‘If art is a creation, destruction should be its opposite’

Jan Hakon Erichsen identifies himself as a ‘balloon destroyer’ and a ‘visual artist’. Using his own body and everyday furniture he creates sharp structures to pop balloons. His inventions interestingly enough just started out as a numerous form of entertainment for his friends and ended up emerging into a form of expressive art. He chose balloons because they lightened his central theme of destruction. For this reason I decided to draw my work away from balloons because the message of my work is a darker prediction for our near future and balloons connotations are to celebratory and cheerful.

I think my work will lead more towards the destruction of rubber bands and rubbers due to their functional connotations and opposed to the celebratory ones of the balloons.

If a rubber gained self awareness would it be emotionally challenged by the fact that it’s only purpose is like is to be destroyed? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJHF4zi-K6A

I like his work because he uses continuous line in a strong, three dimensional way. This makes me think of how different parts of the face have stronger connections with other parts in different faces. I like how even through a repetitive process, each one has a strong sense of self. I also have a fascination with the symbiotic relationship between light and shadow, so I admire how his pieces interact with the light. I think this is because I like the relationship between the tangible physical structure and and the intangible shadow, out of our reach. 

I love the way the artists use physical objects to sculpt something natural and intangibl; light. Using their hands to manipulate an essence of nature. Their work also has an emphasis on perspective. The relationship between the beholder and the work itself has always held massive amounts of significance to me. I could look at a piece and have it trigger a deep emotional response whilst a seemingly similar person could admire the same work and just see it as its raw materials. 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But as an artist, repetition will always yield change, because us and our actions aren’t the only thing to take into account in artistic processes. The way the ink lands or the water moves in slight breezes. Your spacial awareness or shakiness of your hand that day. I think that Rebecca Russo’s work is a prime example of this. With hundred of seemingly similar portraits using the same imagery and mediums each time, but each one brings a new character and mood to her work. 

She visualises scientific principles into the most gorgeous garments. Having studied physics for A-level I have my own areas that interest me. When I look at her garments I see a visualisation of the beautiful patterns of the universe. Spiralling, repeating through all of creation. I love their contrast of delicate materials made into bold, attentions demanding structures. It makes me think of the intricate balance we live in. Each ecosystem delicately sustaining the next. The tiny configurations and combinations in wisps of DNA spiralling together to create strong standing physical beings. Isn’t that beauty in itself?

I love the simplicity of her pieces and the way they examine form and break down everything complicated into these minimalistic structures. I think that her work thinks about the minimum amout of information whilst still converting her imagery. This makes me think about the need to basically cut out all the crap and find the few details that are actually significant to you, both in art and in a wider sense in life. Her 3D pieces also make me think of the idea of weight, dependancy and coexistance. I feel like these sculptures pose questions about balance and equilibrium. All of her work feels to me like the manifestation of a feeling. I think this is evident with an emotional feeling being portrayed in her nude figure paintings and sculptures, but also the actual idea of a physical feeling; the sensation of touch and closeness, being looked into with her textural pieces exploring the texture of skin. I find the tactility of this piece mesmerising, probably (as I’ve mentioned before) because I’m quite a tactile person myself. 

I also like how the simplicity of her pieces is mirrored in the nature of her work space, very plain, clean and open. Walking into her studio I feel like you would inhale a breath of fresh air. I think this is very different to most making spaces which would have coloured scatters from various projects and the smell of chemicals or paint in the air. I just get this feeling of calm and serenity from her atmosphere, and I think its that feeling which actually first drew me into her work. 

I like how this performance artist sets up an environment for himself and then lets it naturally fall part/ allows its process to take place around him. He creates a series of characters that play with the dark side of American pop culture, taking the piss out of the modern things we value, people we idolise and silly trends we follow, which actually lead to quite toxic behaviour. I think the way that these immersive characters often lead to the suffocation of himself (the wearer) and self destruction is him foreshadowing societies own toxic behaviour ultimately leading to their own demise. I admire how he does this in such a comical way. Maybe he does it in this way to capture his audience. More people want to laugh then listen to a sad story of their own making (basically being told off). 

After watching Samuel Beckett’s video, ‘Not I’ I wanted to explore his work further. The hypnotic imagery and emphasis on repetition is echoed in my own video work (which I have hardly even touched the surface of yet). My initial thought was that this is a visualisation of the thought process (the fast pace ramblings almost seeming like the pace of dream or a drink/drugs enhanced rant). Then focussing in on the inflections of the words I found that the variation in pace and volume made myself the viewer feel very uneasy and almost anxious, further observing that this unsettled way of talking actually sounded to me like someone talking backwards. After looking into the context of the highly ambiguous piece I discovered that this woman never spoke until here epiphany in the field and then could not stop speaking. Beckett likened her character to the hundreds of old broken-down Irish women seen in rural regions who never seem to speak. They just blend into their background like ‘an autumn leaf two weeks free of the tree’. Posing the question, who speaks for them? Maybe this relentless mouth is harnessing their lost voices. Perhaps the mouth won’t stop babbling on because this old, mad woman’s mind is aged. Her wires; frayed. I think Beckett wanted a lot of ambiguity. Ambiguity does not necessarily mean lacking purpose or intent, it just means ‘not specified’.

I was hugely inspired by these collections when choosing the fabric for my videos. I like the way the transparent material is oversized because it allows it to shift and interact with the human body. I also love the way the shifting allows the light to catch it, like ripples in water. I think this flowing organic movement is so beautiful because it can both contrast with the stiff stances of of my models, and can move with their bodies to make a beautiful unpredictable dance. 

When I look at Trippe's photography I feel like I'm taken to a new world. I like how she has this Sci Fi glamour. Her own little expressive world of fashion in a new context to play with. I like how she takes people out of their environment and writes her own story, rather then documenting their stories (like most photography). I also really admire the way she plays with colour. I think this is something I need to bring more into my work. I've always been more comfortable with tones then colours. I tried to push myself a little bit away from this with some coloured shots in my Extension Project video, but think I need to be doing some more. 

I get the idea of space/ space travel when I look at her work. As all of her models are women and most astronauts and scientists are men, I think that her work also poses questions about gender roles. 

Initial thoughts after viewing her work:

Makes me think of the relationship between the literal physical self (medical images) and the inner story of one’s self; arguably the thing that makes us a unique individual. I like the ambiguity of the structures in her pieces, I feel like the viewers are being allowed to witness the physical and metaphorical self joining into abstract structures that create the full image of the ‘self’. It might not be beautiful, but it is the raw you.

Secondary thoughts after reading about her:

‘In her series It’s Not My Body, Pryde makes reference to the history of darkroom experimentation and contemporary medical–imaging techniques. She superimposes low–resolution MRI scans of a human embryo in its mother against desert landscapes shot through tinted filters, engaging questions about the reproduction of images and the impact visuals have on political debates surrounding “personhood” and a woman’s right to choose.’

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/166772

Her use of the tinted filters makes me think that this is an attempt to change people’s perspective, put a tint on people’s views and make them see things in a different way. (Like the fringe with the diffraction grating I designed on the JFFA day).

My thoughts might have not be the intended message but I like the personal reaction everyone can have to art. How it speaks to each viewers different wiring in their head and triggers different areas of thinking.

I think the thing I notice most about Pickersgill’s photographs is the body language of the subjects. when the devices are taken away (and therefore the viewers main subject of focus) you can see how the people are caned over. Bending their necks, wincing their eyes into focus, twisting their bodies away from one another. It makes me think of the irony that a ‘communication’ device is literally turning our backs towards one another. 

Warhol was always some what of an enigma. His avant-garde personality and art; viewed by many but understood by few. I personally think he paved the way for modern social acceptance of members of the LGBT+ community. Although at the time it was not acceptable, a blind eye was turned for Warhol.He was one of few exceptions. He was always so very himself. This rawness comes across in his work. The imperfections of human error displayed as pert of the art; a shaky hand holding the recording device or a mike accidentally being lowered into the shot. Its all part of the process. Why not display those imperfections?  Why can't happy accidents be the most beautiful parts?

After feeling her personal space and privacy being invaded by hecklers on the street Anderson took artistic revenge and took away their personal privacy by photographing them after the act. 

I like that her aim is more to scare and to make a point to these individuals, as she later takes away the details of their faces to protect their identities anyway. When looking at these photographs I felt uneasy. Like I was looking into the space where their eyes should be, wanting to see something that wasn't there. I actually quite like this feeling of incompletion. It made me want to keep looking at the images in a way that I probably wouldn't without this feeling of suction towards it caused by the void of blank space. 

https://actipedia.org/project/fully-automated-nikon-objectobjectionobjectivity

I admire how he juxtaposed the super simple imagery and childlike painting style with the complex ideas, challenging societal structures. I like this because I like to question the ‘human situation’ in my own work and think about certain self made boundaries and restrictions we all grow up with so don’t even notice. Pointing these out and making people think is probably what I find most important about art as a whole. 

When I see his work I think of a child asking their parents questions, and the parents not knowing how to respond.