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.