John's Learning Journal

The Missing Element: Part 2 (Or Two Christians, a lesbian, and a bi-sexual make a Satanic Church)

Well here we are again. Me trying to write a whole bunch of stuff so I can pass this project.

Here’s what happened to me yesterday.

It turned out that the interior set project was directly colberative. Meaning I would have to actually work with others here. Well. I said I’d try when I signed up for this. And at least four is easier than twenty.

I was paired off with Ren, Molly and Jack. Three people I had never spoken to as far as I can remember. And I decided to just sit back and let others take the lead.

We talked for a bit. But as we were at our desks we are all in a straight line It put molly and Ren in the centre and me and Jack at the edges.I noticed Molly and Ren were doing most of the talking, Jack chipped in sometimes, and I was mostly lost as to what was going on. I could only really talk to Molly, Not really to Ren and not at all to Jack or he to me. So of course the girls were doing most of the talking as they had the most access to others.

It was then it occured to me that group projects in real space are fundamentally undemocratic, Because whoever has the best pace has the most power. And those on the edges automatically have less power,

Our first job was two just go down and pick a building from our model city to make a room for. Everyone-else had the same idea. They all turned different lights on and off to get the most dramatic lighting possible. Amidd the endless chatter and noise I found myself retreating into my 12-year-old-student self. Not thinking “How can I make a great work of art” or “How can I improve myself” but, “Just sit back. Do as little as possible. And hope this day ends soon”.

Eventually the girls settled on a spikey building with a red light that they felt looked like a “Church of Satan”. Keen to just get this over with, I did not argue or make any counter suggestion. Or say anything for that matter.

Once we set up at our work station I just sat there and did nothing. I said I would do anything I was asked to but couldn’t think of anything to do myself. The others were exactly happy about this and tried to encourage me to do my own thing. But the idea of butting heads over creative decisions meant I wanted to stay in the follower/general helper role.

As the girls got to designing my role fell into throwing out general information about satanism and devil worship. Of which it turns out I know more than most people. One of my factoids, the look of the actual Satanic cross [pictured below]

actually made it into the final project. Which I feel proud of.

I found Ren and Molly were nice and they listened to what I had to say. When I felt it was relevant to bring up that I am a Christian neither of them were derogatory or weirded-out. Which was a relief. There was some definite jokes at Christianity’s expense. We were making a satanic church after all. But nothing too annoying. I was able to give the girls my assurance that no-one religious would take offence to the work we were making. I sighted Christopher Lee. A man with a strong respect for christianity and a distrust of the occult “You’ll not only lose your mind, but you’ll lose your soul” (University College Dublin, 2011) Spent his life playing monsters, demons, wizards and devil worshipers. For him it was an act. A persomence. A work of art. And most importantly, a job. And that’s what this was for me too, A job.

If that failed I could have also used Alice Cooper. Rock villain on stage and devout Christian in real life.

Later Jack said that he himself was a Roman Catholic. So there were two Christians working on making a model satanic church. Imagine that.

As things became more practical I got more involved. My first major contribution was finding some black acrylic paint. Off which I felt a bit too proud.

Then I was given the task of making the benches for our church. Which I botched spectacularly. We all laughed about it, and I decided to try again. And I think they came out a lot better than they would have if I’d gotten the right on the first time. So I guess Lisa Simpson was right. Sometimes a crisis is also an opportunity

After a while I had developed a degree of trust and even liking for my teammates. I noticed Our church had a satanic bible but no lectern. Unprompted I volunteered to make it myself. Something I had not expected to do for anything at the start of the day.

I made it out of cardboard, and m cutting work seemed to have improved a lot from the making of the pyramid. I glued it together and then painted it a dark purple. To stand out from the reds, blacks and whites in the rest of set. I even added a plasticine ledge to hold the satanic bible in place.

All this unprompted and unguided. I mentioned a few journals back that there is some unseen element that makes people partake in group work even when there is no reward, failstate or friendship at play. The fact I was able to do this work on the lectern suggests that whatever this missing element is, I have a little bit of it, somewhere.

Today I came in and found Molly and Ren absent. I had to put the finishing touches to the film myself.

Strangely. I found working off someone-else’s plan on my own rather easy. Even relaxing.

I made the curtains and put them up. I then added the satanic symbols to the walls. And now the model was ready to go.

Tom and I lit and filmed it. And I think we got some atmospheric shots of it. Tom then gave the footage to Jack. Who will hopefully edit it into the film and add in effects and animation. For the moment, my work here is done.

This would be an unremarkable piece of group work for most people. But for me this was a success of the kind I have not had in years. I hope it can be a learning experience for the rest of the field module. But at the least. I was able to do okay in this part of it, which means hopefully I can do okay later.

Paralysing Fear and Building the Pyramid

I was thinking of posting these as two separate journals. But given I’ve already posted one today and these two things link together I decided just to post them in one Journal.

Paralysing Fear:

When I was given the rundown on the brief I could feel bad memories from similar group-based work setting my hair on end. The idea of having to work around other people. Fight for my vision, or at least fight to not have someone-else for their vision onto me. Designing a city. Trying to make a story with other people. Try to do things because I wanted to and not out of the need to be different. Just thinking about these things was stressful. Not to mention all the planning and designing that would be needed.I wanted out I really wanted to escape. Kierkegaard once said something to the effect of “If you can still complain about your problems you can bare them. It’s people who can’t talk about them who are in trouble.

And sure enough I was at a point where I felt unable to speak with fear and pain.

It is strange to think that memories you haven’t thought about in years or even decades can freeze you up.

I know that some would say this is an opportunity to move past those bad experiences. And maybe something like this on a smaller scale, with less people, and less at stake could be good for me if I tried. But this feels like being thrown into to deep end with not even a flotation device in reach. Can you see why I’m frightened?

I talked to Owen about it and was able to get some leeway.The brief required us all to make buildings out of card or cardboard for a model city. I could make a building in my own time separate from the rest of the class. And I could make whatever I wanted without running it by the others. This took a lot of the pressure off me. In my mind I gave my building up to the group. They can do whatever they want with it once it’s finished. It’s not my vision but I don’t need to partake in someone-else’s vision instead. A little sad. But doable.

What also helped was being given two days off to finish my constellation work. Being able to prioritise my jobs makes things a lot easier.

*********

Building the Pyramid

Knowing I wouldn’t have much time to work in I went for a pyramid. The simplest shape I could think of that wouldn’t be boring. I knew the others would probably go for a Sci-Fi look. So I took inspiration from the movie ‘Blade Runner’, which has a giant pyramid in the centre of its city. Though there are real cities today with pyramids in them. The entrance to the Louvre in Paris is a giant glass pyramid. And Rome has a real Egyptian pyramid outside its city centre. I was there earlier this year. So this choice has plenty of president behind it.

There was also a bit of ego in evolved. I knew some people would complete to make the tallest building. So I chose to make the widest. The most physically present and monumental (I guess all that reading about Minimalism did pay off). And sure enough. As of now it is the widest building in the model city. And you cannot overlook it. It dwarfs many of the buildings around it. It has a strong presence in the city and adds to it atmosphere. What more could I ask for?

I found making it easier than I thought it would be. I think my fear and paranoia was still getting to me.I should have known how to make a model out of card just fine. But at the time I was convinced I didn’t and kept asking for advice. In the end Tom found materials for me. And later Morgan helped me out too. And I’m grateful to both of them for that.

I measured and cut the piece myself. And I rather botched it trying to do it quickly. To the point I had to use a guillotine to sharpen the edges and recut them to be the same size. But I botched that too which caused all the pieces to shrink dramatically in size. And they still weren’t all the right side. I clearly don’t work well when I’m rushing myself. I need to pre-plan so I can feel sure of doing the processes right. In the end I just attacked the larger pieces with a knife. And got them almost down to the same size. But now the edges were ruined. I felt a bit like this

And about as dignified.

Sadly the piece still came out very uneven. I cut bits off with a scalpel while putting it together and it still looks awkward and clumsy.

Like I said Morgan helped me put it all together. I held the pieces while he sellotaped them into place. That was great of him.

To add a bit of spice to the piece I asked if I could put a design on it. I was told I could as long as it was all in black (Something to do with the digital effects that will be added in later I think). I knew What I wanted. I chose to paint a Triquetra.

A symbol of the Holy Trinity.

Obviously it would fit onto a pyramid very nicely. But this was more than just an aesthetic choice. I liked the idea of subtly Christianizing an object associated with paganism. If Ridley Scott could transform his pyramids into something new why couldn’t I?

There was also a degree of mischief to this choice. I considered making a church for this project. But that would have required more work than I wanted to do. Also I’m sure my hardcore atheist classmates would have had a fieldday with such a pious display. So this was my way of sneaking a church in without anyone noticing.

I painted the triquetra on with black acrylic, using my fingers. I’ve often used finger painting in my serious art before. It gives me more control and stronger marks. And again, it saves a lot of time. The end result looks like a Franz Kline painting. Weird and menacing and I like it a lot. I think my triquetra adds a lot of personality not only to the pyramid. But to the city as a whole. I’m not often pleased with my own art work but this I am happy with.

Owen helped me film the model on set. So it will be there in the final film. And like I’ve said I think I looks pretty good. It fits in well with then other buildings. And now I bequeath it to the project. What other people do with it in the final film is their choice. I let it be part of someone-else’s vision now.

Now that that’s done. I need to think of something for the next part of the project. I need to make an interior with interesting lighting now.

Wish me luck!

Getting things in order

One reason I feel so terrified of this current project is the juggling act it asks me to do with my Constellation work. I feel most comfortable working in a linear fashion. Doing first one project. Finishing it. And only then starting the next one. But at the moment we’re being asked to do the exact opposite of that. I have two vitally important, unskippable tasks that I am supposed to do at the same time and for the same deadline Can you understand why this is stressing me out?

I was given a little reprieve to spent two days at home doing my Constellation work. This was a massive relief. But when I got back on Friday I found I was somehow already behind schedule

What really annoys me is of the two huge pieces of work we are meant to do the Field piece is allegedly the more important one. But it is something that was just dropped on us at random in the last two weeks of term. While the Constellation piece is the sum-total of everything we have learned and have been building towards in Constellation over these past three months. So can you blame me if that one feels more important?

The Constellation and Subject/Field modules don’t so much compliment each other as they get in each other’s way. Like a pitched battle and a gardening class.

The lack of communication between the people who run these modules is mind-blowing.

It all seems to be predicated on the model of “The Students will make it all fit together. Somehow”.

The Missing element

In science, philosophy, and logic we can often intuit things that are beyond our senses by observation and deduction. Things like gravity and dark matter can’t be perceived by our five senses be we know that they exist through logic.

I was lying down in a room full of screaming people playing with cameras and lights as part of our course work. This was meant to be a group effort. But not being ennfusistic about either the task or working with others I decided I would sit down and wait until someone told me to do something. But even though I waited for an hour no-one did.

The project was going fine without any supervision. I had to wonder why. No-one was forcing the other students to do anything. I suppose they were enjoying it?

This got me thinking. They were all engaged in this group effort. But I was waiting for someone to make me engage. So I asked myself. What would make me engage given there was no set amount of work or failure state?

Well. A sense of vision for one thing. A sense that I am making something I care about and share in making with others. I love coming up with ideas for stories with other people. Adding, fine-tuning, and creating something great with a person I care about. But this exercise had no room for creativity. It was just mechanically playing with lights and cameras. And as for the people there? They’re fine. But I wouldn’t call them friends. And I don’t think most of them would give that moniker to each-other.

Money would be the second option. I’ll happily do a mindless task if there is some-sort of tangible reward for it. But here there is nothing to be gained by doing it.

So there’s no structure or failure-state. No reward. And no vision to be expressed. What am I missing? Was it fun for the others? That wouldn’t explain why they would start it though. They wouldn’t know it was fun to start with. Do they just like each-other that much? But then why didn’t the exercise just breakdown into something else? Why did they keep working long after having each had a turn?

I think I am missing something. Some vital element that would keep a group of people working on a pointless task that I can’t discern and probably just don’t have.

Site Specific art: Or art’s Identity Crisis

Or is it an Existential crisis?

I’ve complained that all this art theory stuff feels irreverent or makes art less fun. But now that we’ve reached the late 20th century The theory and the art now seem to occupy different plains of existence. If you were to get a team of archaeologists and anthropologists to investigate the many types of Site Specific. Land art, Pubic art, and and Institutional Critique, just based on the work. With no access to the writings of the times. Not only would they not guess the motives behind their creation. They’d probably guess something totally opposed to what they were trying to do..

I don’t even know how to write about this stuff. Do I tackle the theory or the art first? I can’t talk about both at the same time. And they don’t lead naturally into each other.

Let’s try the theory first. As that’s what most of the reading and presentations have been about.

By the time we get to the 70s and 80s the question of “What is art” or perhaps “What is pure, unrestricted art” has become the sole focus of making art. The site specific artists have tried to escape the boundaries of museums and frames, and the trap of art being pure idea. And much like an escaped prisoner it’s running about to anywhere it can be. The cities, the junkyards, and nature. And like an escaped prisoner it doesn’t seem to have any goals or dreams beyond not going back.

The theoretical side of Site Specific art has been depressing to read about. Because it feels like art has lost it’s humanity. It is now so keen to not be of point to anything but itself it has shut the world out. It is a depressed narcissist trying to think only about itself while not even knowing who it is or what it is meant to do. Is this what modernism has lead to? A world were art is so concerned with asking “What is art” that art has now no means of expression for fear of being contaminated?

Art used to be about things. Love, hope, anger, faith. despair, time, colour, pattern, compassion and tragedy. But now art can only be about art it seems to hate the world and itself. Is this what people like Turner and Monet wanted when they challenged what art could do and could be? To paraphrase a great movie “Modernism had a dream. This is not it!” (Gladiator, 2000)

If challenging the painting/sculpture/architecture trinary dynamic of what art is just made a world where art has to be defined by what it isn’t and lives in fear of being anything like it’s past self. Or doing anything because no two people agree on what it should be. Then I have to ask. Was this worth it?

There are still people out there who feel all art after 1910 was a mistake. Or not even art at all. And I try to stand by modern art. To say the increased creativity and means of expression was worth the breakdown in artistic norms. But now I really have to wonder. Is this increased creativity and expression. Or the death of it?

Everything made by humans has limits because humans are limited creatures. And everything we make will be imperfect because we are imperfect. You cannot have “pure” art because art does not exist in a vacuum. It is made by humans.

Instead of despising our limits we should embrace them. Work with them. We do great things with our limits. Music is limited by what we can hear. Painting is limited by our ability to see colour. Architecture is limited by what the laws of physics will let us build. Video games are limited by our technology. Gardens are limited by space and the seasons. But all these things are beautiful and amazing. If the fact we can’t make them “Pure” of “Perfect” means they aren’t worth having them I don’t want purity and perfection!

********

Now, let’s talk about the art. It’s almost impossible to talk about Site Specific art as a whole as it’s not really one thing. It is many different things very loosely bound together by being a place rather than being in or part of a place. Could you really say that Banksy, Anish Kapoor, and Andy Goldsworthy are all the same kind of artist, or even all part of the same movement? I might like most minimalists but hate Robert Ryman. But there is no doubt in my mind that Ryman is still a minimalist. But here saying I like one artist and that I don’t like another feels like saying I like apples but hate the long division. It feels random and pointless to say.

I’ve a very strong soft spot of land art. Whether it’s meant to last forever or just a few hours. It can feel exciting. mythic, an inspiring. To be able to see amazing land works that could normally only exist in dreams or video games sounds wonderful.

Needless to say. I adore the work of Robert Smithson, Andy Goldsworthy, and Michael Heizer. I hope to see some of Smithson and Heizer’s work in person someday.

And actually using nature as both canvas and materials seems like the most natural thing in the world. How can the results not be beautful and even spiritual. I wish more people could do this sort of thing. It sounds like it would be fun and good for their souls. But most people don’t even feel up to drawing. Making land art would be way beyond what they’d feel up for. Despite what many artists say you cannot have a world where everything is art and everyone is an artist because most people don’t WANT to be artists. It’s like suggesting a world where everyone is a politician or everyone is a comic book nerd. Most people have other interests and other things they are good at. The dream of the art universe needs to die. But with it goes my hope of a world where everyone can get in touch with nature.

All I can do is try to enrich the lives of those around me with art of the earth.

But I hope the legacy of Smithson will continue to grow and change the world for the better.

Site Specific art in cities leaves me cold. It just looks awkward and strange. Site Specific art in cities doesn’t tend to be very beautiful. It just gets absorbed into the city and looks small and ugly. Like a lemon in a rock display. A piece of planned oversized litter. I think the reason for this is unlike land art it tends to work against the setting rather than work with it. And it seems more interested in transforming the space it’s in than saying something meaningful. But just transforming something without trying to improve it means you might as well be doing nothing at all.

Site Specific art in museums just feels odd to me. There’s so little uniformity between the pieces I’ve been shown that I can only really judge each peace individually. Many fall flat for me. Some seem clever. Some can be beautiful. And some sound positively amazing. But I don’t feel drawn to this type of art. Either seeing it or making it. And if it excites me that little it must be doing something wrong.

**********

In conclusion I can’t really call Site Specific art either a failure or a success. It feels more like a theory that was submitted unfinished. “EMC… I’ll figure the rest out later”.

Some good stuff came out of it. My love of Land art is as strong as ever. But I feel like the people of this era got too tied up in trying to figure out what art is to decided what they wanted to make and how they wanted to change the world. Causing the movement to fall into obscurity before most of it’s main practitioners have even stopped working.

I hope someday somebody will pick this up and give it new life. But for now. It will remain just a an idea for a movement.

My lack of thoughts on Conceptualism (AKA Why comic books are indeed art)

Conceptualism is lazy nonsense.

“Art is Dead. Art remains dead. And we have killed it!” (Paraphrase of some German guy. The Gay Science. 1882. Page 125).

Etiquette would dictate I explain my stance and defend my opinions. But going into the realms of ideas and concepts would be playing on the enemy’s terms.

Better minds than mine have tried to attack conceptual art on conceptual terms and achieved nothing. For nearly 40 years this movement has wasted time. While better movements come and go this one seems to feed on the hate thrown at it.

If you suffer from intrusive thoughts caused by trauma or depression, the worst thing you can do is try to fight or crush them. It just makes them stronger. When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert with all the riches of the earth, Jesus responded by quoting scripture at him rather than playing his game.

So rather than playing into conceptualisms hands by trying to refute it, I will now talk about something that is art. Comic Books.

And besides. If anything can be a work of art by virtue of an artist saying it’s art, then surely any piece of writing can be about conceptual art if the writer says that’s what it’s about. Right?

******

I thought the debate over if comic books are art or not was over. But a few days after the passing of comic-book creator Stan Lee, the talkshow host Bill Maher, decided to take a shot at him and the medium as a whole. Saying that only children read books with pictures. And that smart ones like he was would only read them as a last resort.

Argument 0: Dismantling the case against comics and setting up some rules.

For starters. Many books on art, science, and travel need pictures in order to make sense.

More importantly the objection that combining words and pictures makes an art form of lesser quality means that film, video games, opera, video art, theatre, animation and even a tv talkshow like Bill Maher’s are all unworthy of being taken seriously.

I suspect if pressured, he would retract this point about words and pictures, and claim there was something distinctively bad about comics that can’t be applied to film, illumination, etc. I can only guess what his new point would be. But it seems the core of his argument is that escapist action fantasy of the type Stan Lee wrote is not suitable for mature people.

Again, this point falls flat.

Firstly: Not all comics are Heroic Fantasy. Not even all of Stan Lee’s comics fell into that category (even if it is what he was best known for). This would be like assuming having seen the Mona Lisa, one now knew everything worth knowing about painting.

Secondly: Even if we assume that Stan Lee and classic Marvel (1961 – 1973) stand for all of comics, saying that Heroic Fantasy cannot be worthy art is nonsense.

What is Heroic Fantasy? It is any work that combines Action and Adventure with Fantasy or Science Fiction.

It makes up most of pop culture. Star Wars, Dragon Ball, The Legend of Zelda, The Conan stories, Halo, Foundation, The Terminator, Half-Life, Akira, My Little Pony, Steven Universe, The Stand, Princess Monokone, The Chronicals of Narnia, Indiana Jones, and even many fairy tales fall under the banner of Heroic Fantasy

It’s undisputable place in our culture established, let’s look at some examples of it in literature.

The Lord of the Rings is considered one of the greatest works of English literature. George R R Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ is one of the most acclaimed works of the current century. Watership Down is still one of the greatest novels in the English language.

The Canterbury Tales opens with a story of gods and warriors. The crown jewel of Arabic literature, The 1001 Nights, is full of heroic fantasy. Beowulf and Le Mort De Arthur have shaped the very idea of Britain as a nation. The Iliad and the Odyssey are considered the very bedrock upon which western civilization was built. And Gilgamesh, the oldest written story in existence, is a story about a warrior who fights monsters.

But pointing out that the traditions of heroic fantasy can be found in classic literature isn’t enough. There are pornographic films based on Shakespeare after all.

If I am to prove that comic books are art, I need to show that comic books have artistic merit in their own right. And Just to make a point. I will only use either Classic Marvel or stuff like it.

*******

Argument part one: The Text

In the 1960s American comic books were heavily censored. To the point that they could only tell “child-friendly” stories. But that didn’t stop the writers and artists who worked on them from trying their hardest. Far harder than many uncensored artists do.

Superhero fiction had started out as very rebellious. In the 1940s Superman stood against the oppression of the poor. Wonder Woman fought for a unique vision of femininity that was neither submissive or the quest to become more like men. Captain America took a stance against the Nazis before it was cool in the States. And Namor the Submariner had to cope with being half human while hating humanity.

Socialism, feminism, anti-fascism, and self-loathing. Far from being brainless, these early superhero comics had a strong set of themes and ideas.

But by the late 50s all but the lightest of content had been purged from the medium for the protection of innocent minds. If Wonder Woman ever killed anyone or The Joker wasn’t back in jail by issues end the fear was this would turn all children into violent psychopaths.

But Marvel began to adapt to these rules.

So the good guys could never kill. But shouldn’t that make being the hero even harder? How does one feel when your morals tell you to be merciful when your heart is full of vengeful rage? So the bad guys had to always lose. Does that really mean the heroes always win, and what does it even mean to win? The Thing might beat the greatest supervillain on earth into a pulp. But that doesn’t give him his humanity back, or mend his rift with the other members of the Fantastic Four.

In short. Marvel began to explore what it meant to try to be good. And what it meant to be human. Stories of human frailty, guilt, vengefulness, forgiveness, insecurity, loyalty, love, identity, alienation, nobility, loss, sacrifice, and redemption.

They painted a world that was both bleak and optimistic. Heroes suffered, and villains often had tragic pasts. Heroes had to fight against the political system and were often hated by the people they were sworn to protect. When the good guys wanted to quit being heroes you couldn’t blame them. Things carried over from issue to issue, a broken friendship or trust would stay that way for months or even years.

But the heroes would find something to keep fighting for and persevere. The world could seem cruel and uncaring. But all the normal people had their own stories to tell and their reasons for distrusting the heroes. And villains would often make a right choice that would either cost them their lives or see them become heroes in their own right. Avengers Hawkeye, Black Widow, The Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver all started off as villains.

If this rich tapestry of the human experience and the many ways good and evil are linked is not the stuff that literature is made of, then I ask you, what is!?

Obviously this was not the only thing going on in the text. These were escapist fiction after all. Time still had to be given over to epic fights and empowerment fantasies. And the heavy continuity made the characters personal-lives very soap-opera like. Marvel was never attempting to be Tolstoy or Proust. But there’s a big difference between not being “High Literature” and not having any literary qualities. If you assume that the two are one and the same then you must assume any writing that is not Balzac or Joyce is not worth reading. Some people really do think like that. They don’t tend to be much fun. They’re too busy looking smart. To paraphrase Winnie the Pooh “They’re clever. And have brain. And they never understand anything.” (Milne. 1928. Page number unknown).

We need entertainment fiction in our lives. To keep us sane. To give fun contrast to high literature so when we read it it feels fresh and exciting. To sometimes introduce big ideas and to explore them in a fun and creative way. And to give us hope. Entertainment fiction is not the enemy of high art. But its partner.

So Marvel’s books did have literary qualities. And there is nothing to be ashamed of in reading escapist fiction. But are the books actually good? Are they enriching to read, for either children or adults? They might have deeper themes in concept, but be unreadable vapid trash, who’s attempts at deeper themes and ideas just make things even worse. Violent nonsense and pretentious.

Well, this is a very subjective matter. There is no work of fiction so good that you won’t find someone who will say it’s the worst thing ever, or so bad that someone won’t say it’s their favourite book of all time.

But I’m going to say, yes. Classic Marvel was not only good. It was Fantastic.

Argument part 2: The Art

Marvel comics of the time didn’t always have the best illustration. Jack Kirby’s art tends to be ugly. Steve Ditko’s pencils were strange, muffled, and often technically inaccurate. The printing and colouring methods of the time were very simple. Which would often make art look cruder than it actually was. But again, the artists worked with what they had. What Kirby and Ditko lacked in elegance they made up for in talents for expressing drama, power, dynamism, motion, and inner-turmoil, Kirby’s talent for drawing action scenes may still be unsurpassed. And Ditko brought a weight and atmosphere to his comics that was unforgettable.

And while less famous, John Romita and John Buscema did make truly beautiful art. And all of them had a strong background in classical drawing techniques. Either way, when you picked up a Marvel comic you were picking up a book with dynamic illustrations that was built on the best traditions of western art.

Argument part 3: The Writing

But the artwork is only half of a comic. It also needs good writing and story.

I’ve alluded to the fact that classic Marvel comics were often a balancing act of High-concept fantasy, hard-hitting action, morality plays about human frailty and courage, and kitchen sink soap opera. These elements were very well balanced. Even across years of work. Characters felt very human, whether they were superhuman or not. Even with a cast of hundreds all the characters created in the 60s and 70s were distinctive and unique. Hence why they are still having stories told about them today.

Where the writing in classic Marvel struggled the most is the actual prose. It’s overblown, over-descriptive, and the dialogue is unnatural and often interchangeable among characters. It a million miles away from the minimalist writing of 20th century novels and the would-be-cinematic writing of today. It mostly resembles the verbose writing of the 19th century. But not as well constructed and no-where near as elegant. Or put simply, the writing is very clunky. It was clunky back then and it’s even more so today. So is this the chink in the armour? Proof that Maher is right and the work of Stan Lee and others like him is not art?

Well it doesn’t ruin the comics, that’s for sure. But there’s more to it than that. The writing is very efficient, which might sound strange as we tend to think of less stuff meaning efficiency. But sometimes a large amount of words lets you cover a lot of story in a single page, rather than writing one plot-point over ten pages. And a lack of subtilty isn’t always a bad thing. You can’t always afford to be subtle when writing such short stories.

It can draw you into the emotions far more quickly than realistic writing could. And when the characters are showing great passion it can evoke passion in the reader.

In “The Amazing Spider-Man #33” The eponymous hero is trapped under several tons of machinery while water rises up slowly, threatening to drown him. Spiderman is exhausted and on the brink of death. But he knows if he can’t escape someone who is relying on him will die.

Stan lee writes out Spiderman’s inner thoughts as he repeatedly tries and fails to lift the heavy machinery. The result is an almost Shakespearean monologue on guilt, pain, desperation and duty. Steve Ditko’s pencils are at their finest. But it’s Stan Lee’s writing that makes us feel like we ourselves are trying to lift this impossible weight. And when against all odds Spiderman lifts the giant machine over his head and proclaims “I did it. I’m Free!” It’s hard not to want to cheer or break down and cry.

Isn’t that the mark of great writing?

Whatever the flaws in Lee’s writing. He was a storyteller like no-one else.

While never as polished, the writing of early Marvel was very much in the vain of Shakespeare and Milton, highly expressive writing that would give as much weight and meaning as it could in a small amount of time.

Lee liked to use large words in the hopes of teaching younger readers to be more literate. This type of writing blended with the crude but strong art to make something that was more than the sum of its parts. Something evocative and mythic but also instantly accessible, even to young readers. Stories with big themes that didn’t need to be dumbed down or simplified to make sense for everyone. That is something that few writers can do. And if the prose was a little clunky and stilted in order to make that work, I’d say it was worth it

******

Argument part 4: Putting it all Together.

While not the most perfectly polished works out there, the works of Marvel in the 60s and 70s were books that used words and pictures and combined them into something more than the sum of their parts. Stories of human nature at its best and worst on the cosmic and humdrum scales as well as everything in between. It might not have been high literature. But that didn’t stop them from being great art. And the fact that they were made with children and teens in mind and designed to be accessible to all readers neither hurts their literary merit, or their quality in themselves.

I stand by my stance that they are great art. That the objections against them are mere snobbery. And that they are as valid a work of art as anything in prose or in the visual arts.

And best of all. They’re just plain fun. And no-one should have to apologise for reading stuff for fun (Unless it’s Mein Kmapf). This is the spice that makes fiction worth reading. And the comrade-in-arms of high-art.

That is the mark of a great art and a great artist

Rest in Peace

Stan “The Man” Lee.

I ramble about Robert Morris. Writing. And the stupidity of artists manifestos.

For my work in Constellation I’ve had to read a number of artists journals and manifestos. I have done so dutifully and tried to meet them on their own terms. But now I want to give my thoughts on the writing we have to read as writing rather than just theory. I know this is taboo-breaking. You’re not meant to say that your high-school English text is badly written. Just talk about the themes it contains. But I give my reverence to God and God alone. All things should be critiquable.

Including the writing of artists who should have stuck to making art and the art courses that make us read their work.

Forgive me if I let my emotions run away with me here. But I have exerted a great deal of effort doing the minimum amount of required reading and writing for Constellation. So, I feel I should be able to give my honest opinions about the work.

Besides. We are here to engage with 20^th century art critically, not to venerate it. I see no reason why this should not apply to the artists and critics writings or the course as a whole.

It seems to me that the ‘After Modernism‘ module is at least as interested in teaching us about art theory as it is about art works, or art history.

I can’t say I find art theory that interesting, but that is not the problem. My complaint is just how dense and inaccessible the subject is, and just how silly the whole art theory scene is.

I have had to read manifestoes and journals for four different art movements so far, and it seems that with each new one they get harder and harder to read.

I find myself asking “who was this written for?” It can’t be written for the layman. The text is too dense, too conceptual, and the vocabulary is too obtuse. I have been tested and found to have a larger than normal vocabulary. So, when I need to constantly check words for their meaning or context your work will be impenetrable to the average reader. So, far from advertising the work, it would put potential fans off.

“Is it then for other artists?”. I have a hard time believing it. The prose is so dry and academic that, I at least, can’t imagine being fired up to create after reading this stuff. Plus, the rules and concepts are put forward in a very obtuse and roundabout fashion. If you could figure out how to make Pop Art from just reading Pop Art journals without having seen any pop art, I’d be very surprised. Seeing the art in action trumps reading the theory behind it 11 out of 10 times.

So as far as I can tell, these think-pieces are written solely for artistic journals and opinion pages. Sacred texts written only for the initiated. It is certainly as dense as theology, and about as accessible to a nonbeliever.

So, what do I benefit from reading all of these self-gratifying journals that only seem to be tangentially related to making art? It doesn’t make me appreciate the art more. And even if it did, I tend to see any work of art that needs supplementary material to be understood as a failure

“Have you ever seen a movie that you needed to stop watching every five minutes to read up on what is happening? Apart from Dune!?” – Noah “The Spoony One” Antwiler. (The Spoony Experiment, 2013).

Nor does it even give much context as to why the art came into being. I find historical accounts like the ones on the Tate website do that better and in a shorter amount of time.

*******

Now that I have explained why these things don’t feel relevant to me. Let me get into why I dislike them so much.

I have, I am sad to say, read all of Robert Morris’s manifesto on minimalism. And I can say without any doubt it is the second worst thing I have ever read.

The only thing that beats it is the Harry Potter fanfiction “My Immortal”, which is often put forward as the worst work of fiction ever written (I certainly think it is).

The fact that this is considered good enough to be required reading leaves me flabbergasted. If this were an essay and I was asked to mark it, I’d have to fail it. I barely know how to write, being almost completely self-taught, but even I can write better than this.

First let’s talk about the prose. I’ve mentioned art theory pieces tend to be overwritten and obtuse. But this goes above and beyond. It barely qualifies as English. It reminds me of my one attempt to read “A Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant. Kant and other philosophers speak in their own academic language. One that requires a constant juggling act of ideas and meanings. If you tried to read the text plainly it will come across as gibberish. You need to think of every word in its purest form, devoid of connotations, and then add in any personal definitions or qualifiers the philosopher has added on. In that respect philosophy is almost like a separate language. And Morris has chosen to write in philosophy rather than English.

Again, I must ask “Who Is This Written for?”. It’s not written for philosophers. It’s not written for artists, many of whom, even college educated ones, cannot read at this level. And it is now definitely not written for the man on the street (Pretty ironic considering so many of these late 20^th-century artists were trying to “Give art back to the people”).

I know it does not need to be written this way. You don’t need to say, “A work not consisting of impersonal construction will psychologically infer associations towards the surface imperfections rather than the collected and full idea”, when you could say “We prefer premade materials, so people don’t get caught up in the fine details instead of looking at the whole thing”. Who is Morris trying to impress here?

There is a reason why philosophy tends to be written this way. It is the study of ideas in their purest form. It is a science, even if not an exact one. If you put limits on how people like Kant and Sartre talk it will hamper their ability to do their job and to exchange ideas with other philosophers. Books like “A Critique of Pure Reason” and “A Treaties on Human Nature” are not written for the common man. They are written for other philosophers, just as science journals are written for other scientists. Physicists need their own speak to convey their more complex ideas to each other and so do philosophers.

But Robert Morris is not a philosopher. He has nothing to gain, and nothing to prove by pretending to be one. He is an artist, he can only prove himself via his art.

I have looked up videos of Robert Morris being interviewed or lecturing. He does not talk this way in real life. He comes across as a fairly grounded and normal, if intelligent guy. The fact he can talk like a normal person only makes this reading extra infuriating.

Now I’ve explained why the text is so redundant let’s go into why it’s bad on a technical level.

In the 10 pages I was given to read Morris almost never uses line breaks, and the first half has no paragraph breaks whatsoever. It reads like a brick of text written by an angry 12-year-old on Youtube. This is not acceptable for an apparently college educated man. When you add this to the denseness of Morris’s writing the journal becomes borderline unreadable.

It took me 10 hours to read the whole thing. In the time it took me to read 10 pages I could have watched the original Star Wars trilogy and started on the prequels. It was one of the most painful reading experiences of my life. And I am told that future manifestoes get even denser and more philosophical. Suicide is painless, right?

Forgive me for asking, but I must know. Why are we reading texts that we would be admonished for writing?

******

There seems to be an idea that the more inaccessible a work is, the smarter it is, and the better it is. This applies to critical writing, to fiction, to fine art, and it has even bled into cinema. 2010’s Inception has gained a massive fan base purely on making a concept extremely obtuse when the anime Paprika, explained similar ideas in seconds.

The whole thing smacks of elitism. The idea that if the common people can’t understand this but you can (or at least claim you can) that makes the work better. That you are now part of a small club who “get” it, and you feel smarter for it.

I would like to go back in time and find the first person who had this sentiment and shove a pineapple up his ass.

Just because a work is accessible or has broad appeal doesn’t make it bad! The most highly praised film of all time is Hitchcock’s Vertigo. A Gothic drama about obsession and control. I liked it as a child, even if I didn’t get everything about it. And of course, I appreciated more as an adult. But the fact I was able to enjoy it just as a suspense movie doesn’t make it less of a film. The same can be said for things like Shakespeare, Homer, Beethoven, the Portal games, and The Simpsons.

These are all enjoyed by millions of people across the globe. And if you really think that that makes them worse then I can’t understand your mindset.

*********

The sad part is I like Robert Morris as an artist. I still like him as an artist. His works strike me as clever, warm, sombre, curious, and very human. He has an experimental, playful mind that is a tool of great happiness. Happiness that comes across in both his art and in interviews.

But now I’ve read his writings, the knowledge of how terrible they are will always be in the back of my head. And that’s depressing.

My Presentation

1: Here are my animations

2: I did not do the gestalt theory animation group work. I was told it was not mandatory and I judged that I need the time it would take to start my looping animation. Given how much trouble that gave me I feel vindicated in that choice

My Bouncing Balls

My looping Animaton

My Unfinished Film

3: During my first brief I was very ridged. A total perfectionist only concerned with doing a small amount of “correct” work.

Over time, I have gotten freer and more creative with my animation. At first I was scared to work pose-to-pose or do anything other than ones. But necessity is the mother of invention. And I have found I can not only do them but do them well!

One area where I’ve HAD to learn new technology is in using Dragonframe and a camera to film my work. It’s hard. But I am getting better at it. Each project shows less and less mistakes in this area.

When it comes to learning new things, if I am not overwhelmed with love for the new thing, I find learning to do one thing over and over and slowly building on it is easier and more lasting than trying to learn everything at once.

For the second brief I had to jump from just doing drawn animation to multimedia. And I feel I did all the different types of animation well

I’ve found my mental work plays out very well. I’m good enough at figuring how things will look in my head that I barely need to test my work (Which is good as I don’t normally have time to do that). The fact I can figure out how to make an animation just by thinking it through in my head has been a life saver. The end result was as I imagined it and it is beautiful. The same is true with my bouncing balls and my metamorphosis film.

I tried Stop-motion. That I love doing. But not as much as hand-drawn. Cut-outs I can do and they look nice. But they’re boring. I pray I never have to do digital 2D again. It took me and hour to make 12 frames. I’m not cut out for it. I can see why for most people it is so much quicker and simpler. But I am not most people. I do at least like the bright and clear colours a scanned in drawing has over one that has been photographed. I hope to use this to my advantage someday.

Doing hand-drawn animation is hard as hell and takes an infinite amount of time. But even though it drives me crazy, I enjoy doing it more than any other. And seeing the results pleases me a million times more than all the other types of animation do.

Sadly. I’ve found I love using colour in my classical animation. Which makes my workload ever harder.

Working on the third film nearly sent me insane. I can now understand why the animators who worked on ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ had to go to hospital after making it.

One reason I remain confident this is the right choice for me is I’ve shown I can make really smooth hand-drawn animation. Even on threes! It’s a joy for me to look at. And I wish I had time to make it even smoother.

I’ve learned I work best in silence. With no people, books or the internet to distract me. Because those don’t just distract me. They sap my energy.

I’ve learned I can make good animation using threes and pose-to-pose.

I now know that an adrenaline rush from some sudden exercise can really bring my creativity back when it’s flagging.

I’ve learned that I am not good at drawing faces or expressions at all. Hence why I made my characters faceless.

But I’ve also learned I can get better at them. Of the two facial animations I did the second one is miles better than the first one.

I just need to lean to draw faster and better.

There were times when I wanted to give up. That I felt that I’d picked the wrong subject and that I should pack it in. But when I saw my drawings move, and just how well they move. I have no doubts. This is what I love doing move than anything-else.

4: I find my timing is very solid. Sometimes it even comes out better than I had hoped. Though I struggle to keep my work long or slow, and keeping the smooth look I like. And I like to have both.

Spacing does give me trouble. I had assumed that it was less important than timing. I was wrong. I don’t know how I can improve beyond practising. Though I do now understand if you need a pose seen you have to draw it. Before and Afters don’t always cut it, or can even show the wrong thing.

5: I am no master of gestalt. But I was able to give my faceless characters a strong amount of expression just using hair and posing. I hope in time this means I will get better at drawing expressions.

I think I also did well conveying the idea of movement in my animatic without animation.

And using movement to connect all my different balls in my marble run despite looking so different. I think I’m getting there.

6 : I was only able to try transformation from 2D to 3D space during my marble run animation. I would switch from 2D to 3D balls and did so convincingly. I also had to make 3D balls look like they were running down a 2D marble run. Again. I think I pulled that illusion off pretty well.

7: When it comes to digital vs analogue, I have to say I suck at both. But in very different ways.

Analogue is my passion. It fills me with joy. But I draw quite slowly and not very well. And I get caught up in making each drawing perfect. It wastes a lot of time and sucks a lot of energy out of me. I can step back and work more roughshod sometimes. But it takes a conscious effect.

Digital anything on the other hand sends me into panic mode. Just looking at Adobe Premier makes me want to cry. It feels like someone has asked me to translate an ancient Greek text in mere hours.

I’ve needed help with all the computer elements on the course so far, and I don’t think that will change. Even if I had the brain for it (Which I don’t I do) It gives me no joy. I sometimes long for the ’90s. Back when handing in work didn’t require half an hour’s computer work!

8: I think I am good enough with the idea of metamorphosis. Granted my transformation was mostly spiritual. But My woman’s change from executioner to angel looks good to me. The change works and you could never mistake either for the same character.

9: I already knew all the great artists and animators who would inspire me. I’ve been prepping for this course for 7 years. I know who my influences are. But it was very nice watching that documentary about Norman MacLaren.

10: Despite all the pain it gives me there is no doubt in my heart I want to continue making hand-drawn animation next year. So, I might get better at it. It is the greatest art form in the world.

In particular I’d like to start adding in colour and backgrounds to my work. But we’ll just have to see what happens.

Final thoughts: I know this is not what the people here want to hear. But I find time and again the things I have loved since childhood are my greatest influence. And I find I work best by trusting myself that I know what to do. I often leave timing and spacing notes for myself that puzzle me later. But I follow them, and they turn out to be exactly the right thing to do.

Art teachers tend to want to reinvent you. To remake you in their own image. Saying that you know what you’re doing is the biggest way to annoy them. But the more I work the more I find I know what I need to do. I just need to learn how to do it. And that is a lot harder.

I was born

I was born almost exactly in the transition between two worlds. The old analogue world. And the new digital one. Something that only a small number of people will ever be part of.

I have a unique chance. The chance to insure that the wisdom of the old world is transferred over to the new. Because the old world is wise.

There is tendency to assume everyone born before 1970 was a total moron. But the old world gave us Astronomy, Spirituality, logic, music, books, history, poetry, maths, the architectural marvels of the world. The great novels. geography, domesticated animals, morality, psychology, language, liberty, the visual arts, boats, aircraft, spacecraft, beauty, love of learning, happiness, and kindness. These things were made by very smart people. And all just using the human brain.

What does the new world have to offer to compete? Minecraft?

I can make sure that the wisdom of the old world is appreciated by the new. I am one of a small number of people who can claim to have been in both. And thus, appreciate both.

I hope I can make the most of it.

My unfinished animated film

This brief was if possible even harder.

I’d been told I’d have to make an animation about metamorphosis in advance. That sounded simple enough. Just draw one thing changing into another.

But, when I, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. heard that we were supposed to make a film with a status quo, cause and effect, character and, themes, it because clear to me something with an actual story was needed.

It took me a while to find something that hit all the right notes for me. But in the end I settled for a story of spiritual as well as physical transformation. One from sadness to happiness. I was heavily inspired by the piece of My Little Pony fan music “Lunar Nocturnality ~ Celestial Diurnality”

One of favourite pieces of music, and influenced by the fairy-tale films of Lotte Reiniger.

Once I started I found myself challenged to come up with ways of making my work faster to fit within the 3 and a half week deadline. I animated on threes. I tried poses-to-pose animation. I used my lightbox as creatively as I could. And the bits that were actually animated I think came out very well, my first ever walk-cycle is surprisingly good if I may praise myself.

This was also a big learning experience for me in terms of yearning how I best work.

I work best in silence. With no people or books or the internet to distract me. Because those don’t just distract me. They sap my energy. I’ve learned I can make good animation using threes and pose-to-pose. I know that an adrenaline rush from some sudden exercise can really bring my creativity back when it’s flagging. I’ve learned that I am not good at drawing faces or expressions at all. Hence why I made my characters faceless.

But I’ve also learned I can get better at them. Of the two facial animations I did the second one is miles better than the first one.

I just need to lean to draw faster and better,