Share on FB
Tweet This
Stumble It
Digg This
Technorati
Delicious
During this art class, I learned how to interpret art not just for an aesthetic object, but tried to be open to the message or "concept" behind what was being done. Messages are huge...they speak at times when words won't pass our lips. They are used to start controversy, to entice people towards an action or a decision, or they can even give us an opportunity to question our very own ideas.
Two artists, one a street artist and the other an advertising executive, have made a name for themselves by spreading messages. The first find ways to put his ideas into unsuspecting places. The other has put unsuspecting ideas into the usual places. Both work with different medium, and both are driving by a different vocation with regards to art, however both are using their skill to spread messages to a large audience...whether or not the audience agrees with the message.
The street artist known as "Banksy" has become well known for his street art. Placing his art into areas that could get him in trouble at the federal level, Banksy has used different venues to place his art into the midst of the world. While some may call his work destructive, his work has become known throughout the world.
For a show in Los Angeles for MOCA entitled "Art in the Streets," Banksy displayed several pieces of art in his usual post-modern fashion. One of the pieces was a cathedral glass window. The glass was replaced with graffiti...a collaboration he'd made with local Los Angeles school students. At the bottom of the window, there's a stencil of a hooded boy with a paint brush, praying with his hands together.
The wooden chapel frame is crafted out of wood, and the area for the glass has been filled with wooden plates that were spraypainted by others. The actual display appears to stand 9' high or so...approximately the height of an actual stain glass window in a church. The praying youth is done in black and white and appears to be a stencil of some sort.
Compositionally, it takes the gothic frame of the church window and combines it with the colorful and chaotic lines of the added plates. The hues change from yellow to red-blue near the top...drawing the eye to the center of the window. One could imagine that a light source actually existed on the other side of this window frame. Dwarfed by the immensity of the window, the boy is created using different values of great to show shadow and light. A large number of lines are used, as the boy appears to be quite intricate. Judging from this picture, it's hard to tell if the boy is part of the overall image or if he's separated from the window.
As a friar, the message of this work is rather profound. I experience this work as a statement regarding the need for the church to be relevant not only to today's issues, but to the issues of the inner-cities and the poor. Glass windows traditionally were used to help tell stories, specifically biblical stories and stories of the saints. They were a way to catechize parishioners who attended church. By extrapolating those images with graffiti, graffiti made by LA youth, I interpret the image as saying that the new catechesis, the Church's stories of grace and strength, are rooted in the experience of the poor and marginalized. I'm reminded of the "preferential option for the poor," as written in the South American Council of Bishop's meeting in Medellin in 1979.
I see two things here that maybe others wouldn't connect with: 1. The boy's hoodie looks like the cowl of my religious habit, the garb of my profession as a Capuchin Franciscan. On the left side, it looks like a rosary is visible just under the hoodie. It's as if the actual work calls me, in my own particular experience, to partake in this action of re-focusing the stories of the Church.
The second artist created something that I wouldn't have ordinarily categorized as art. George Lois made a name for himself by telling people what to do...and having people listen. His trick, according to him, is "theres a chance you can do something different, exciting, unique." Defining himself as a communicator, Lois has created some of the greatest advertising campaigns, including MTV, Esquire, and ESPN. One that he's most known for is his ad promo for Tommy Hilfiger.
Discussing the craft of this ad is complex, because the concept is what drives everything for Lois. His goal: to figure out the "big idea" of each item and, using his words, "sear" it into the minds of people, in hopes that they will buy the product. For Tommy Hilfiger, the idea was to create an ad campaign that would make his clothes a household item for shoppers.
The design is simple, crafted with easy to read text and plenty of negative space. Only a few hues are used. It's crafted in a way to be used on print, billboard, or other mediums.
Compositionally, the piece is designed to be easily read. Since the piece requires people to think, Lois uses a good font, while also using black type on the white surface. Negative space is key in this piece, as it assumes that the viewer will be able to guess. Everything is centered, and while the logo (the only object in the piece that is a true graphic) grabs the eye, focus shifts from there to the top.
The concept of the piece, asides from the obvious advertising aspect, is to make the viewer think they should know someone they don't. A shopper might be able to recognize Ralph Lauren, Perry Ellis, and Calvin Klein from this, however people would not know the Tommy brand, and would be moved to do further research. It challenges the viewer remember the logo the next time they go shopping, and that if they are shoppers who are interested in labels, they are missing out.
As an ad, it places Tommy Hilfiger among the existing giants of his field. It is a bold statement, a message that Tommy deserves to be big, that has been copied in various outlets and mediums. For Lois, the idea was big and it directly challenged buyers to look into this new designer. And, for all purposes, it worked.
While both pieces come out of different mindsets, there are various similarities. As I mentioned in the beginning, both have clear messages. While Lois spells it out (so to speak), Banksy allows the user to interpret the meaning. Both pieces speak to something other than themselves, perhaps challenging the viewer to make a choice afterwards. It's also important that both artists make work that is meant to be seen en masse. It is reasonable that both artists would compete for the same space to place their works, insomuch that they would be prime locations for their work to be seen by the most number of people...or at least a target audience. Last, but not least, both artists seek to be in-your-face with their work. Neither of these works are subtle, in fact these pieces figuratively pull some sense of emotion from each viewer, be they positive or negative. They contain powerful messages, challenging the viewer to agree or disagree.
In spite of these similarities, there are distinct differences as well. George Lois has a specific goal for each viewer: to buy the product. Buying the product defines the success of the artwork, and validates his ability to send a specific message to the audience. Banksy produces pieces that are post-modern, lacking any overt message. While the church window lacks a clear message, if it did have one, it's not important for the viewer to agree. In fact, the medium in which it is created can be disagreeable for some.
I found both pieces to be important statements that, for their respective audience, were successful in sending a specific message to the viewer.
Two artists, one a street artist and the other an advertising executive, have made a name for themselves by spreading messages. The first find ways to put his ideas into unsuspecting places. The other has put unsuspecting ideas into the usual places. Both work with different medium, and both are driving by a different vocation with regards to art, however both are using their skill to spread messages to a large audience...whether or not the audience agrees with the message.
The street artist known as "Banksy" has become well known for his street art. Placing his art into areas that could get him in trouble at the federal level, Banksy has used different venues to place his art into the midst of the world. While some may call his work destructive, his work has become known throughout the world.
For a show in Los Angeles for MOCA entitled "Art in the Streets," Banksy displayed several pieces of art in his usual post-modern fashion. One of the pieces was a cathedral glass window. The glass was replaced with graffiti...a collaboration he'd made with local Los Angeles school students. At the bottom of the window, there's a stencil of a hooded boy with a paint brush, praying with his hands together.
The wooden chapel frame is crafted out of wood, and the area for the glass has been filled with wooden plates that were spraypainted by others. The actual display appears to stand 9' high or so...approximately the height of an actual stain glass window in a church. The praying youth is done in black and white and appears to be a stencil of some sort.
Compositionally, it takes the gothic frame of the church window and combines it with the colorful and chaotic lines of the added plates. The hues change from yellow to red-blue near the top...drawing the eye to the center of the window. One could imagine that a light source actually existed on the other side of this window frame. Dwarfed by the immensity of the window, the boy is created using different values of great to show shadow and light. A large number of lines are used, as the boy appears to be quite intricate. Judging from this picture, it's hard to tell if the boy is part of the overall image or if he's separated from the window.
As a friar, the message of this work is rather profound. I experience this work as a statement regarding the need for the church to be relevant not only to today's issues, but to the issues of the inner-cities and the poor. Glass windows traditionally were used to help tell stories, specifically biblical stories and stories of the saints. They were a way to catechize parishioners who attended church. By extrapolating those images with graffiti, graffiti made by LA youth, I interpret the image as saying that the new catechesis, the Church's stories of grace and strength, are rooted in the experience of the poor and marginalized. I'm reminded of the "preferential option for the poor," as written in the South American Council of Bishop's meeting in Medellin in 1979.
I see two things here that maybe others wouldn't connect with: 1. The boy's hoodie looks like the cowl of my religious habit, the garb of my profession as a Capuchin Franciscan. On the left side, it looks like a rosary is visible just under the hoodie. It's as if the actual work calls me, in my own particular experience, to partake in this action of re-focusing the stories of the Church.
The second artist created something that I wouldn't have ordinarily categorized as art. George Lois made a name for himself by telling people what to do...and having people listen. His trick, according to him, is "theres a chance you can do something different, exciting, unique." Defining himself as a communicator, Lois has created some of the greatest advertising campaigns, including MTV, Esquire, and ESPN. One that he's most known for is his ad promo for Tommy Hilfiger.
Discussing the craft of this ad is complex, because the concept is what drives everything for Lois. His goal: to figure out the "big idea" of each item and, using his words, "sear" it into the minds of people, in hopes that they will buy the product. For Tommy Hilfiger, the idea was to create an ad campaign that would make his clothes a household item for shoppers.
The design is simple, crafted with easy to read text and plenty of negative space. Only a few hues are used. It's crafted in a way to be used on print, billboard, or other mediums.
Compositionally, the piece is designed to be easily read. Since the piece requires people to think, Lois uses a good font, while also using black type on the white surface. Negative space is key in this piece, as it assumes that the viewer will be able to guess. Everything is centered, and while the logo (the only object in the piece that is a true graphic) grabs the eye, focus shifts from there to the top.
The concept of the piece, asides from the obvious advertising aspect, is to make the viewer think they should know someone they don't. A shopper might be able to recognize Ralph Lauren, Perry Ellis, and Calvin Klein from this, however people would not know the Tommy brand, and would be moved to do further research. It challenges the viewer remember the logo the next time they go shopping, and that if they are shoppers who are interested in labels, they are missing out.
As an ad, it places Tommy Hilfiger among the existing giants of his field. It is a bold statement, a message that Tommy deserves to be big, that has been copied in various outlets and mediums. For Lois, the idea was big and it directly challenged buyers to look into this new designer. And, for all purposes, it worked.
While both pieces come out of different mindsets, there are various similarities. As I mentioned in the beginning, both have clear messages. While Lois spells it out (so to speak), Banksy allows the user to interpret the meaning. Both pieces speak to something other than themselves, perhaps challenging the viewer to make a choice afterwards. It's also important that both artists make work that is meant to be seen en masse. It is reasonable that both artists would compete for the same space to place their works, insomuch that they would be prime locations for their work to be seen by the most number of people...or at least a target audience. Last, but not least, both artists seek to be in-your-face with their work. Neither of these works are subtle, in fact these pieces figuratively pull some sense of emotion from each viewer, be they positive or negative. They contain powerful messages, challenging the viewer to agree or disagree.
In spite of these similarities, there are distinct differences as well. George Lois has a specific goal for each viewer: to buy the product. Buying the product defines the success of the artwork, and validates his ability to send a specific message to the audience. Banksy produces pieces that are post-modern, lacking any overt message. While the church window lacks a clear message, if it did have one, it's not important for the viewer to agree. In fact, the medium in which it is created can be disagreeable for some.
I found both pieces to be important statements that, for their respective audience, were successful in sending a specific message to the viewer.
