected. Many place in industry, such as design companies only higher people with a degree and professional experience. Therefore not just any ‘self declared’ artist can forge a living in the industry and therefore maintain their status as an artist.

‘Status’ as also a term which is difficult to pin down. Can an artist’s status not be found in the quality of their work and their success, rather than in weather on not they have a title? Defining it like this is totally un-universal as titles and hierachys within different companies are totally incomparable. Does an artist with a 2.1 degree in the arts not have the same status as someone with a 2.1 in a business degree. 

If we take Andy Warhol’s ‘Campbell's Soup Cans’ as an example, a piece which both raises our awareness to and challenges the consumerist nature of society in contemporary America. As a widely known artist with the power to comment upon and challenge society and have their message so widely received, does Warhol not have status? Is power not a ‘vidible sign of status’?

Michelangelo’s David very much portrays the artist’s status in a traditional sense. This is not only in terms of its grander reflected in the artistry and the complex subject matter (both things which reflected an artist of high status in the Renaissance period). But it also has significance on a political ground. It became a symbol for Florence (the underdog), staring to the North to ward off the enemy (the Mediccis). Surely an artist who has the power to say so much within their work is of status?

'In his studio the artist has no social responsibility. But when the artist displays his work the situation changes'

Today we discussed and researched this quote as a group in the COP seminar. It came under the heading society but it is clear that there is overlap between themes. 

Everyone drew different things from the quote which meant we came up with an interesting mash of ideas. We discussed the difference between right and responsibility and the fact that the artist has the right to voice their own opinions but then they have a responsibility to not say certain things. The quote also hi lights the significance of audience and context. These are things which the artist needs to be aware of, as the responsibility comes with how people respond to the work. However, if an audience misinterpret a piece and are as a result offended, is this then down to the artist? And does the artist not still have a moral responsibility when creating artwork which is never to leave the studio?

Through talking about ’social responsibility’, this quote is essentially giving the artist a voice. If the artist has a voice and the power to say something in the work then shouldn’t they use it? Many contemporary artists today make work which shocks in order to raise a point. However, what shocks often offends somebody. It is clear that the line between challenging and offending is fine. 

The key term in our quote was ‘social responsibility’. Social means ‘suited to a polite and fashionable society’. We can then redefine polite, which means ‘refined and cultured’, which then goes to raise the question what is a refined painting? One of my group members came up with this when asked to define our key terms. I think that redefining ideas to see where your research leeds you is a really interesting way of working and finding new and exciting ideas. This is definitely something I’d like to try doing when doing my own research. 

This is Chris Ofili's 'Holy Virgin Mary' (1996). Ofili was raised as a Roman Catholic and he didn't like how over sexualised the Virgin Mary is in traditional representations found in places like the National Gallery. In order to raise people's awareness to this issue he has made his own explicit modern version. However, many people were offended by this work and thought it was sick, someone even tried to reck it by throwing white paint at the piece. I personally initially thought this too. I thought that Ofili had taken it one step too far and totally abandoned all social responsibility but it was interesting to see how my opinion of the piece changed as I discovered his original intensions. 

Another group looking at the same quote as us discussed how an artist's work can be taken out of context and made to look totally socially irresponsible regardless of the artist's initial intensions. They used the Author's fist meme as their example, a screenshot form the kid's program Author which has been repeatedly re-captioned and spread across social media. I thought that this idea was a really interesting one and it isn't one which my group discussed. This is something which happens a lot and perticularly within the recent meme phenomena. 

Task 1: Combining Contemporary Themes

Today we were set the task of illustrating a series of mismatched words from lists we wrote based on contemporary themes .i.e. politics, history, technology etc. I received combinations like Anne Frank and friends, the Pacman slave trade and The Flintstones French Revolution. At first I was totally baffled by the brief and I felt stressed and overwhelmed as we didn’t have long to complete our drawings. I was particularly stressed because I have never really drawn from my imagination before and everyone else seemed so good at it. I eventually came up with the simple idea of merging Eugene Delacoix's painting ‘Liberty Leading the People’ with the Flintstones. This worked really well for me as it meant that I could use images as a reference point while still adding my own personal creative twist, rather than relying purely on my own imagination. Having completed my sketch I was upset by how messy it was and so desperately wanted to go back and re draw it but I didn’t let myself. I knew that it was a brief about ideas and not drawing skills. Having done one drawing I then felt like I was on a roll and completed a couple of others in no time. Having hated this brief at first I actually really surprised myself and ended up having a really good time completing it. This is the first time I have ever drawn in this style and I now feel that it i an area of my practice that I would like to continue to work on.

During the session we also discussed the line between what is witty and what is offensive and it is clear that it is quite a fine one. Someone presented a Hitler fashion magazine which everyone in the class found funny but I can definitely see how it could be seen as offensive. Having discussed this it made me look back at and reflect on my own work. I think that even though everyone on my table found it funny, I may crossed a line with my Hitler Facebook sketch. This is something I will now think about more when making work in the future.