In today's lecture, I looked at the 2,000 year non-linear history of the image; visual communication that has spanned eras, cultures, contexts and epochs. The Paleolithic cave paintings found in Lascaux, France, were a great starting point to the topic as these are some of the oldest images in Europe at approximately 17,300 years old. They feature mostly animals and, while their context is largely unknown, it is believed that they were methods of communication between our early ancestors and a higher, mystical power - engaging and communicating in a spectral way, very different than before. People knew that they couldn't exist forever, but their paintings and visual messages could.
In more contemporary and conceptual pieces, using Cy Twombley, Richard Long and Mark Rothko as primary examples, they have tried to emulate a similar technique and approach - incorporating primal, spiritual and energetic applications to their canvases evoking meaning and magic just as in the past. There's a continuity and similarity between Paleolithic and Aboriginal paintings and the Western conceptual movement; showing that events are not always linear and far more tangental and complex. Image-making and visual communication connects us all. Long's Red Circle was highly controversial and accused of culturally appropriating and imperialising a culture that is not his own. Rothko's work is similar to staring into an abyss, the void of humanity. The Abstract Impressionism movement were trying to tap into the divine being within us. He mixes his dyes and paints with wax deliberately so that there is no reflection; allowing the audience to stare without distraction. A spiritual, emotional and powerful experience. Pollock had the same idea in the '50s and '60s when creating his drip paintings in a shamanistic fashion, whilst listening to Jazz music. "The soul just vomited out onto the canvas", as lecturer Richard puts it rather eloquently!
Is there something within visual communication that evokes a raw emotion? Or is it institutional framing and the authority of art that manipulates us into feeling this way? There is an air of importance when something is displayed in a gallery environment, far more than it should, so are we expected to feel a certain way when looking at the pieces? There are similarities in a church or religious building, you go to them rather than them coming to you, akin to a pilgrimage at the alter and honour of culture. There are questions around institutions and the power they have on us.
In a similar way, is Da Vinci's 'Mona Lisa' truly the greatest painting ever or do we just think it is because of its monetary value and the price that our society has given it? It is only valuable because the majority of people know what the painting is and what it looks like - giving it power, importance and status? The Louvre, where the painting is displayed, used to be a palace before it was turned into a gallery - does the setting influence its status? The Mona Lisa is protected by bulletproof glass and it is easily the main attraction; always full of tourists taking photographs of it, rather than standing and appreciating the art itself, giving undertones of a religious experience in itself. Do people have a meaningful relationship with visual communication or is it institutionally led? Does having a gift shop, where the Mona List can be purchased on a t-shirt or a china serving set, add to the experience or cheapen it through consumerism - capitalising culture and degrading authority? Does the reproduction of an image increase its accessibility to a wider audience?
Knowledge is power in modern society. The rise of technological advancement and a digital age provided evolution for print and and photography, causing the original images / paintings to degrade somewhat. It manipulates the original message that was communicated during the creation. Money, authority and culture has a strong relationship. Authority creates the taste-makers.
Images as a political weapon: The image of Che Guevara is one of rebellion and revolution, but the original has been manipulated, re-appropriated and recycled so much that it has nearly lost it's meaning. It has now become part of pop culture, found on tapestries and posters - even photoshopped memes, rather than the genuine intent of representing socialism and Cuba. Similarly, Shepard Fairey's Hope campaign poster symbolised an era of change and revolution for modern America, did he influence Obama's win because of such a clever visual campaign that people connected with? It was anti-climatic as Obama continued with the American agenda of bombing the middle-east. Fairey manipulated his original image, this time with the Guy Fawkes mask from V for Vendetta, to symbolise a new revolution away from politicians.
Peace for Paris became an image unifying the public across social media sites after the attacks in November 2015. The symbol for peace was merged with the Eiffel Tower to create an instantly recognisable and powerful image of solidarity across the globe for the victims. The Enso circle is hand-drawn, made of one or two brush strokes, to express a moment when the mind and body are free to create. It symbolises absolute enlightenment, strength, elegance, the universe and the void.
Reflection
I found today's lecture highly fascinating, especially concerning the power that an image can have on the world - whether that be political, societal, historical, technological, etc. One strong and powerful image has the ability to change the thoughts and feelings of entire nations of people. Especially in this digital age that I am lucky enough to be alive during, there is a whole robust platform to reach an audience of people that was not possible in the past until large-scale print production, mass-media, pop culture and technological advances.
In more contemporary and conceptual pieces, using Cy Twombley, Richard Long and Mark Rothko as primary examples, they have tried to emulate a similar technique and approach - incorporating primal, spiritual and energetic applications to their canvases evoking meaning and magic just as in the past. There's a continuity and similarity between Paleolithic and Aboriginal paintings and the Western conceptual movement; showing that events are not always linear and far more tangental and complex. Image-making and visual communication connects us all. Long's Red Circle was highly controversial and accused of culturally appropriating and imperialising a culture that is not his own. Rothko's work is similar to staring into an abyss, the void of humanity. The Abstract Impressionism movement were trying to tap into the divine being within us. He mixes his dyes and paints with wax deliberately so that there is no reflection; allowing the audience to stare without distraction. A spiritual, emotional and powerful experience. Pollock had the same idea in the '50s and '60s when creating his drip paintings in a shamanistic fashion, whilst listening to Jazz music. "The soul just vomited out onto the canvas", as lecturer Richard puts it rather eloquently!
Is there something within visual communication that evokes a raw emotion? Or is it institutional framing and the authority of art that manipulates us into feeling this way? There is an air of importance when something is displayed in a gallery environment, far more than it should, so are we expected to feel a certain way when looking at the pieces? There are similarities in a church or religious building, you go to them rather than them coming to you, akin to a pilgrimage at the alter and honour of culture. There are questions around institutions and the power they have on us.
Knowledge is power in modern society. The rise of technological advancement and a digital age provided evolution for print and and photography, causing the original images / paintings to degrade somewhat. It manipulates the original message that was communicated during the creation. Money, authority and culture has a strong relationship. Authority creates the taste-makers.
Images as a political weapon: The image of Che Guevara is one of rebellion and revolution, but the original has been manipulated, re-appropriated and recycled so much that it has nearly lost it's meaning. It has now become part of pop culture, found on tapestries and posters - even photoshopped memes, rather than the genuine intent of representing socialism and Cuba. Similarly, Shepard Fairey's Hope campaign poster symbolised an era of change and revolution for modern America, did he influence Obama's win because of such a clever visual campaign that people connected with? It was anti-climatic as Obama continued with the American agenda of bombing the middle-east. Fairey manipulated his original image, this time with the Guy Fawkes mask from V for Vendetta, to symbolise a new revolution away from politicians.
Peace for Paris became an image unifying the public across social media sites after the attacks in November 2015. The symbol for peace was merged with the Eiffel Tower to create an instantly recognisable and powerful image of solidarity across the globe for the victims. The Enso circle is hand-drawn, made of one or two brush strokes, to express a moment when the mind and body are free to create. It symbolises absolute enlightenment, strength, elegance, the universe and the void.
Reflection
I found today's lecture highly fascinating, especially concerning the power that an image can have on the world - whether that be political, societal, historical, technological, etc. One strong and powerful image has the ability to change the thoughts and feelings of entire nations of people. Especially in this digital age that I am lucky enough to be alive during, there is a whole robust platform to reach an audience of people that was not possible in the past until large-scale print production, mass-media, pop culture and technological advances.
No comments:
Post a Comment