a more interesting idea

i've decided i'm going to use symbols from my dreams, things that represent me on a subconscious level, rather than the obvious. this way y projects will be more about self exploration than reflection. and i dream a lot cooler stuff anyways.
i used to be really into figuring out what my dreams meant, so i have a journal in which a write them down fro time to time. this will come in handy for seeing which symbols occur most frequently.

some symbols i know off the bat:
1. Teeth. In my Dreams they have a tendency to fall right out of my head, and having had dreams like this several times, it's not suprising that this is one of the first things i think of. i use Dreammoods as my online reference for symbols, and they have a whole page on the various meanings for teeth dreams. with dream interpretation, it's best to look at the symbol's personal meaning to you, and if that is unknown, to look it up and take the meaning that makes the most sense to you. my teeth dreams usually have to do with my insecurities.
2. Failed attempts at flyingdreammoods says this represents a "lack of power in controlling your own circumstances" whilst dreams where one can actually fly are lucid dreams, where one consciously controls the dream (meaning you're aware within the dream and thus can do whatever you want). Since coming to Temple i have yet to have a failed-flying dream, but i still have never had a successful flying dream either.

I still may use symbols from my waking life, so right now i'm far more engaged in the idea of using these symbols.
setting up my paper and stuff over the break, will probably do it as tiles or panels on bristol board.
all for today, full symbol list when i get around to it.

a little autobiography, in a rap i could never perform myself.

i knit, crochet, watch anime
it didn't always used to be this way, at least
the way i'd spend my day

ne'er considered myself a social creature
raised to the white noise on tv, the cartoon preacher
cause y'see, my mama, don't think she had a hobby
and daddy was a movie, buff
so i spent my time inside
no one said 'play sports' so it didn't cross my mind

i'm not saying i don't have friends, that'd just be sad
i've had my crew since middle school, or at least had
some come some go (and good riddance to buttery trash)
at while we're not close at the moment, i don't think you could lash
together a tighter crew than mine

and i call them my crew
because i misfortunate endeavor
led to the birth of a webcomic i called 'notebook paper'
i'd give you the link, but i'm sorry to say despite the group effort, i could never sit down and say, actually work on it.

little autobiographical thinking, in preparation for my drawing final.

Art = Commodity?

"The point is that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life.
And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."
- Lawrence Weiner responding to a question from Liam Gillick in "Between Artists"

I agree wholeheartedly with Weiner’s words, though it took some thinking to understand just why. Art should change the way you see everything -- in that sense, when walking from piece to piece in a museum, you compare the first piece you lay your eyes on to the next, and the next to that one, and so on and so forth. Changes in perception can be subtle, but it is the evolving comparison of art in our waking lives that changes. I believe it is possible to 'step back' as well, for example, viewing a renaissance masterwork in a museum, and then going home and reading the newest copy of your favorite comic. But there are still qualities for which you can search -- line quality, value, form, perspective, and all the other elements of design -- we weigh them against each other form piece to piece. What is prevalent? What falls flat? Is nonexistent? These are all aspects of our perceptions.
When you stop looking at art is when it becomes a commodity -– it’s the ‘refrigerator syndrome’ when you look at something often enough, without thinking about it, you may forget why it’s there in the first place., like the sticky note reminding you that you had a dental appointment today. Things that are deemed kitschy have this quality –- kind of cute, mass produced and easy to overlook. You forget why you appreciate those creepy figurines of pale children, so they sit and collect dust. While all things that are created are at one point touched by the hands of an artist, or can be perceived as art, if they lose the appreciation of the audience, they lose their artistic status.
Take for example a hand-thrown mug. My mother has several of these. They have beautiful patinas with textured, porous-looking surfaces, and the rustic feel and color treatment of each makes them look similar, but unique from both each other, and the large collection of mass-produced-in-china coffee mugs that keep these few company in the shelves of her kitchen. But again, she wakes up in the morning and so long as the coffee lands in the mug, she doesn’t really pay attention to which one it is. To my mother, the art in these handcrafted wares has been lost. It is easily recovered though, by stopping and thinking about the mug – beyond the caffeine laced contents and utilitarian function.

Art and commodity can be two halves of a whole – a lot of art is created in material objects, which can be traded and sold, utilized and mistreated. But when they are treated as art, they may be on display, or archived, hidden away and preserved for the pleasure of future generations. Again, it depends on how you see and use the piece.
The duality of art and commodity is most apparent to the artist themself. While it has not been my own experience, I've known people who were mg classmates who received offers on their artwork, which was on display at a school art show. Some of these classmates were excited by the idea of having the opportunity to sell their work-Maybe they had nowhere to store it at home, or they just did it for the grade. Or perhaps their parents were not too keen on hanging it in the dining room. But others were move reserved in their experience reluctant to sell a piece that if they were to continue pursuing art, could be an invaluable part of their portfolio. And the last example: the kid who was too emotionally attached to their art to even conceive letting some stranger try and purchase it.
And why shouldn’t they be attached to their work? Not only did they put hours of work into it, but at this stage, the piece is truly an artifact of their growth as an artist. And I’m sure this is one of those universal truths: art is the artifact of the person, community, and culture that produced it.
Each piece I’ve produced(while it still feels pretentious to call my own work ‘art’) has been evidence of my growth into artism. Everything else I’ve made is just crap: unfinished sketches and comics, anything that tried neither my imagination nor abilities, I wouldn’t look at and call art. Practice, maybe, but not art. Weiner has a strong and valid point – an object is not art if it doesn’t challenge your perception, imagination, or standards for the next thing you see.

Upright

A Whirl by ~yokotei on deviantART

What-t-t-t

Tilt by ~yokotei on deviantART

Perspective Drawing Week 3

Mezzanine by ~yokotei on deviantART

Where are weeks 1 and 2? good question :D

Layers Are Like Onions

Subtle Build-up FTW. one more layer, but i need the drawing back to photograph it.

Three rolls of tape on a Rainy Tuesday

this will be reworked sometime in the near future...

Sleepy Tape by ~yokotei on deviantART

Persona Review

The quick rundown of this movie:

• It was made in 1966
  
• It is Swedish, and available with subtitles.
  
• Directed by Ingmar Bergman
  
• Stars Bibi Andersonn as Sister Alma, The Nurse, and Liv Ulmann as Elisabet Volger, the Actress
  

I can't say I understood the plot of the movie – was Elisabet truly mute out of choice, or had some psychological damage been dealt to her that she withdrew defensively? Why did she write the letter to the Doctor back at the hospital, divulging Alma's confessions?

To some degree I understand, not because Elisabet talks, but information that is weaned from the three other characters in the movie – Alma, and to a far lesser degree of screen time, the Doctor and Mr. Volger. We learn throughout the movie: she was an actress; she fell mute after having an awkward moment on stage. She has a husband and child she is not comfortable talking about. She is sensitive to the woes of the world, portrayed in the scene where she watches the self-immolated monks on the television. Though she is mute, she is not a trustworthy person in which to confide, as shown by her letter which Alma reads. She lies to Alma to preserve the 'bubble of insanity' she has created for herself, and she manipulates Alma for the same purpose. And lastly, we learn that she regrets having become a mother, because of her cold and unsympathetic nature which makes it difficult for her to connect to her son.

However, that last tidbit of knowledge is procured entirely through Alma, who throughout the duration of the movie is mentally tried in her caretaking of the actress. She is both naϊve and too open in her dealings with Elisabet – perhaps it is because she is the actress' foil (or is it vice versa perhaps?). Through the prolonged exposure to each other, Alma somehow begins to take on the persona of Elisabet, in the same way the actress might have assumed a role in a play, but in the process she loses a sense of her identity.

I think the transformation Alma undergoes is caused by her naϊvety in her admiration of the actress. In an early scene, she tells Elisabet how she admires actors and perceives them as benevolent people; through the course of the film she learns the opposite is true, simply by being confronted with the wall of silence with which Elisabet has concealed herself.

The silence of Elisabet also becomes her in a way: she is cold and unsympathetic in her inaction as well as her inferred action, the knowledge we gain of her through others. But I feel she is the more relatable of the two characters – she isn't a nice person, and runs away from her problems through her muteness, whereas Alma is all smiles and naϊvety and customary politeness, and has to be stripped of her visad. It isn't necessarily that she becomes Elisabet – it is that she is like her, like any real human – she has regrets, secrets. Elisabet is not held to the same standard, because she is 'insane' and can thus act according to her selfish nature and desires.

The art direction of the movie – beautiful, flawless, not at all what I'd expect from a movie from 1966. The film itself is preserved perfectly (including the places where parts of the reel were intentionally destroyed) and while some of the backdrops felt sterile (the hospital rooms, the bare mattresses) similar to movies of its time, Persona had the feeling and definition of a modern movie. The natural textures, from the rocks to the characteristics of the actresses' skin – every pore is clear as day. The lighting is also effectively dramatic – I guess hear would be a good part to say, the film was beautiful and thus subtle, giving way to the plot of the film until that turned on its head. I would remind myself, "it's technically an art film, it doesn't quite have to make sense." But further introspection, as Alma did in the story, uncovered the plot for me.

While at first glance it's a crazy, nonsensical and long-winded mind fuck of a movie, Ingmar Bergman's Persona is really a faultlessly crafted film, both visually and in its dissection of the walls we build around ourselves.

Drawing Art Review: Kwon Kisoo

Kwon Kisoo is exhibiting his first solo show at the Flowers Gallery, and thanks to the Flavor Wire Article (found via Artkrush) I know about it. Simply titled “Kwon Kisoo: Recent Works”, the exhibit features the ‘Dongguri’ paintings. Kisoo has exhibited these mostly in East Asia and has developed a following there, but this is his first showing in New York.
Dongguri is as much a character as it is a simplified form; explained as Kisoo's "alter ego", it has no gender or otherwise distinguishable features, leaving it open to the interpretation of the audience. The forms are simple and repeated - strange candy stripes make up the bamboo forests, blossoms share the same shapes, the Dongguri itself is repeated with near indistinguishable clones ( I can't tell the difference between the 'original' and the 'copies', at least), and accompanied by an equally ambiguous four-legged companion. But they all come together to create whimsical scenes and compositions. The attention to detail within individual pieces is quite stunning – while the forms appear easy enough to multiply and mass produce, Kisoo’s precision in recreating the forms by hand is evident – the pieces all follow certain rules (for example, all the blossoms in the works are oriented like compasses, with the petals all consistently pointed in the four cardinal directions) but there is room for infinite variation within those guidelines.
Further researching the current exhibition of Kisoo’s works in the Flowers Gallery in New York, I found two pieces not included in the Flavorwire article: A Blow off Day Are You? And Blow Off Meditation. They vary the most from the other Dongguri paintings because they lack the implied landscape, replaced by whimsical lines which support the Dongguri. The slow, undulating ‘ground’ reminded me most of Dr.Suess. From Deep Black is also a variant, being grounded by a variety of colored cubes, reminiscent of The Matrix. And Would You Wait for Me 2 features the Dongguri standing on a miniaturized planet-scape, fraught with holes from which colorful bamboo shoot forth. Within all these variants Kisoo maintains the underlying mood and graphic, yet whimsy appearances of thegroup of works.


The Dongguri paintings are in a sense, multi functional - while they may be criticized as being 'too commercial'(Kisoo has already created a line of clothing and other products based on the works) that may not necessarily be a bad thing. From the standpoint of modernization, it means that Kisoo's work is accessible to a broad audience: persons who buy the products and view the artwork online, in addition those who may view his work in person. And the 'commercial nature' of the work does not detract from its other qualities.
Another criticism of the Kisoo's paintings is that they are not in fact art, but illustration work. My question is, "in what way?" according to Princeton University's WordNet database, illustration is defined as "artwork that helps make something clear or attractive". While the Dongguri paintings are inspired by Korean landscapes, the scenery itself is still visually ambiguous. The geometric and graphic style actually emphasizes a fantasy atmosphere. There is also no 'clear message' Kisoo tries to communicate; rather, there are theme which loosely suggest his viewpoints on current issues like the environment and materialism, but in viewing the work, these come second.
Previously I've had no experience or knowledge of Kwon Kisoo or his work, but finding it for this assignment has actually led me to become very interested and excited about the Dongguri paintings. Unfortunately the exhibition at the Flowers gallery in New York ends this week (October 2nd), but hopefully sometime in the future I’ll get the chance to see these works in person. In the meantime I’ve changed my Google homepage to the free Dongguri theme.

Value Nonsense!

from class.

Andy by ~yokotei on deviantART
homework.

Rick by ~yokotei on deviantART
i'll think of something witty next time.

Contour Line Drawings.

the firts one, after attempting to edit for more contrast

Contour Line-me by ~yokotei on deviantART

the second one, which i didn't edit half as much


Contour 2 by ~yokotei on deviantART

process and sketches:
my secret was taking pictures of the frontal perspective in order to do the forshortening on the legs. :)

Finished Sheepy

Sheepy by ~yokotei on deviantART

First Assignment of the Semster for Drawing.
What a great excuse to plug my Deviantart account too. Or Something.

progress shots still life

drawing foundations, first assignment of the semester.

First Memory, or a Long-Anticipated Incident of Deja-Vu

It's kind of funny (to me at least) that my earliest memory should be something that never really happened, but nonetheless it is just that. The farthest back i can remember is a nightmare i had when i was still in diapers. The scenery was reminiscent of the Sing-along videos that were my television du jour: a astro-turf colored field with flat plastic tulips, against a flat gray-blue sky. but unlike the flat stages of WeeSing!the field seemed to go on forever. i know this because i was running across it, trying to escape the clutches of the Easter Bunny. He Hopped after me, surely plotting to eat me or turn me into chocolate eggs. i ran until i woke up.

now where does the Deja Vu come into play? well, in march of 1998, i was six years old and my mother's current place of employment ( Robert Wood Johnson Hospital) was hosting an Easter egg hunt. and i was all but thrilled to find that the exact same Easter Bunny was residing over the event. I think my mother coerced me into posing for a picture. but i couldn't find it.
My mother and a coworker consorting with the Enemy.