Consider Collingwood's theory that the REAL art work is that which is created in the viewer's consciousness as she or he interacts with the physical objects that represent art. Apply this theory to Leigh-Ann's work and consider whether or not it fits with her stated intentions for the viewer.
Due Monday, September 26th at 12 noon along with two pages on this question in your visual journals.
I think the extend to which our reading related to how the viewer is intended to interact with Pahapill's artwork was pretty crazy. On multiple occasions in her presentation, Pahapill stressed her interest in space and more specifically the relationship between the actual object and space and where the viewer fell into it. One piece she presented struck me as particularly relevant to this discussion. In one studio space, she said there was water dripping into a bucket, and looking into it caused Pahapill to reflect on the process of looking at an object, connecting it to other images and recognizing it for what it is (I want to call the piece "Your Eclipse" but I honestly can't fully remember the title). Pahapill talked about the "tip of the tongue" condition, the in between space for someone viewing an object. Collingwood offers up the theory that art is only fully constructed in the mind when the viewer reflects upon the physical object signifying art. Pahapill does not proclaim outright that she agrees with this and is attempting to achieve it in her work, but she came pretty close. While she wants the physical art to be aesthetically interesting and pleasing, she puts special stress on how the viewer reflects on her art, and she said she wanted her art to take the viewer to a particular place in their minds, the "in between". That place is where her art resides.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Collingwood’s theory fit perfectly to Leigh-Ann’s intension on her work. She is more interested in the interaction of objects and the relationship that formed between them and the viewer. She mentioned that when people first approach her work they are usually lost and did not know where it start and end. Some people look at the work and did not appreciate it until they know the content behind the piece. Her description fit perfectly into Collingwood’s theory because when the viewer first approaches her work they did not see a work of art but a space full of found objects. When they fail to identify the content of the work they immediately seek for an explanation of the work in which, once obtained caused them to appreciate the work as they can now form a relationship between themselves and the objects; they can now see the “art”. The objects in Leigh-Ann’s work is not the main priority but the way the viewer react and see her space is what important most.
ReplyDeleteThrough reading Collingwood's theory, and listening to Leigh-Ann Pahapill's lecture in class, I believe that the theory matches her work and intentions. By creating her art, Leigh-Ann wants the viewer to interact with it as much as possible. She creates the space in certain ways in order for the viewer to have to use his mind and imagination in order to understand her work, and thus make them "see", "visualize" the art in their heads. As Anne already stated, I remember her in class saying how she considers the space in between her art work, space and the viewer to be the art. by saying that she basically wants the viewer to see the art through their consciousness. Moreover, because she uses a lot of different found objects in her work, placed in a specific space, the viewer has to make the connections amongst those objects him/herself and a lot of times that is a very difficult task and makes the viewers seek for explanations. Also, it trigers the viewer to connect these objects within the mind and thus create the "art" through their imagination.
ReplyDeleteAfter hearing Leigh Ann's talk, I have come to the conclusion that her work falls under the umbrella of expressionism. One thing that she said that really stuck with me is that she is open to others interpreting her work for themselves. She specifically said that she prefers not to include wall text with her work which I thought was interesting. She avoids wall text because she wants people to interact with her work and form their own conclusions so that they can have their own experience. This interaction is important to Leigh Ann and it is in this interaction, according to Collingwood, where the artwork really exists. Leigh-Ann is all about how her works interact with space and therefore how they affect the viewers so her work is a perfect example of Collingwood's definition of expressionism.
ReplyDeleteI find Collingwood's theory of art as the best way to determine what is and isn't art, since there seems to be a difinitive distinction. Though, admittedly, Collingwood's theory seems to leave the distinction in the hands of the viewer. Anyway, after looking into Leigh-Ann's artwork online, I can see how Collingwood's theory fits in her work, as she relies heavily on the relationship between the piece and the viewer. At times I looked at her pieces and was lost as to what it ultimately meant until I noticed the artist discription. Its this artist insight that I was able to gain a fair bit of knowledge of what she probably meant through her paintings. Its when the viewer fails to notice anything of recognition in an artist's piece that (atleast for me) peaks my intrest, and I want to know more. The fact that there is a meaning behind her pieces (unlike Kinkade) which gives it that extra depth, and makes it art.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this theory could work with Leigh-Ann Pahapill’s work. It would seem that she wants the viewer to create their own dialog about her work, since she tells us that she never uses wall text, which is what most artists would do to help define their work. She also uses a variety of different techniques to get a feeling across to the viewer. Often, she is concerned with texture and light filling a space to convey a mood. In a way, her use of an entire space instead of just a canvas can help to successfully transmit a specific feeling to the viewer. Concerning the piece that is at the Cornell Museum currently, I had viewed this piece and taken notes as to my interpretations. When listening to what she tries to accomplish in her work, I felt that she had succeeded, as it was often similar to what I had written down.
ReplyDeleteI think that Collingwood's theory does fit. Since Leigh-Ann Papahill manipulates objects and then puts them in space without wall text that she is expecting for something to happen in the consciousness of the viewer to complete the work. When thinking of the theory and Papahill's work I am also reminded of her piece with the hand gestures and Collingwood saying, "Every utterance and every gesture that each one of us makes is a work of art." I think she is intentionally challenging the viewer to see things one might not consider art, i.e. a gesture, as art.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely fit's Pahapill's work because she stated that her interest is not necessarily in a single object or even a group of objects; her interest is in the space and voids between those objects and how compositionally that become part of the piece. The space is just as important if not, more important in her eyes than any actual physical objects themselves. So therefore this idea, this reaction to empty space must be created in your consciousness because it is your brain that recognizes a void and your mind reacts to it. I think Leigh-Ann would absolutely feel her art falls into the category of "real" art.
ReplyDeleteI certainly believe Pahapill’s work fits Collingwood’s theory of real art. Her work is purposely left undefined and deconstructed, with the intention of creating dialogue in the viewer’s mind. Her work invites the viewer to explore its many dimensions, and goes farther beyond a simple two-dimensional work on the wall of a gallery. She also refuses the convention of wall text, and instead leaves all interpretation up to the viewer. In this way, the true definition and meaning of the work must be created in the viewer’s mind. The relationship between the found objects in Pahapill’s work, and the significance of this relationship is only fully uncovered once the viewer has spent time contemplating it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we could apply Collingwood’s theory that real art is created within the viewer’s consciousness as they interact the objects that are representing within Leigh-Ann’s work. What I gathered from her presentation was that her interest is not necessarily in one object or even a group of objects she is working with; but she is interested is in the space (every aspect of the space). She is concerned with how the dirt left from the delivery is present on the floor to changing the size of a photo on the wall, to a bucket that is left with rusted rain water. Her esthetic seems very casual to me- if that makes sense- there is almost an unfinished appeal to the environments she creates to hold her art. These elements force the viewer to think about the in betweens, rather than the exhibit as a whole. She definitely wants the viewer to create their own dialog about her work. I am not sure if this process is successful in terms of expressing what the artist wants the viewer to feel . Simply because she used no wall text, and there are so many components to her exhibits that we might not understand it the same way other people would (but that probably is her goal.)
ReplyDeleteI feel that it fit very well with Leigh-Ann's statement of work. She was interested in finding the art in objects that may not traditionally be considered art but are made art because of how people interact with them. This is perfect for the idea that real art is created in the viewers mind and how the viewer interacts with the art. It is an interesting idea that she plays out in her work. This is to say the idea that art is made art because it gets a particular reaction from the viewer. Viewers can take her art in many different ways and I think that is what makes it so interesting; it is different depending on who's looking at it.
ReplyDeleteCollingwood’s theory that the REAL art work is that which is created in the viewer’s consciousness as she or he interacts with the physical objects that represents art coincides with Leigh-Ann Pahapill’s views on art. Pahapill places a high importance on the viewer and the individual experience one gets when viewing her artwork. And it not only interests her what happens “in between” the artwork and the viewer, but she is also curious as to what happens between the experience of something and it’s representation. In one of her shows, she placed a photo of a bucket in a room across from the bucket itself. The viewer experiences the object and it’s representation at the same time.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting works of hers, to me, was the video she shot of people’s hand gestures while they were describing a certain chair in the room. Hands are so expressive and, as humans, we use them on a day-to-day basis to express how we feel although we may not even realize it. Leigh-Ann Pahapill is an expressionist. She tries to communicate emotion through her works of art.
When looking at images of Leigh-Ann’s work, I imagine that it feels like art is everywhere around you once you enter the space. Every small detail of the space is somewhat intentional but not simply regarding the objects in the space. Each object interacts with the others within the room. Leigh-Ann mentioned one installation that completely changes by looking from different perspectives. The sheet of material she used changed its visual qualities when looking from one part of a room compared to another. As a result, the space between the viewer and the object becomes very important. In some ways this makes her work interactive. She asks the viewer to interact with their surroundings, move about and explore the space. We are forced to think about our relationship to the objects in space because of the way changing perspectives affect our reading of the space. Moreover, the viewer can look at the relationship between objects to try to determine the meaning of the work. Leigh-Ann leaves the viewer no written clues to the meaning of her work so the viewer is left only with visual clues. The viewers own conscious response reacting to the different ways they can interact with the space plays a large role in the personal meaning they gain from the work.
ReplyDeleteLeigh-Ann Pahapill stated that her true work does not exist in the objects she presents in her installations, but rather in the space between these objects and her viewers. This lines up perfectly with Collingwood’s theory that the real art takes place in the consciousness of the spectator. Pahapill seems endlessly captivated by creating negative space for the viewer to exist within; to her, the objects are secondary to the experience she wants to reconstruct. In several of her pieces, specifically “A Higher Value on Dispersal” she focuses on the absence of objects. In this installation she arranges blank screens & various shades of white paint chips. Her objects are so mundane and exist only to create an atmosphere where the viewer must reflect upon that negative space and face the void areas. It is that interaction with the artwork, the sense of being unsure where the art begins and ends, that is the true art presented. Collingwood would likely thoroughly enjoy Pahapill’s installations for that reason alone.
ReplyDelete