Saturday I photographed my professor’s sister’s wedding in Massachusetts, so I journeyed home to Acton for a night. When I woke up, I had intensions of jumping on the Fitchburg line and making my way into Boston to the Isabella Gardner Museum. However, as I was searching for an old Charlie pass, I noticed what a nice day it was. I asked my mother if she would want to be my sudden company and join me in visiting the Decordova Museum. It was only about fifteen minutes from my house, but for some reason I had never been (probably because I always just wound up jumping on the train by myself and heading into Boston). It was cool that my mother was interested in going. We don’t do many things together and both just have hectic schedules. The weather promised to be perfect for outdoor sculpture viewing.
The Decordova helped to demonstrate the importance or space, whether initially standing on its own and unnoticed, or the pieces themselves creating a sense of place. This concept was crucial to witness in person. It also got me wanting to play with material and space. It was an inspiring experience, and I’m grateful that my mother wanted to share it with me. She explained how my sister had taken art courses there when she was a teenager and explained a little bit of the back story. It came to me in fragments as she was recalling a story she knew so well years earlier. Apparently the original house that we saw used to belong to a wealthy woman. This woman left her house and all of the art that she had collected to be turned into a museum for all to see. It was a great discussion to share with my mother.
Before we made our way to the Decordova, we drove by Walden pond. I popped out and snagged a few photographs as I reminisced about the Henry David Thoreau that tenth grade English class had brought. Nostalgia.
(The last photograph I had also taken about a year ago on a summer’s afternoon).
The Decordova Museum.
(the original house)
The first sculpture we drove past when entering was Douglas Kornfeld’s “Ozymandias” (2008).
The piece had a plaque near by that quoted words from Percy Bysshe Shelley. This was especially interesting because in my Experimental Film class right now, we have been studying Brakhage, who relates film to poetry and references Shelley. Seeing this in person was a great connection to what I have been reading about, and physically walking up to imagery that associates with words I had been reading was powerfully inspiring. Laid out before me was a direct relationship between word and image.
The plaque read:
"Ozymandias -- I met a traveler from an antique land/Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone/Stand in the desert...Near them, on the sand,/Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,/And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,/Tell that it's sculptor well those passions read/Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things/The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:/And on the pedestal these words appear:/'My name is Ozmandias, king of kings:/Look on my works Ye mighty, and despair!'/Nothing beside remains. Round the decay/Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bane/The lone and level sands stretch far away."
--Percy Bysshe Shelley.
I am almost positive too that I read this exact poem in sixth grade and had to draw what we thought Ozymandias looked like. This was another astounding connection.
Almost every sculpture caught my attention as I felt like the children that were there running from sculpture to sculpture. One piece that was sprawled out among a section of the grass that I could not seem to walk away from was Rick Brown's "The Butterfly Effect" (2004). I kept eyeing each angle and layering of the concrete.
One piece that was interesting in how it was juxtaposed against the trees was Sol LeWift's "Tower (DC)" (1989-2009).
There were multiple ideas of industrialized material standing against nature:
George Greenamyer's "Mass Art Vehicle" (1970).
Fletcther Benton's "Donut with 3 Balls" (2002).
Albert Paley's "Apollo" (1996).
Certain pieces were also more supported in being in an outdoor environment. Some pieces seemed to have captured a nature atheistic that was enhanced by being outdoors. Or I suppose that one could argue that I analyzed it in this specific way because of where these pieces were viewed.
Richard Lobe's "Environmental Impact Statement" (1988).
Marianna Pineda's "Eve Celebrant" (1991, cast 2001-2002)
Elliot Offner's "Figure From the Sea" (1964).
Kitty Wale's "Feral Goose" (2005).
John Buck's "Dream World" (1988).
Breon Dunigan's "Guardian, Hearing Trumpet, and Torsion" (2003).
Richard Rosenblum's "Venusvine" (1990).
One sculpture that I loved had human limbs branching and rooting:
Michael Reese's "Putto 4 over 4" (2004).
Not only was space highlighted in an outdoor sense, but later stepping into the museum, space was something that was created. One of the main artists, Leonardo drew, manipulates found objects in occupying a space:
"Number 123" (2007).
"Number 79" (2000).
It was an inspiring day that also became about the experience. It was interesting to click with my mother on what I am interested in. After the museum, and hearing her stories of her knowledge on the museum, we pulled over and walked through a field of sunflowers at a farm. So much beauty was seen on that one day.
When I stated that this trip allowed me an inside look to the importance of space, I was mostly referring to the outside look: that is the sculptures that were outside. It was the first time that I fully observed sculptures that were not contained to the confining space of a room. Of course I have passed by sculptures in every day life, but in this context, I slow down and observe details and read about the pieces. It's made me realize how the context of a building labeled "museum" causes such great observation in comparison to pieces we grow numb to on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that these pieces were outside the building, and massive allowed me the opportunity to walk around each piece and observe a 360 degree perspective. Comparing each piece's size to my own body planted next to it made me physically and emotionally feel the weight it harnessed in the environment. The pieces suddenly became a part of the environment. It was about sharing the same space that a piece was contained in a lack of structure, which actually became it's own structure. Seeing these pieces in person made me feel as if I was engulfed by the pieces, but that they were not engulfed by the world of a built structure, but rather present in an existing structure.
In regards to Douglas Kornfeld’s “Ozymandias” (2008):
ReplyDeleteWhen I stated that it was inspiring to see a large piece relate to the words of another artist, I was able to instantly apply this to film. In many courses I have taken, professors have taught the strong relationship that can be formed between image and word. The words in this piece that I had heard before suddenly entered a new conversation with a physical object. The object itself took on new meaning from the words it became associated with. I feel as if this was important to see in person because the weight and power I felt by the size of the sculpture suddenly secured it's partnering words with an equal weight and power in conversation with one another.
I tend to always have a pattern of comparing my own art to my past, it's interesting that I subconsciously related pieces I saw to this same tendency. Not to go off on a tangent, but now I am pondering if this is a common step of artists processing and interpreting art.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I've started realizing just how nostalgic of a person I am. I've been attempting to stray away from this a bit in my work. I see it as an important aspect, and may always be present in influences, but I am looking to also concentrate on other parts of film I have neglected or not attempted to incorporate yet.
Seeing other people's works has allowed me to see how I process and relate to different pieces. To be quite honest, I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. It almost sounds selfish to associate or relate myself to somebody else's idea, but it appears to feel natural to relate and inspire from relation. It's interested this use of "nostalgia" was pointed out to me, it made me realize this idea of spectacle and questioned my own role position as the (or rather a) "viewer".
I had stated that making my way through the outside element of The Decordova made me feel like a child. When I initially wrote this, I started off by associating this child-like feeling with the happiness I gained migrated from sculpture to sculpture. I also feel as if the type of space it existed in had a big influence. As stated before, it was a different feeling to be moving between pieces in an environment outside. It felt more freeing than quietly moving from pieces contained inside. There could be other speculations made about comparing the pieces to a subconscious playground association. This idea become most prevalent when I think about Fletcther Benton's "Donut with 3 Balls" (2002). The use of industrial metal reminds me of the metal playgrounds we had in elementary school...also interesting that I again revert back to nostalgic memories of the past without even thinking about it. There were many young children running from sculpture to sculpture at the Decordova on this day: perhaps that fed into my youth attempting to emerge again.
ReplyDeleteWhen I stated that there were multiple ideas of highlighting a use of industrialized materials, it seemed to point out the materials that become overlooked and familiar in everyday life. So many structures are made with the material, but not interpreted in a same sense. A lot of the pieces pointed out a lack of connection between industry and nature. Having the two concepts in the same environment created an immense contrast.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing my body and role to the pieces, it felt as if I was being torn between this idea of nature and this idea of industry. On a personal level and again I found myself relating to the piece, it was especially relevant because I try to be an environmentalism who struggles with existing in a stressed consumerism world. The pieces juxtaposed to one another made me question my own role to each, and trying to see imagine if I can exist as both roles in balance. The contrast made it seem daunting as coexistence between the two is a difficult struggle.
I had stated that it was interesting to step into the museum after examining the outdoor sculptures. This allowed a side by side comparison of the different functions, shapings, and ways of using and creating spaces. The outdoor pieces appeared to hold freedom in the endless space they were surrounded by. Viewing this in person made me feel insignificant to these large pieces existing in the world. There was an art and process of communications with how the pieces fit into their surrounding environment. When I stepped inside, there was an art of process in making the pieces fit well into the existence and conversation of the provided space. Each piece took up a specific chosen space, thus creating or leaving open space. Many artists use open space to highlight the power or even simplicity of their pieces. One example of this was Leonardo Drew 's "number123" (2007). Even though there was an abundance of open space, the way in which he spaced out objects made it appear to be a cluttered, busy space. The objects suddenly hold a heavier weight of filling a bigger space.
ReplyDelete(Forgot to answer this question earlier)...
ReplyDeleteI kept reverting back to the angles of Rick Brown's "The Butterfly Effect" (2004) because the angles created a three dimensional feel in a space that was closest to the flattened ground. They overtook space in a different way than the sculptures that were just standing straight high up in the air. It became more about horizontal space beneath me than a piece that was fifteen feet high than me. The angles also helped to see that each part of the piece has a potential to only be connected by gravity. No glue or cement would be needed to bring the parts together. This piece also helps to demonstrate the power of gravity in my opinion.
Seeing this piece in person helped me to acknowledge how observing all the different angles could feed into my analysis.
I'll try not to get too cheesy, but this museum trip was a true bonding moment with my mother. For a while, I had tried to get her to go to museums with me, but gave up pretty early when she was always busy or tired from her draining lifestyle. Now that it was suddenly for a school project, she was in full support of me going to seek things I am passionate about. This course has helped me get closer to her...to both my parents in fact. It's nice to see how willing they are to help me with something school related. They know I work extremely hard at school have made it clear in their efforts that they will help in any way to further along my academics, also knowing film is my passion.
ReplyDeleteGoing to this exhibit with my mother opened up a communication we had never really established before. We either met on no level before, or I hid a lot of myself from her in fear that it would be a distraction. More of a recent life realization surfaced this past summer in the understanding that I want my parents in my life, at least where I feel they should be. For a long time I was was buried in being skeptical and angry. I want as healthy of a relationship as I can give and take. This independent study was one of the first times I got to share my exact experiences with them...at least in a long time. It felt unfamiliar to have my mother ask me how I would interpret pieces, but it was nice to talk about it. The way in which I discussed pieces also allowed me to compare concepts and ideas that I have learned in film with my mother. It was one of the first times I had opened the door in letting her in on what she is helping to support me through in school. For the first time I felt like it was more about discussion of knowledge than the money that got me there. I also got to hear how she would incorporate her knowledge of art that she once dabbled in when she was around my age, and had learned from my sister. It was nice and unfamiliarly peaceful. I finally felt as if I was letting go of negativity to take in positivity.
Seeing a mass of sculptures outside definitely affected how I interpreted many of the pieces. I found myself comparing the relationship between the material, the design, the size, and the concept with nature. Now being questioned about it, I would think in many instances that it was the artist who designated for the pieces to be placed outdoors. It could also be people who set up pieces in the museum and curate where the pieces would most accurately fit. (I attempted to research this online, but failed in finding helpful answers. If I go back, I would be interested in asking around.) Through this concept, I definitely discovered the importance and persuasion atmosphere can weigh on an art piece. I suspect that many pieces that exist in an outside reality are subconsciously interpreted in specific atmospheric associations by the viewer. However, I think for many people it completely knowingly shapes ways of thinking about pieces and forces comparisons between pieces and the surrounding environment.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if it was crucial to see these outdoor sculptures in person as opposed to in a photograph because a lot of the experience became about being engaged with the environment. I suppose this question could again correlate back to wether or not the environment truly shapes a pieces, or just shapes the viewer's perspective. Pondering about the concept of viewing art in person has also conjured up these ideas for me: texture and perspective are lost in reproduction and reproduction in art is not one hundred percent truth. When pieces are seen in person, texture of paint, material, layering, use of space, size etc. can be observed. When they are reproduced, these details are lost within a 2D visual re-fabrication. One concept that is constantly revisited throughout my film courses is the idea that a film can never produce 100% truth. It is different to watch a film about an event or situation than it is to be there observing or even participating in it. I suppose after taking this independent course, I have acquired a greater perspective that once a piece leaves an artist, it can never be 100% truth again, except for to the artist. I suppose I could even go as far as arguing that once it leaves the artist's head it can never be 100% truth because what is in one's own mind can never be exactly replicated. However, I do think viewing pieces in person is closer to the truth than seeing that which is replicated. Texture, space, atmosphere, size, material, etc. have all helped me to discover how I interpret and feel about pieces. I have discovered that I am much more prompted to have emotions evoked about a textured piece where the colors are existing in front of me rather than a copy of a piece slapped onto a glossy textbook page. Textbook representations tend to take emotions out of pieces for me, or rather do not present them.
ReplyDelete