$250 for a photo with a naked man?

a stark naked man has attracted attention from hundreds of people at the Art Stage Singapore exhibition, held at Marina Bay Sands. The man is seated in a booth in front of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo's "The Two Fridas", devoid of any article of clothing. Visitors to the exhibition can choose to join him in the room, hold his hand (mimicing the painting behind), and get a photograph taken for a price of $250.

the man, T. Venkanna, is an artist from Hyderabad, India and is posing naked as part of his art installation about "removing the trappings of identity".

I feel that art comes in many forms, be it a renaissance romanticist painting by theodore gericault, or a ready-made my marcel duchamp. and although i concede that what T. Venkanna is doing is indeed art (performance art), i decline to agree that it was well done.

through the process of coursework, my (vague-ish) principles of art have become relatively more concrete. but i realised that a key aspect of art that i feel is important and necessary is that throughout the process of doing the art, there must be some visible effort or growth on the part of the artist - like the evident patience and skill needed to paint "A Sunday on the island of La Grande Jatte", or the hours' effort needed to throw a simple vase. i personally feel that, more than the symbolism of the work, the process and sense of achievement after a period of hard work is what makes art. However in the case of T. Venkanna, I feel that he has put in little or no effort into this work as all he needs to do is sit there and take pictures. There is no necessary artistic skills involved, or creative idea behind it. Moreover, i find this installation rather "cheat" (for lack of a better word), as not only does he need to put in little effort on his part, the painting that he is basing his entire installation on isn't even painted by him. thus in my opinion, i find this installation a very poorly executed example of performance art.

also, "The Two Fridas" was painted by Frida Kahlo at a time of her divorce with her ex-husband, Diego Rivera. The painting thus serves to depict Kahlo's emotions, inner turmoil and the great pain she was suffering at the time. There is no direct (or indirect) link between the painting and T. Venkenna's concept of "removing the trappings of identity". It seems as though the only similarities between what he is doing and the painting is the pose of the two fridas and the pose of T. Venkenna and the visitor. In anycase, even if T. Venkenna did intend to portray "removing the trappings of identity" as perhaps, removing the trappings of sorrow and pain as in "The Two Fridas", I still feel that he should not have mimicked another artist's work, as this causes him to lose his originality as an artist, which contradicts his prominent and outstanding actions.

another reason that i do not like this work is the way the message was portrayed. removing clothes and accessories does not necessarily equate to "removing the trappings of identity", or is a vague and superficial representation of it. I also think that T. Venkenna has failed to properly convey his message to his viewers, as most people view his nudity not as an image conveying the message of "removing the trappings of identity", but more as something that attracts attention because of the outrageous nature of the installation. Also, the fact that 70% of the visitors who have taken a photo with him are women, and that most of them did not dare to look him in the eye, were shy and did not speak to him may suggest that they are simply there because of a certain morbid curiousity, instead of a desire to appreciate art. Also, the extra measures taken to screen the exhibit from the public area to avoid visitors from stumbling upon it by accident is, albeit a thoughtful precaution, but it also suggests that the main aspect of the installation that people pay attention to is the nudity of the man, instead of the message he is trying to convey. As such, I think that T. Venkenna has mostly failed to convey his message through his actions.

footnote: while my comments on this installation have been sardonic and cynical, i do applaud the artist's courage to display himself to the public, and that all of these comments are my own personal views which may differ from others. ^^

nightlife-

this is my painting for sec 3 eoy practical :D i sort of forgot the theme but i think its nightlife.

the painting depicts a city at night, where the clubs are open and DJs start rocking and concerts and starting and children are avoiding bed time and reading. to the right of the painting, the sky starts to lighten and day comes and cars are seen streaming into the city as people go to school and work and start another day.

my concept for this picture is "the city that never sleeps". because night time is traditionally the time where people go to sleep and cease activity for the day, i hoped to show a sense of irony in this picture that although it is night time, no one is asleep. quite the contrary actually, people are just as active at night as in day, and the addition of day coming and cars coming in and out of the city adds to the effect that the life in a city is just as active at night as in the day.

and if you look close enough,

you'll see a city that never sleeps;;

oils!

oil painting assignment in sec 3! ^^ seeing this just reminds me of the europe trip since we were doing this before and after it :D we were asked to pick an art movement and use techniques from that movement to paint something related to nanyang. i chose post-impressionism, and was inspired by georges seurat's painting style of pointillism to complete this painting ^^

If you can tell, I painted a scene that you would see if you stood at the midpoint of the 2nd floor classroom block corridor, looking out past the flags, to the admin block. i think the thing that stood out the most for me was the presence of the flags. The combination of a school flag and a national flag is like a trigger that immediately tells you its a school. Also, the first thing that has always caught my eye about ny's appearance was the light red bricks that make it. Also, this is a view from the classroom block, a view that most students will see of nanyang. I wanted to show that this scene was from a student's point of view instead of just another glamourous shot to advertise nanyang or something. Another thing I added to reinforce this point was a girl sitting on the floor, sketching. Since sketching or observational drawing usually requires some form of peacefulness, I added her in to create a sense of tranquility in the picture, and to show how she feels right at home in nanyang, as it would not have been possible to be so peaceful in uncomfortable surroundings. A human presence also seems to make the picture seem more "real", as opposed to just a shot of a building. It humanises the picture and shows that nanyang is not just a building, it is a home with living breathing people inside it.

For me, this work is important because I have never really been confident in my artistic skills and this assignment showed me that if i put my mind to it, something like an oil on canvas painting is actually possible of me. Through this painting, I realised that i really like painting, or more precisely, the tranquil feeling you get just sitting there and dabbing blots of paint on a canvas. As far as this painting is concerned I feel that I could have done a lot better with regards to the painting technique. Pointillism was supposed to be dots of pure colour placed next to each other such that the eye blends them together from afar. But i sort of mushed up the colours together instead of neatly dotting them next to each other thus not really capturing the point of pointillism.

AEP Lucia Hartini assignment!

1. (a) Describe the use of space, colour and brushwork.

In this painting, “Srikandi”, Lucia Hartini separates the painting into foreground, middle ground and background. In the foreground, we see a huge woman who bears great likeness to the artist herself, taking up more than half of the canvas, standing in a warrior stance and draped with blue cloth. This central positioning of the woman emphasizes that she is the main subject matter and makes her the first thing viewers will see as they view the painting. In the middle ground, are zigzagging walls that lead into the distance, providing depth to the painting and leading the viewer’s eyes to the background. In it, are turbulent clouds and a bright moon, creating a sort of contradiction as the clouds seem very violent as compared to the calmness the moon provides. This highlights that unsettling tone of the painting as possibly intended by Lucia Hartini. Another use of space in this painting is how Lucia Hartini splits her painting into two parts: the sky and the straight wall, and the eyes and the zigzagged wall, with herself in the middle separating the two. Previously in “Spying Eyes” (1989), we see that both walls are zigzagged and the composition is rather haphazard with the eyes all over the place, the artist shrunk and cuddled up in a fetal position and the sky shrouded with dark turbulent clouds. It is safe to assume that the brick walls are symbolic of the odds in Lucia Hartini’s life and in “Srikandi”, we see that one of the walls (the wall behind her) is straight, as though she has already straightened out half of the odds in her life, and is now facing the rest. This is highlighted by the sky as instead of being shrouded with dark turbulent clouds as in “Spying Eyes”, there is now a bright moon rising out of it, lighting the sky up with hope. Lucia Hartini wished to depict herself as a brave, strong warrior woman which she did so by painting herself facing her adversities (the eyes and the remaining zigzagged wall) with determination.

In “Srikandi”, Lucia Hartini uses earthly tones for the skin of the woman, possibly to contrast the woman as natural as compared to the unnatural setting she is in. She also primarily uses only blues and oranges in the painting – complementary colours. Her use of complementary colours to contrast the earthly toned walls and skin with the rich blue cloth and clouds boldens and brightens the entire painting and makes the warrior woman stand out even more, as well as making the painting one that exudes confidence and has a bold story to tell.

As for brushwork, Lucia Hartini has executed her brushstrokes carefully and smoothly, making them nearly invisible to the human eye. This makes the work extremely realistic, despite its unrealistic composition and subject matter. The seemingly absent brushstrokes also lets the viewers subconsciously forget this aspect of painting and concentrate on the symbolic subject matter and composition instead.

1. (b) Comment on the influences behind this work.

Firstly, the unrealistic composition and subject matter show influences from Surrealism. Surrealism is based on the irrational combination of unrelated objects and contrasting forms derived from the depths of imagination or the dream world, or a fusing of the dream world with reality to bewilder the viewer. Lucia Hartini lived in a culture where a straightforward, critical or confessional discourse is not acceptable and thus turned to Surrealism to encase symbolic messages within.

Secondly, she was possibly most influenced by Srikandi, the archetypical “Warrior Woman” of South East Asian legends for this painting. She depicted herself as Srikandi, dressed in the blue cloth worn by members of the women’s armies who historically protected the Sultans of feudal Java. Lucia Hartini painted herself as Srikandi, repelling the critical and doubting eyes of society which had rendered many of its women prisoners of tradition.

Thirdly, would be the culture are lived in. In the Indonesia that she lived in, the status of a woman always depends on the male and she is always regarded inferior to the man, an object of the man’s orders and admonition. Because of this, Indonesian women and prisoners of tradition, having to inherit society’s expectations of them to play the role of a mother, caring for children and not having the rights to express themselves freely, always fearing society’s critical and doubtful eyes. This could arguably have influenced Lucia Hartini’s obsession with spying eyes, and subsequently, her wish to have the power to stare back at the eyes and defy them, symbolic of her having enough confidence to stand up for her own rights against societal norms.

A valid interpretation of an artwork is dependent on an understanding of the artist’s intent and the context in which it was created.

Interpreting artwork is not only the livelihood of art critiques but also an unavoidable process which happens every time anyone sees an artwork. A person need not be an art critique to interpret a work, thus the nature of interpretations taking on many forms. Although everyone believes that their interpretation is correct, I personally believe that a valid interpretation of an artwork is dependent on an understanding of the artist’s intent and the context in which it was created.

The artist’s intent is, possibly, the most important aspect to take into consideration in order to make a valid interpretation of his or her work. In order to even create a work, an artist will almost always have a purpose in making the work. Be it as a response to an issue or as an avenue of expression, understanding the purpose of the work is possibly the most important step one needs to take in order to make a valid interpretation. An example would be Olympia by Manet. When it was exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1865, it caused an uproar. Critiques all over deemed it as “vulgar” and “immoral”, even going to the extent of saying that if the painting were not destroyed, it is only because it is well-protected. I feel that these interpretations, although made with good basis, were not valid interpretations. Manet meant for this painting to simply show the truth. This work, known to some as Manet’s “masterpiece”, was so violently slammed in its time due to the simple reason of interpreters not understanding the artist’s intent.

Context is also extremely important in interpreting a work, such as in the case of Lucia Hartini. Her painting of “Srikandi”, is full of symbols which any art critique can easily link with courage, barricades, freedom and defiance, but without truly understanding the context in which the painting was painted, the interpretation of “a courageous woman breaking out of barricades and seeking freedom” will never be complete. This painting was painted by Lucia Hartini in her Indonesian society which was extremely male-dominant. Female artists such as her suffer in both art school and society as they are looked upon with a critical eye and their works are not recognized. Her influences for this work were not only the society she lived in, but also of her longing to break free of societal norms and in the process, discover herself. Understanding her context to paint this painting, we can then form a valid interpretation that she is depicting herself as Srikandi, fighting back against the critical judgement and norms of society.

Therefore it can be said that understanding the intent and context of an artist is crucial in forming a valid interpretation of the artwork.