Search Results

I attended a visiting artist talk today at Delaware State University. The talk was a lecture by artist Sam Whalen. During the Q and A portion of the talk Whalen hit on a point that I think we all have a tendency to forget during our time in academia. She advocated for artists not being afraid of experimentation. In school your are expected to always be working on a project for critique, a piece that has to work. As student artists we sometimes become fearful of wasting time trying new things in the case that it doesn't work out and you have to face the critique with essentially a failed experiment. There is also a sense of pressure now a days that you need to constantly be producing/posting work online. Again Whalen reminded the audience, "you don't have to post it". Not being afraid of a failing at trying something out of the box is a very important mindset to get into. Otherwise your art practice becomes work. Falling into a repetitive routine of not taking risks and making creating "safe" work can make your portfolio stale. With experimentation comes growth. As Sam said, "You don't have to post it. If it doesn't work just throw it out."

It feels so satisfying to turn the key and lock the block lock.

I’d feel like I didn’t do my job as an art writer if I didn’t address the tragedy that took place in Paris this past Monday. In the morning hours of April 15th, 2019 the Notre-Dame de Paris caught on fire and the blaze carried on for over 8 hours. Over 500 firefighters worked tirelessly to maintain the blaze and although the spire has fallen and the ceiling collapsed, it appears that a majority of the structure has been saved. Preliminary investigations suggest that the fire was accidental and a byproduct of recent renovation measures. During the blaze the surrounding area was evacuated as a safety measure in case the structure collapsed. There were no casualties as a result of the fire and one firefighter listed as “seriously injured,” appears to be the only incident in the efforts to contain the blaze. A small silver lining came up as 16 statues were recently removed for the first time in over a century to be cleaned and were ultimately saved from the blaze. Seeing this building, a masterpiece of the French Gothic era, engulfed in flames and smoke, the spire coming down, it was heartbreaking. The Notre-Dame was a historical and artistic landmark and the thought of it collapsing after standing tall for over 800 years shook the world. I felt that in the wake of this tragedy and as rebuild efforts begin I should take a moment to briefly go through and appreciate the history of the Notre-Dame and its significance. Building of the Notre-Dame began in 1163 following the decision to demolish the Romanesque structure that stood on its ground. The massive cathedral was meant to be a cornerstone in ushering in the French Gothic style. This new style brought innovation in both architecture and decoration. Decoratively the French Gothic style was much flashier than anything that had been seen before, massive and colorful rose windows along with scores of naturalist sculpture were key elements in the Notre-Dame and would be in all buildings of the style. But with more decoration, comes a lot more material and a lot more weight, so new architectural innovations like the rib vault and flying buttress were utilized to effectively and elegantly hold the weight of the cathedral. The cathedral was largely finished by 1260 but renovations and additions were made through much of the 13th and 14th centuries. The cathedral has been home to many historical events. In 1231, King Louis IX placed the crown of thorns believed to have been worn by Jesus before his crucifixion, the crown along with a piece of the cross he was crucified on still reside there today. In 1431, Henry VI of England was crowned King of France there. In the 1540’s rioting Huguenots damaged the cathedral and during the French revolution of the 1790’s it was damaged again, then taken and rededicated to the Cult of Reason and later the Cult of Supreme Being. Following his rise to power, Napoleon Bonaparte returned the cathedral to the church in 1802 and was coronated as ruler of France her in 1804. In the early 19th century, following commercial success of things like the Hunchback of Notre Dame bringing attention back to the cathedral, restoration efforts began and they’ve continued on and off until today. The Notre-Dame has been home to a myriad of historical events, was a cornerstone of the French Gothic movement, and today is the most visited monument in Paris, bringing in 12 million dollars a year. Almost as soon as the flames were extinguished, talks of restoration were beginning because we have to save this monument, it bares so much cultural, historical and artistic significance. Another small silver lining comes in the form of historian Andrew Tallon, who used lasers to create an in depth of map of the Notre-Dame. These renderings will no doubt be a pivotal tool in the restoration of the monument. Supporters and patrons have been pouring in to donate and offer a hand in the restoration so even in the wake of tragedy, there are some positives. I’m really distraught by the destruction of the Notre-Dame and although it looks like the restoration will be heavily supported, I have to end on a pondering note. We’re barely 48 hours removed from the blaze and I’m already hearing buzzings like, “it will be better than before.” But in an increasingly modern society that likes to think its current ideas are vastly superior to any previous ideas, this scares me. We need to do our best to save and restore the Notre-Dame, we cannot and I repeat CANNOT let this turn into a flexing of our modern architectural muscles. There’s history here, there’s cultural significance, there’s a lot more at stake than just a building. There’s a lot to think about in the near future in regards to the Notre-Dame de Paris and it’s a scary thing.

Tonight we had the pleasure of speaking at the University of Delaware, the alma mater of the Plebeian team. Wow, what an experience. I’d like to first start out by thanking the school for partnering with us, allowing us to speak, and welcoming us back with open arms. I’d then like to thank Rafael Damast of Taller Puertorriqueno for sharing the podium with us and all the students who came out to listen to us. But enough of the formal thank you stuff, I want to talk about the experience. I couldn’t imagine the amount of artists talks we went to when we were in school, some awesome, some bullshit, but no matter the quality the, “I could totally do this shit,” thought was always there. I feel like some of the biggest thoughts of grandeur I had in school were, “I’m gonna come back and my artist talk is going to blow the roof off of this place!” I didn’t think I’d be coming back 11 months post grad though. But it happened, the roof is still on the building, but it happened. I think a speech like this is made much more interesting when the memories of being on the other side are so recent, I could see myself in a lot of those students sitting there. I could honestly picture myself doodling away, barely paying attention in the back rows as I spoke up there tonight. But I was shocked at the engagement of the students, they loved it, and I think deep down I knew they would, but the nervousness of public speaking always brings up the worst case scenario. So, once again and speaking on behalf of the Plebeian team, I’m going to give a big thank you to those students who came out today and welcome them to Plebeian! UD, you’re the first of many, thanks for the platform to take off, now let’s really take this off!

I heard the word “Juxtaposition,” about a billion times in art school and I’m sure a lot of you did as well. I think it starts early on, professors start launching this word at us along with early design products. Then next thing we know, we’re seniors hearing it 5-10 per critique. You hear it so many times, but I think people either don’t know or totally forgot what the word actually means so I’m going to start by defining it. Juxtapose (verb): place or deal with close together for contrasting effect. So, simple enough right? This is a word used to describe when things are put together to create a contrasting effect. But if you think about it, why does this word take over art school with such force? A pretty simple answer, I think, people just want to sound cool and artsy. The word juxtapose/juxtaposition is like, “I know art and am better than you,” 101. People don’t just want to say, “This creates an interesting contrast,” or, “These two elements work well together,” they’ve got to squeak this word in there so you don’t forget how awesome they are. This is so lame and it waters down what juxtaposition actually is so much. It’s supposed to be a word used for stark contrast, different contrast, but when you use it every time black is next to white it doesn’t mean a thing when people create new and meaningful contrast. Let’s just collectively agree that we don’t have to be so cool and use a synonym or two so bit, meaningful words can be… well, meaningful.

Through our forums I get to familiarize myself with a lot of work and in a recent deep dive into the photography world I was fortunate enough to find the work of Olivia Cara in our forums. Cara works primarily with models in her photography but not a traditional way, you’ll find that they blend in and work with the scenery to create a full set piece rather than just a good looking person with a nice looking background. Everything comes together, especially in terms of color, nothing stands out too much, everything is cohesive and it allows your eyes to gently work their way through the scenes without constantly being drawn to one place. Another thing I love about Cara’s photo work is the emotion, everything is raw, you’re inserted right into the scene and you’re overcome by the melancholia or sadness in the scene. These photos have a darkness in them, and not in a cheesy way that just feels like dark for darks sake or some sad shock value, a darkness that tells a story and that gives more to the viewer than just a picture. Even her brightest shoots seem to have a weight to them, like there’s more to tell, an emotion that contrasts her more “happy” colored sets. I could rant and rave about these photos more, but fortunately I had the pleasure of talking to Cara and getting to ask her some questions about her work, so I’ll let her take over! 1. So, first things first, what got you into working in art? What lead you into photography? Talk about what got you to become the artist that you are? I come from an extremely artistic family therefore I kind of didn’t have much of a choice as a kid. My grandparents were both famous composers from Ukraine, and my great Aunt was a painter, so art always surrounded me. My older brother who I look up to a lot actually got into photography before me and eventually passed down ones of his cameras, I was instantly hooked! What really allowed me to transform my photography into art was my battle with depression and an eating disorder. I turned my photography into a coping mechanism to translate all my thoughts and feelings as well as release my inner demons. 2. You use models a lot in your photography, but not exactly conventionally, they seem to be very much a part of the scenery. What got you into this, using models as a prop to add into the scenery? What’s your process like with that? I really honestly just use my friends or myself. Sometimes I will be with people and simply feel the need to take photos so whip out my camera. Other times I am alone and do the same thing. I rarely plan things out too much unless it’s for a class, it’s a very organic process. 3. Your photo series always have such cohesive color palettes, everything works together in shades of the same or similar colors. How do you achieve this soft, blended quality? Does a lot of editing go into this or is it mostly just natural Photo? I absolutely love muted tones and simple editing. I have never been a fan of high saturation or contrast because the concept behind my art doesn’t need heavy editing to convey my messages. I almost always use natural lighting (not a fan of lighting studios), and do touch ups with Adobe Lightroom. 4. The two elements of the previous questions combine to give a very melancholy and often dark tone to your photo series, is this intentional? What role does emotion play in your work? Similar to my choice of muted tones, dark tones are intentional as well. If I am in a really dark place or reflecting on a past time where I was extremely depressed/lonely the dark tones just are a must. It’s a major release to literally make my photos look like what I am feeling. 5. What are your future plans in photography? Do you want to go a more conventional route or fine art route? Or both? I promised myself recently that I will never exchange my art for money. If I do give my work away it would be for a trade of some form of art education or for another artist’s work. I met an artist recently who had a conventional non art related job for income, but still had a studio, produced art, and entered shows, which I love. I just have a hard time giving up something so deep and personal to me for currency. In terms of how I plan on supporting myself, I would love to go into film production and be behind the scenes. Or go back to my dancing routes and become a dance teacher in another country. 6. Finally, PLUGS! Where can people find you, what projects do you have going on that you’re excited about, any upcoming shows, shamelessly self promote! I am working on a new video entitled “selfish” documenting the effects my eating disorder has on my everyday routine which I am super stoked about. It is very raw and beautiful. Instagram: @oliviacara Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkb7c- pV8jsHlI79Iz4GQVQ?view_as=subscriber Olivia Cara Email: oliviacara97@gmail.com Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/304748069 Olivia Cara Remember Folks! Feature Friday is an awesome way to get your work seen and promoted, as well as make you eligible for other prizes! But, you’ve got to post on that forum so we can see your work and promote it! So post, comment and post some more! Let’s see and talk about all of your work!

With the rising popularity of Daniel Arsham, the idea of replicating object has is more relevant than ever. In my opinion his work is an interesting play on form and materiality of the objects that exist in the world around us. By altering the look of a common object Arsham plays with the way we interact with everyday things and gives us a whole new perspective on the forms. In my humble opinion Arsham's work has become somewhat repetitive. The material used for casting must have some conceptual relevance to the object that which it replicates. It seems that now it is "cool" to make different things out of rare, precious stones just because they include precious stones. Another example is Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'. The piece is a cast skull famously incrusted in 8,601 flawless diamonds. Why was this piece so significant and, by the way, fetched the highest price of any single work by a living artist. Cool because it is a human skull cast? Cool because it is solid titanium, with tons of diamonds? Cool due to the artists name? Obviously these two artists didn't amass the reputation that they have by making "cool" work that lack intention. However, it could be a slippery slope if we begin praising work due only to the fact that it was expensive to make and includes rare materials. With technological advances and wealth it becomes effortless for artists to pump out works like this. Don't think that you can just add some gold or diamonds to your work and suddenly gain a following. Work that lacks intention is worthless. Ideas are artists precious materials.

There's something simultaneously chilling and peaceful about an environment you enter and find to be void of other people. We are inherently delicate to the presence or lack there of humanity. It actually dictates our actions. Take, for instance, a specific place like the main street of your town or a common room in your house. Walking down a crowded, lively street there are countless things that go unnoticed. We get a sense of safety in a crowd. Instinctual guard relaxes. Relying on the collective instinct of others to keep us safe. Focus falls on the specifics; a conversation you're in, your phone, or the way your one shoe keeps rubbing on that last toe. It is annoying. Now remove everyone. You think that your phone and accessing human contact becomes essential. The opposite happens. Reaching for your phone is the last thing one your mind. Senes heighten along with instinct and you notice everything. The minute aspects of the world seem to be performing just for you. Traffic lights cycle not triggered by a waiting line of traffic. The walk sign announces, "WALK, WALK, WALK" alerting the night that the sign is on to cross. You see, the only difference is the two spaces is the amount of attention you pay the world. There is inspiration and beauty everywhere you are just missing it.

If you ask a group of art students how they feel about the art history classes they’re required to take, you’re likely going to get a response of half excitement and half dread. Art history is a pivotal part of most art programs and a tool many people reflect on for years to come. However, a lot of art students hate the fact they have to do this and just sulk their way through it. It’s an interesting thing that artists have to do because in a lot of ways yes, it’s great for artists to know the history of art, but at the same time it doesn’t necessarily help with the artistic process. So are these art history requirements actually helpful or necessary? I’m going to say yes and no. Now I’m just playing devil’s advocate, but I want to lay out my reasons for why I think art history classes are a great tool and necessity for artists, but also why they might not be. This is all in the hopes to converse with all of you and gather a larger consensus on the topic as well as more points for either side. So, in the spirit of playing devil’s advocate, let’s talk about why art history isn’t necessary for art students. My primary reason for why it may not be is in the format of most classes, it’s more history than it is art. What I mean by that is that the majority of the class is just creating an art timeline, not how or why art was made, not what changed or inspired things in art, the process is almost totally ignored in my experience. If we’re going to talk about the history of art, let’s talk about mediums, processes, patrons, how things evolved, I could go on, there’s so much to talk about in the grand scheme of art but instead we spend our time memorizing dates that paintings were done. One of the biggest reasons for this, in my opinion, is that a lot of these professors aren’t artists, they’re historians. Now, that’s totally fine in documenting and making timelines but if you’re going to teach art to artists, I’d hope you have some sort of understanding as to why and how things were made. I remember in college taking a class called Making American Art, and what an absolute sham this was. The professor didn’t know a damn thing about actually making art and it showed because we didn’t talk about making one time in a class with the word making in the title. We talked about the Athenaeum Portrait by Gilbert Stuart for 30 seconds like it was totally normal that a painting that’s incomplete but relevant 200 years later, of all times to talk about making wouldn’t it be when talking about a painting that isn’t finished? I’m getting off to a rant here, so I’ll stop myself, but my point is that art history, especially the art history that’s required for artists to take, can’t just be a mindless memorizing of a timeline. We need more out of our art history! Getting away from that, we can get into why art history is important and I think we’re going to hit a very obvious one for this intro portion. Art history is important because, like with anything, it’s crucial to know the history of our craft. Art has probably the most storied history of any craft in history so it’s super helpful to know how and why art has developed the way it has to help guide you in your own process. How did the masters achieve what they achieved? How did the great innovators get to where they were? Why has art developed the way that it has? Questions like this are constantly going to bounce around in our heads and art history gives us answers and help us understand why current developments are happening. If art history can truly take the deep dives that it should, past just the finish product, to the process, the artists themselves, the environments they were in, then they can really be a key tool in helping us develop. Once again, this is just an intro to hopefully an ongoing conversation. These are my top two points in why art history classes are relevant or can be totally irrelevant. So I want to hear from you! Do you love art history and want to sing its praises? Let’s hear it! Do you hate art history and dread going to your required classes every day? Air it out, let’s hear it! I want to know why people love it so we can promote the good things and why people hate it so we can hopefully get to eliminate the bad things.

because everything is blooming.

I was speaking to the Pleb’s team recently about my own personal art and how I was totally stuck on what to do next and I couldn’t figure out anything. I’d been creating a series of works, 50-60 illustrations all in the same series and it got tiresome for me, then right when I started to feel stuck I got a commission for 4 paintings a little outside of my box. So that kept me occupied for a few weeks and it was good and I thought it might really propel me into something new, but then I finished… and nothing. So I was in limbo, I’d sit at my workspace for hours trying to think of what to do next and nothing would happen, I’d sit there and watch Youtube videos until 4 a.m. then I’d swear at myself, take the loss and hope that tomorrow wasn’t a repeat of the same process. I know being stuck is something that happens (I’ve written about it before obviously) but I’m hard on myself when I’m not creating. So I finally just decided to clear my head and draw, see what happens, and I got something on the page but it wasn’t amazing, so next page, threw down another doodle, next page, another. I was hours deep into this drawing session and it seemed like things really started to flow but nothing seemed like a piece to finish and it’s then that I finally had the realization that I hadn’t kept a sketchbook in months and I started kicking myself. I used to draw every day, not to make finished pieces, but just for the sake of drawing, I’d track my emotions and thoughts through mindless doodles every day, it very much inspired my actual work but it was just fun. I found that I’d gotten myself so wrapped up in making finished pieces, trying to make a living off of art, that I wasn’t being creative and free like I should be, I was forcing it. I forgot my everyday art. I think that it’s important for artists to have an everyday. We got into art because it’s something fun, something we enjoyed and through that enjoyment we found a talent and a passion, it’s not a brilliant career choice (many people would argue that it’s the opposite) so don’t lose that passion or let art making become a chore. I think that’s where our projects can become toxic, especially in the professional world, because if we want to stay relevant as artists we have to create and if there’s a lul, people can easily forget us. So I think people start to just try and create, create, create, making project after project of whatever they can, often repeating the same things, just so that they have finished pieces. But when we do this the passion fades, our art becomes diluted and repetitive, we’re not thinking creatively, we’re just mindlessly making what we think will give us success. That’s why I think that we need an everyday, a piece of art that doesn’t come with the pressures of being a professional artist, a vomiting of the mind into the world just to see what happens. It could be a note, a picture, a sketchbook, a drawing on a napkin, it could be anything but when we have something that we created that’s not for the world, or for the money, it’s for ourselves we may find new inspiration. Taking a risk on a finished piece can be incredibly rewarding but a failure really hurts, taking a risk on a doodle in your sketchbook could mean you just throw it away, or it could inspire a whole new side of your work you hadn’t thought of. As artists we can’t forget what brought us to making art, the personal experience of making, the passion. We need to take a step back sometimes and just do things for ourselves and the rewards will be there. It can help you reflect how and why you got to where you are, reveal new avenues for you to take with your current work, or totally inspire a new set of work. Admittedly a lot of time in art we will have to take the safe route but I think a lot of people get too comfortable with the safe route, or they let the anxiety of failure keep them on the safe route. Even a lot of the most successful artists around right now are just making the same thing over and over and over and over, constantly watering down the initial creativity that brought them to fame (calling you out Arsham). But I think sometimes we need to embrace that “fuck it” mentality and make stuff for us, for fun, like we used to because while the safe route is obviously safe, it’s boring as hell, even if no one knows you took a detour once in a while, it could be an incredibly rewarding experience. I’m sure this rant has been totally all over the place, and might be a little hard to read, but my point is this, MAKE EVERYDAY, do things for yourself, keep a log of your art that happens everyday, away from finished work, maybe even away from the eye of anyone but you, make to keep the mind flowing. Be creative, do new things and don’t forget why you started making art.