And here is the same piece assembled at the San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art:
Notice the difference in organization. At SJICA, there are distinct columns with areas of negative space in between, while the picture from CAM has a more disorganized feeling to it.
This piece is definitely abstract and non traditional. Using rubble as a canvas is a very interesting choice, especially considering that the buildings that are printed on the rubble are all older. The juxtaposition of different buildings also create an interesting harmony in the piece. The roof in the upper right part of the piece seem Italian or Japanese. There is a mixture of stone buildings that could be Greco-Roman (columns?) or more medieval/Gothic. Also in the lower right corner there is a sign that looks more British in design. This combination of the different architectural styles should not create a cohesive work, but this piece somehow makes them all seem like they work together. This is the core idea: the combination of past styles and ideas (represented by the buildings) jumbled together in an odd but connected way.
The artist has a really great grasp on using negative space and light (in this case shadows) to create emphasis in her work.The way the work was lighted was obviously very deliberate. The shadows create a more three dimensional feeling to this work and give value to the lighter columns and textures found in the piece. The composition is very versatile, and, as seen above, can change from exhibition to exhibition. The way the piece is organized obviously changes the negative space, but this space is used effectivley in both cases. It does have a feeling that something is missing (but not "the artist forgot something", more of a 'the artists purposely left this empty")
Also, the name is very interesting: Permutations #2. When you look up the definition of permutations, you get the act of permuting. That's not very helpful unless you know what permuting is. However, upon further research, I found out it meant "the act of changing" which makes a lot of sense. This art piece is about the past, but is also about the transition of the past to the future, which is evident from the fact that the art is printed on rubble.
Here is my sketch, which was honestly more difficult than this post (no offence Ms. Genesky, the prompt was very thought provoking) because of the negative space/shadows. So, to preface the sketch, I will leave this for you to contemplate:
And, without further ado, here is my sketch:
And, without further ado, here is my sketch:
(I should also note that I was focusing on the negative space, so I did not color the squares. Instead, I focused on placement and size)
I really enjoyed reading this- many of the posts I've read so far jump into the analysis too quickly. It's so important to think about what's there on the surface (the structure, style, image, etc.) before getting into any interpretation. Great job!
ReplyDelete