Monday 8/4:
-2-6 Panels or canvases of the same size, primed and ready
-Oil paints and cotton rags
-Galkyd medium and thinner container
-Source material & 2-6 studies in sketchbook for series*
*Narrative: Development, evolution, passage of time, stages, growth/decay, construction/destruction
Tuesday 8/5:
In sketchbook, 2-6 studies for a suite of 2-4 self-directed Final Crit paintings
(acylic studies, or collage with painting)
Figure days 8/11 & 8/12:
-At least 10 half sheets of canvas paper with one color
-Two canvases or panels at least 18"
Final Crit 8/14 whole session
Blog post...
For Monday, read the following article on artist Sue Coe, who considers her work unapologetically political and substantive amid "culture [that] is not only dead but also hidden from view". The writer criticizes some of her narrative techniques as too literal. See what you think.
This woman deserves the attention she gets from her straightforward, raw style of art that is politically based. Just because she uses words and visual depictions that exactly get across her thoughts and feelings about what is going on in her paintings does not mean they are too literal. The straightforward nature of her art is what is so alluring, taking out any ambiguity that some people appreciate in art, and getting straight to the point that is trying to be made with the political meaning the artist is trying to get across to the viewer. The art is potent and obvious, which contrasts well with the otherwise hidden aspects and horrors of the struggles between morality and production that are faced with mistreatment and profit driven upbringings of animals. I like the way the artist presents her work, unfailingly striking and straightforward messages ringing from the pieces. ~Frances Maggio
ReplyDeleteTo say the least, Sue Coe's art is grotesquely awesome. As a huge fan of symbolism and political expression in art, I love the way Coe incorporates her strong beliefs into her artwork. She is a successful example of an artist who really captures the emotion and conviction of one's political and social views, and her artwork stays in the back of your mind long after you've finished viewing it. The "demonic savagery" makes her art difficult yet intriguing to look at, which is a direct representation of the society she wishes to convey. The author of the article says that some wish "that the message would be less blatant, or that there would be no message at all." I completely understand the notion of not wanting to accept her artwork or agree with its literal message, but that is the truth about our society. We often look away from the hardships and try to convince ourselves there is nothing wrong in the world, but Coe's art forces us to recognize the cruelty and corruptness going on. I am still in awe of her blunt style of art.
ReplyDelete-Peri Levine
Sue Coe's art paints a vividly grotesque picture of her political opinion. I believe when painting a narrative you can choose whether to be literal about your image or not. Critics are used to the ambiguous nature of most art that this element of Coe's work is what makes it unique. Not only do you remember her work for the violent depiction of her political expressions but you remember it because you instantly understood the story she portrays through the painting. The work evokes a sort of gloomy emotion that then triggers a part of me that realizes the serious issues Coe addresses through her art.
ReplyDeleteAs the writer suggests, Sue Coe's art is underrated. Her attention grabbing, grotesquely styled images are both a political and social commentary, and its interesting that in being so outspoken, they havent received more media attention. What I like about Coe's work is her blatant subject matter. She does nothing to hide the message behind her piece, and her piece is meant to display a message. Two of her images even boldly display their title in the piece. Both visceral and grotesque, she paints a portrait of a diseased culture, which goes along very well were her statement of culture being a "zipped up body bag".
ReplyDeleteIn response to the author's argument, I agree as well. I would love the artist' s work more if it were not so blatant. While it masters being both disgusting and beautiful, they don't need titles that boldly display their meaning. These pieces alone speak for themselves.
Candace Honecker
Sue Cole’s work is very dark and honestly kind of creepy at first glance. Upon further investigation of her artwork, it is discovered that Sue Cole uses these dark and creepy pieces to symbolize various aspects of culture. Her idea of the art world being “a zipped-up body bag of what they call culture” is very powerful. In my interpretation, it explains how each artist uses their art to express some part of culture, or something that makes up culture. Then, the part she says is a “zipped-up body bag” expresses how not all art work is blatantly expressive. Sometimes one explanation of culture is hidden beneath other symbols. So many different people can look at a piece of art work and say, “Oh, this is…”, but be incorrect. It is only the artist, or the owner of that “zipped-up body bag” that knows what the piece is truly about, or what is inside that ‘body bag’. The author of the article, Thomas Micchelli, interprets this phrase in another way by explaining that culture is “hidden from view” and “dead”.
ReplyDeleteSue Cole’s political cartoon type artwork adds to the idea that her pieces are about culture and her criticism of it. Since I am not so politically inclined, her pieces are not very obvious to me, so I cannot make a determination on whether or not they are too literal. However, to someone else who is more familiar with political history, her pieces may be very clear, or they may completely miss the mark. Unfortunately, I cannot make that determination for myself.
*Danielle Sargent