About a month or so ago, we made a trip up to the Black-E. In all honesty, I've never heard of it before, never realising there was such a thing as this social artistic outlet right on our doorstep...
The Black-E (formerly known as The Blackie) was first launched in 1968 and adopted its odd name due to a century's worth of dirt that had once covered the building. It is a combination of a contemporary art centre coupled with a community centre and was the UK's first community arts project. It is currently under construction and has been given a hefty grant in which will hopefully return its former grandeur.
The project is commited to young people, offering them 'affection, protection and direction', and promoting both 'do-ing' and 'viewing' in both formal and informal practises.
We were given alot of imformation and packs offering us the chance to get involved and volunteer.
Its motto is, 'Connecting artists and communities'.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Sunday, 15 November 2009
New York.
In february, my friend and I decided to spend our student loans wisely on a trip to the big city. Looking back, I slightly regret some of the museum visiting decisions we made, I wish we'd have looked a little more off the beaten track... But still, I got to see (in the flesh!) some of the art worlds most amazing history altering paintings. All of these pictures were taken in the MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, New York)

Here is Frida Kahlo above, complete with a monkey and a moustache.

Above is work by Alexander Rodchenko... (I think!)


I'm a bit of a fan girl of Jackson Pollock if i'm honest. Anything surrounded by tradgedy i'm sort of drawn to; I feel nothing but complete admiration and empathy for this guy. I know he was probably a miserable drunken grump really, but oh well, C'est la vie.

This work is by Willem de Kooning. Some years ago I based alot of my work on this artist. I remember really liking the messy outcome, its rather pleasing to the eye! I realise the picture is rather blurry... just don't click to make it bigger.

The work above is a result of Yves Klein. I'm not quite sure the meaning behind his work, but I do know he dragged a number of naked women covered in blue paint across a clean sheet of paper, resulting in the image above. Every male artists dream I imagine...

Thursday, 12 November 2009
Rothko, Rothko, Rothko...

This week, I embarked on a trip up to the Albert Dock, to the Tate Liverpool. At the moment, there is a retrospective of abstract painter Mark Rothko’s ‘The Seagram Murals’. After a 20 year absence from their first exhibition in the Tate in 1988, the paintings made a… somewhat welcome return; for some, just not so much for me. Personally, I feel they should have stayed put, in the four seasons, exactly where they were made to be.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say I dislike modern art, but a lot of the time, I just don’t understand it. I feel ‘abstract’ is a word painters could hide behind; it gave a feeling of credibility to something that was undeserving (in some cases, anyway) In Rothko’s case, it gives meaning to a man whose work, primarily, focuses on being shit. When asked to describe just what it is his work meant, Rothko always said he’d prefer not to explain. That, to me, speaks volumes; too scared to right the upper-class who feel the simplicity in his paintings is nothing short of extraordinary...
I feel art like this invites people into a world where they can appear artistically superior; suggesting they can see something in Rothko’s work that the rest of us can’t. But, maybe that’s just how I feel. Art like this is popular because ultimately, and understandably, it’s misunderstood. It’s very likely it could have absolutely no meaning. It’s because of this that people who believe they do have superior thoughts are all too quick to jump in, and defend and define it as something else other than shit. But this is just my opinion, the reason I think what I do is because I’ve never had the pleasure of these superior know-it-alls try and explain to me why his work is indeed so special.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say I dislike modern art, but a lot of the time, I just don’t understand it. I feel ‘abstract’ is a word painters could hide behind; it gave a feeling of credibility to something that was undeserving (in some cases, anyway) In Rothko’s case, it gives meaning to a man whose work, primarily, focuses on being shit. When asked to describe just what it is his work meant, Rothko always said he’d prefer not to explain. That, to me, speaks volumes; too scared to right the upper-class who feel the simplicity in his paintings is nothing short of extraordinary...
I feel art like this invites people into a world where they can appear artistically superior; suggesting they can see something in Rothko’s work that the rest of us can’t. But, maybe that’s just how I feel. Art like this is popular because ultimately, and understandably, it’s misunderstood. It’s very likely it could have absolutely no meaning. It’s because of this that people who believe they do have superior thoughts are all too quick to jump in, and defend and define it as something else other than shit. But this is just my opinion, the reason I think what I do is because I’ve never had the pleasure of these superior know-it-alls try and explain to me why his work is indeed so special.

Red on Maroon, 1959.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
It's a... FACT!

I'm not really a big fan of video art, obviously depending on what it is my interest can be lengthened! We had an artist come visit us last year in Southport College called Shelagh Flanahan (her names irish... probably, it was still pronounced 'Sheila') maybe it was because we had a full day of watching her watching herself brushing her hair in the mirror; watching her eat her breakfast whilst crying; watching her blow smoke out of her mouth and then sucking it back in again... but, in brutal honesty, I was bored to tears for best part of that day.
As a result, as soon as I walked into the FACT, I was a little anxious... and felt a slight pang of disappointment. As soon as you walk in, 6 screens are thrust at you, all seperately screaming information. It was a bit much to take in all at once. It was pretty harsh, loud and after looking around in the dark for an explanation after a few minutes I gave up.
In the end, I did find one... explaining the artists biography and explaining his struggles with his native homeland of Thailand.
Apichatpong Weerasethakul is regarded as a central figure in the comtemporary cinema world. His 'Primitive' exhibition in FACT is his first UK solo exhibition; comprising of a multi-screen video installation. The videos were filmed in a village in the Renu Nakhon dirstrict of Thailand, called Nabua. During the 1960's, brutal clashes between the communist communities and the Thai military took place there. The project is about re-inventing Nabua, a place where sadly, memories and ideologies have been forgotten. For the project, Weerasethakul invited teenage decendants of the communist farmers to dream up fabricated memories through the building of a spaceship in the rice fields. I only just understand this now, having read about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)