See what I’m doing now in terms of art/writing/shtuff:
THE WEBSITE (Taylor Beisler Website)
Current ART Project:
THE WEBSITE (I Need You Project)
To Buy Young Adult Books:
Warrior’s Light (Book I)
Clash of Worlds (Book II)
God is so cool :)
Hey guys! :D
Quick update–Artebella is doing a feature on me September 12th!
Being a little excited and nervous, I hope you’ll take a look at their stuff–they’re in cahoots with the Louisville Visual Art Association, which is an incredible vehicle for getting word out about the visual art world.
So, if you’re up for subscribing to new art and artists, give them a click–http://www.artebelladaily.org/.
God rocks haha ;)
Sometimes, it’s all about the colors you can see… I thought the sky was exceptionally beautiful today… :) It’s cool how negative space and positive space can make such an interesting composition.
Wasn’t it Picasso who said, “I never tire of the blue sky”? Because, I find his statement to be increasingly true… the blue always changes. Just goes to show that the sky blue color in the crayon box isn’t as beautiful as what God makes every day.
My friend recently gave a presentation on the historical stances on art. This was such an intriguing presentation because I had no idea there were theories like this–and it changed my elevator speech for good; I’m definitely not a figurative formalist like I thought!
Essentially, there are four theories… let’s see if I can do this without peeking!
1) Formalism – all about the form, all else (questions about the piece of art from a content standpoint) is irrelevant
2) Expression – all about content (idealist), because content only has form in the human brain
3) Family Resemblance – art is about the variations that create a pattern (art is changing)
4) Institution – art is insider art; only about the theory as the artifact of its “art world”
So, I don’t fit into any of these camps directly. How intriguing. But, I did do some thinking, which is always good.
So, these are analytic philosophies on aesthetics: i.e. mathematical ways of defining art. We’ve found that art cannot be fully analyzed in a mathematical way. It loses so much in translation (i.e. if subject fits a, b, c . . . and a few others, then it’s art). The subtleties of the abstraction (art) are lost.
There’s another camp, though–continental philosophy.
Continental philosophy deals with these ideas–science is inadequate to fully understanding art; elements of context, time-period, language, culture, and history around the art are valid descriptors; related to personal, moral and political changes (as opposed to strictly interpretative works of analytic philosophy); and, there is an emphasis on the big picture–metaphilosophy (above philosophy). The thing to remember with continental philosophy is that reflection is the key.
I think that art, always spoken of in terms of form and content, can be an equation from these two entities–form and content. While it may be possible to divorce content from form (I don’t know how true this can actually be, because a friend of mine is strictly a formalist, but their work involves content, even if subtle–this just goes to show the phenomenology that takes place in our brains, which tries to make something out of nothing) . . . I believe the medium one uses is content, and this is not a new idea . . . So, it seems that it is not possible to divorce content from form (this content without form is just an idea, and art, I believe, is more than just an idea).
So, can there be a marriage that cannot be divorced? Because, it is evidenced that these two need each other, even if an artist says otherwise; a viewer will always impose some sort of content (i.e. what does this mean?) on a form because our minds function this way, scientifically. So, if we’re looking at the analytics here, the analytical philosophy has been stabbed by its own device–the scientific function of the brain when faced with a non-representational picture is to create meaning out of it.
So, can there be a marriage that cannot be divorced–these two, form and content . . . Well, it may be that content multiplied by form is what art is all about. Multiplied. Why multiplied? Because, multiplication creates a compound that is not simple anymore. I don’t believe art is simple. But, it requires the first variable (content) to be thought up–philosophized, theorized, idealized–and then married to some sort of body (form and formal functions).
Thus, art exists outside the analytic descriptive/prescriptive/aesthetic/non-aesthetic/externalist/internalist theories. But, it uses multiplication, an analytic property, to acquire meaning. ;)
Right? And, there were also post-it notes inside my car. Inside. My. Car. :/ My boyfriend and one of my best friends decided it would be fun to steal my spare keys and do this. I have to admit, I was pretty surprised and kinda impressed by their vast amount of post-its.
But, as an artist–is this art? Is this aesthetically pleasing? Is it vandalism? Or, is there a midline–like Banksy’s graffiti art. Maybe the question comes to this: Does it make a statement?
That’s probably a better way to ask how art can be revolutionary–does it make a statement?
Well, let’s see . . . ridiculous, chaotic, prank. Taking found objects (post-it notes) and sticking them on someone’s car makes for a driving exhibition (note to viewers–please don’t attempt to drive your car like this–you’ll be a detriment to yourself or other people through all the flapping post-its).
But, that’s an interesting thing–we’ve all seen those cars with murals painted on them, or found objects stuck on their hoods. What do you think when you see them?
I think: well, that’s different. And, then I wonder how they did it.
Arguably, that’s pretty good art. Intentionality can make all the difference. That’s the rub. Thinking. If an artist can get you thinking, then that’s pretty good. Don’t'cha think? ;)
What in the world is the difference?
Kathe Kollwitz. As you can see, mark deals with the direct recognition of the material used. So, her use of charcoal is incredibly clear. Mark makes one cognizant of the effects of the material.
Paul Cadmus. Crazy realistic. Edge. This means that the idea of planes (yes, we’re getting mathematical . . . kinda) comes up. When one plane ends, another begins, as you can see. So, the edges of each subject combine to make space (like the edge of his neck makes up the background as well that his neck sits on). Edges conjure up space. Pretty cool.
So, there are three elements. But, the way you use them, or mix them, makes all the difference.
Many draftsman excel in illustration/graphic design. I chose to go with graphite/pencil that literally melts into or emerges from the page by using line/edge as 3D/compositional elements. Let me tell you–pencil is a hard medium. ;) But, it’s rewarding . . . sometimes!