. . . . . . . . . . . .
HIP HOP X POST Modern Art
1.
The journalistic article "Using Hip-Hop Music to Enhance Critical Discussions on Postmodern Art" by Jeffery Broome focuses on the reasoning behind accepting the genre of hip hop in having the same principles/criteria as postmodern art: samples borrowed in popular songs are like "repetitive" elements in postmodern art. In one of the lyrics, Broome argues "See art is opinion, only techniques have guidelines". Broome highlights the words "opinion" and "guidelines" to further separate the idea of creation from "borrowing" and acceptability. On another note, Broom argues that the biggest difference between artmaking and writing in rap is the level of "transparency" when showcasing influences from another artist. Broome uses the case "Franzen and Mcleod in 2009" to highlight how punishments are way more severe in music when caught using others' ideas (samples) illegally. Broome's article motivates one to question the balance between self-valuation, market marginalization, and media representation in art/music: how artists establish names of their own when most “areas” have been “experimented” and explored. The highlighting of the act “borrowing” has made me rethink the entire process of portrait painting: what aspect of the painted individual is being “borrowed” and utilized.
The journal article “Alice Neel as an Abstract Painter” by Mira Schor radiates concerns about the societal implication of portraiture: the limitation of an individual’s potentiality in career/life through “remarks” on gender and cultural norm. Schor’s fear of looking like a “sixteen-year-old Southern debutante” showcases how artworks can “misrepresent” and overtake an individual’s identity when handled carelessly. In the article, Schor argues that nudity is a mask that prevents judgement of character and social identity; also, how clothes are the complete opposite that makes people more prone and “vulnerable”. Schor’s article inspires one to reconsider what’s “comfortable” and what isn’t: how has the way of making art served you, should there be changes, and how drastic. The point on “dress code” ties directly with the idea of identification and familiarity: how clothes misrepresent individuals and ultimately “exist” in other’s impressions. Personally speaking, the article has made me rethink “imprints” of others in my head when painting. Scholar makes me more careful when “capitalizing” on clothing in painting.
2. Alice Neel
Expectation vs norm
The journal article “The Machinist Style of Francis Picabia” by William A. Camfield explains the reasoning behind Picabia’s “appropriation” of machinery in art: necessary celebration of technological/scientific advancement that dictates and improves the everyday life. In the article, Camfield states “when confronted with these improbable machines and seemingly cryptic inscriptions, authors have assumed a “dada-complex”. The word “assumed” illuminates the “inaccuracy” in judging an individual’s intention and potential off comparison with others in the same field of study. Camfield also points out that Picabia deploys multiple styles to “confuse” the public as he believes heavily in “bergson’s concept of constant flux of life”: “an inherent need for unrestricted thought of action and resist anything that threatens to impose routines or boundaries on his life”. Camfield’s article on Picabia’s artistic approach motivates me to appreciate the idea of “change” in art and life: limitation of color palette, food, clothes, and people that I’m often associated with. Picabia challenges the “qualifications” for a transformation in art: relativity to the border spectrum of art practice, audience with coherent interpretation, “vocalization” of “confusion”, and adaptation to modern innovation.
3.
Francis Picabia
When painting these people, never have I ever or should I ever, whatever, thought of
painting them. I don't paint objectified people, but I do paint people that objectifies.