New Painting

At the end of my previous post, I mentioned that I would like to discuss a little bit in detail the artistic process of Wade Guyton, one of the six contemporary artists who were a part of the Oranges and Sardines exhibition at the Hammer Museum. To be honest, I had never seen any of Guyton’s works (even through reproductions) previous to seeing one of his pieces in the exhibition, although I had heard about his unique artistic practice. Thus, I will admit that I am no Wade Guyton expert. However, I think that I know enough to discuss his artistic process in relation to the main issues raised in this blog.

To reiterate from the end of the previous post, Wade Guyton makes paintings. Yet, he doesn’t use paints. Instead, he creates his works by jamming linen, canvas, and other material through commercial inkjet printers. Specifically, his works explore aspects of mechanical reproduction and error by using these inkjet printers to make abstractions, as the printers create various drips, smears, and skips on the linen as they are pushed to their physical limits, causing them to literally break in some instances. The sources of the imagery that are printed onto the linen, of course, are digital—a mixture of scanned drawings and printed material are abstracted and made into single images as the printers struggle to print the imagery onto the material that are not meant to be running through them.

Wade Guyton, Untitlied, 2005, inkjet on linen, 65 X 38 in

In the Oranges and Sardines exhibition pamphlet, Guyton says about his artistic process: “I make paintings, but I don’t think of myself as a painter…. It came from being interested in everything else in a way—sculpture, conceptual art, photography, and then drawing. In the beginning, when I started making art, all the artists I was interested in were involved with the manipulation of language or the malleability of the categories of art. There was a freedom in this way of thinking. There was a space where objects could be speculative.” Here Guyton talks about the “malleability of the categories of art.” It is of notable significance that, particularly over the last few decades, the categories of art have become much less distinct and clear-cut. It is arguable that art as a whole as grown into an experimental genre of sorts, with many of the subgenres overlapping more and more over time. Undeniably the advent of new digital technologies, among other developments, has had a notable impact on this.

People who are not all too familiar with the contemporary art world (and perhaps even some of those who are) would probably hesitate to consider Wade Guyton’s works as “paintings.” After all, even the dictionary defines painting as a “graphic art consisting of an artistic composition made by applying paints to a surface”—and everybody is inclined to believe the dictionary. However, we must acknowledge that in the past, definitions and parameters pertaining to an assortment of practices have changed in accordance to new developments. For instance, the dictionary defines the classic definition of photography as “the art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces”—and similar definitions come up as the first-listed definition for photography in various dictionaries. Yet how many people would actually deny that the process of capturing images through a digital camera and printing them through an inkjet printer qualifies as photography? In digital photography, neither film nor photosensitive papers are used, yet it is universally accepted as photography. Essentially, with paintings such as those of Wade Guyton, things are no different. We must simply realize that new technologies have brought with them new methods of painting, and we must accept them for what they are, whether we like them or not. And in this sense, new technologies have certainly opened up the doors for much more exploration and experimentation within the fine and/or traditional arts, proving that such media are still extremely relevant in today’s culture.

A Short Art Review + Some Thoughts: Oranges and Sardines at the Hammer

Today, I visited the Hammer Museum in West Los Angeles to see the exhibition entitled Oranges and Sardines: Conversations on Abstract Painting, which opened just under a week ago on November 9, and will be on show until February 8, 2009. For this show, six “hot” contemporary painters have each been asked by the curator to select one or two of their own recent paintings to be shown along with works by other artists who have had a significant impact on their own art-making processes. In this sense, it is perhaps quite different from the typical art exhibition, as it shows both historical work and contemporary work within the same context. The six contemporary artists on exhibit are Mark Grotjahn, Wade Guyton, Mary Heilmann, Amy Sillman, Charline Von Heyl, and Christopher Wool, while the artists selected as influences range from painters of the early twentieth century such as Pablo Picasso and Piet Mondrian to more contemporary artists such as Sherrie Levine and William de Kooning.

Despite the fact that the exhibition has been given the subtitle Conversations on Abstract Painting, the six contemporary artists participating in Oranges and Sardines have chosen a range of various works to show alongside their own, including paintings, sculptures, and works on paper. In visiting the show, it was interesting to see the different works that these contemporary painters have outwardly chosen to show as having a great impact on their thinking and development of their own work. Seeing work that was both familiar and unfamiliar to me, it became somewhat of a game to connect the dots between the works of the contemporary painters and the supposed influential works—to try to see the specific ways in which each of the selected works perhaps influenced the exhibited works of the six contemporary painters. Sometimes trying to connect these dots was not so easy, as the ideas and thought processes behind each of the works don’t necessarily show through in an obvious fashion. However, I personally did not see a problem with this, as abstract works are often difficult to “get” in general. On the other hand, I have the feeling that the wide variety and diversity of art chosen by each of the artists showed to me why abstract painting is still very relevant to the contemporary art scene today—there are still many territories within the abstract art genre that can benefit from further exploration and experimentation, as the six artists from the exhibition demonstrate through their work.

So what does this exhibition have to do with the main subject of my blog—technology and its effect on art? Well perhaps nothing directly. However, as many perhaps already know, abstract art as a genre of artwork emerged about one hundred years ago as a shift a way from representational work. Artists no longer felt the need to be attached to a literal visual description of objects and images from out in the world, and thus allowed themselves to explore a wider range of visual expression, entering into realms untouched by artists of the past. One of the many various factors that led to this shift away from representation and toward abstraction was the development of new technologies, particularly photography, which in many instances devalued the act of reproducing realistic images through painting. In this sense, abstract artwork is a product of technological progress.

…And it very much continues to be so, as art in general is always highly influenced by the various developments that are occurring in the greater world. With our society’s increasing fascination with digital technology, more and more artists are moving into the digital realm to create their works. This applies more so to commercial artists and graphic designers than to fine artists, but there are also plenty of fine artists working in digital media, experimenting with and exploring new methods of art-making. So then, what does it mean for a fine artist to continue working in traditional media, rather than shifting to digital media with the rest of the crowd? Well, for one thing, as I have already mentioned in a couple of past postings, there are some qualities and sensibilities embedded in traditional art forms that can never be recreated through digital means. For example, the texture and quality of paint applied to the canvas cannot (at least at this point in time) be replicated through a computer screen or a standard ink jet print. Thus, going through the physical labor of creating a full-scale image on a large canvas comes to have an even greater meaning than it perhaps had before the explosion of digital culture. Issues of labor and experimentation are always highly relevant to the art-making process and the final output, and as mentioned earlier in this post, for an artist to continue engaging with traditional means of art-making indicates that there are still many territories left to explore within the realms of traditional media.

Abstract painting in particular has always proven to be an experimental genre within the fine arts, and it is interesting to note that the definition as to what constitutes “painting” is still constantly being refined today—as can be seen especially through the work of Wade Guyton in Oranges and Sardines, who actually embraces the use of digital technology within his work, yet continues to identify his works with the genre of traditional painting. Since I feel that Guyton’s works are highly relevant to the subject of this blog, I would like to spend the next post discussing in detail his artistic process in relation to traditional and digital art forms.

Graphic Design and the Computer

With programs such as Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator becoming so commonplace in recent days, much of the work within the graphic design field has moved to the digital realm, with most if not all of the content in many graphic design works being generated solely within the computer. There is no doubt that computer art technologies have been a plus within many areas in the field, allowing for the much faster and more accurate execution of various tasks. And perhaps the ability to explore various ideas in short spaces of time has allowed for possibilities within the graphic design field that did not exist before computers became an everyday tool. However, I cannot help but to think that many graphic designers of today have come to limit themselves to the computer, not even allowing for more traditionally created elements to be an option. Handcrafted design has become a true rarity, which is quite unfortunate, as such design can often make much more powerful statements than the overly complicated vector designs which seem to abound in the works of many graphic artists today.

Perhaps what is even more disconcerting is the idea of graphic design that exists within the minds of those not involved in creative fields such as the arts and design. At least from my own personal experience and observation, many such people seem to think that graphic design is only done within the realms of the computer. In other words, to them, graphic design = computer art. Given how much graphic design work is done digitally today, this surely is not surprising. Yet, I find it somewhat sad. The basic design principles used by all graphic designers today have existed for countless years before the advent of the computer, and while such principles can be learned through a computer interface, they probably shouldn’t. In a learning experience, I could only imagine that having to deal with the computer interface would detract from the creative process—and this must be the consensus among most institutions that teach design, as almost every beginning design course teaches exclusively through the use of traditional art-making methods.

*****

In relation to the above, I would like to share a little bit of information about an excellent book that I came across just quite recently. Authored by Chen Design Associates, the book Fingerprint: The Art of Using Hand-Made Elements in Graphic Design is a beautiful collection of examples of graphic design works that are primarily crafted through the use of traditional art-making techniques. The concept of the book is quite in line with my sentiments concerning graphic design and the computer, as it seriously takes into question whether or not the advancements of computer technologies have actually led to the creation of better design work. Many of the examples shown within the collection are truly breathtaking and utterly amazing, and perhaps they seem even more so because of the massive amounts of fancy vector images that we must digest in our day-to-day lives. (This is not to say that I dislike vector-based artwork or that I think that such works are worthless. On the contrary, I often find these types of works amazing and breath-taking as well. However, the creators of many such works often seem to forget that there are other options open—options which may, in fact, better suit their work.)

In the introduction to Fingerprint, Josh Chen writes, “Fingerprint is a reminder that in this day and age of e-gadgets, i-things, and all things high-tech and electronic, there remain some very reliable, non-high-tech tools that can help design reconnect with its audience.” Perhaps I am reading into this statement a little too much, but Chen seems to suggest that design, because of its recent obsession with the computer, has come to distance itself from its audience. As the designer has become more and more disconnected from his or her own creative process through the extensive use of the computer, the work itself has become weaker and less communicative. However, by showing recent examples of graphic design that take handmade elements to be the primary component, Chen proposes that “our infatuation with technology is over,” suggesting that an “exciting new revolution” in graphic design is on the horizon.

I highly recommend Fingerprint to anybody even remotely interested in issues of design. In addition to the full-color reproductions of many beautiful design works, also included are a few short essays by various graphic designers, which make for some good reading. The book should make a nice addition to the coffee table.

ART ± technology + Introduction.

Welcome to ART ± technology. In this blog, I will be examining specific examples of artworks and other creative projects from out in the world, analyzing how the advent of new technologies and media has affected the creative processes of various artists. While this blog will examine the relationships that exist between art and technology, it will not necessarily be a blog about new media theory, at least in the direct sense. That is to say, new media theory addresses a wide range of issues, including issues of networking and communication, which may or may not be covered in this blog. Interestingly, the examples of artworks and creative projects covered in this blog will not always be those that have been executed through new technological means, which leads me to a pivotal argument that I anticipate to be touching on throughout many of my posts.

While the advent of new media technologies within the last century and particularly the last couple of decades has certainly opened up the doors to many new possibilities within the arts, I would also argue that many artists and creators have started to limit themselves to such technologies, thus limiting their creative processes. Perhaps for many of these artists and creators, such a situation is inevitable, as there is no doubt that artistic works created through new technologies have become the norm in today’s society—or perhaps even what is expected by today’s society. However, I think that this idea of technology limiting creativity is one that many people today overlook. Many people are often so absorbed in the latest and greatest thing, thus sometimes forgetting that more traditional means can achieve their purposes—and perhaps even in a more effective way.

In an essay entitled New Media from Borges to HTML, new media theorist Lev Manovich proposes eight propositions that describe new media and technology. In one of these propositions, Manovich describes new media as a “faster execution of algorithms previously executed manually or through other technologies.” In discussing this point, Manovich mentions the example of the composite photograph. In the nineteenth century, soon after the invention of photography, many photographers were creating “combination prints” which were made by putting together multiple photographs. (Example shown below.) This is obviously the traditional version of ‘Photoshopping.’ What used to take hours upon hours to do in the nineteenth century can now be done in a much shorter time period with just a few clicks of the mouse in Photoshop. However, while Manovich mentions that new technologies allow for faster ways of executing various processes, nowhere in his essay does he mention that new media provides for better ways of doing so. Traditional means of making art will always have their time and place, and it is my belief that some people miss out on this opportunity by being too caught up in the latest and greatest technology.

Henry Peach Robinson's Fading Away, 1858. A combination print made up of multiple photographs.

Although I have spent the majority of this post discussing how I believe artists often limit themselves to new technologies, this argument is not even half of what I intend to be exploring in this blog. I have simply touched upon that idea in detail as it is probably the one that would be most foreign or unfamiliar to most readers (if I ever get an audience). I will certainly also be exploring the many interesting ways in which new technology has enhanced the art-making process, as there truly are countless examples of such cases. And perhaps my first one or two posts will be in this category. In addition, I will probably throw in numerous other arguments and observations in various posts, in accordance to the subject matter that I am discussing, thus making the blog into an all-around journal about the relationships between art and technology.

Stay tuned, and see you next post.