Please see the MoMA show listed below. Before going obtain a definition of drawing (or make your own). With this concept in mind see the show. Write two brief paragraphs in response to these issues: (1) Explain how the work of the show challenged or confirmed your conception of drawing. (2) Select one piece (mentioning Artist, Date, Material) and reflect on why it specifically embodied your reaction.
Post your comments to the blog below and bring a ticket stub to class to receive credit.
April 22, 2009–January 4, 2010
Contemporary Galleries, second floor
The Judith Rothschild Foundation Contemporary Drawings Collection, acquired by the Museum in 2005, is an extraordinary collection of over 2,500 contemporary works on paper. Through a selection of more than three hundred works, this first comprehensive presentation of the gift surveys the various methods and materials within the styles of gestural and geometric abstraction, representation and figuration, and systems-based and conceptual drawings. The exhibition brings together historical works by Lee Bontecou and Joseph Beuys; Minimalist and Conceptual works by Donald Judd and Hanne Darboven; detailed narrative drawings by Elizabeth Peyton and John Currin; collages by Amelie von Wulffen, Mona Hatoum, Lucy McKenzie and Paulina Olowska; and large-scale installations by Nate Lowman and Ján Mancuska, to name just a few. In its exploration of diverse artistic tendencies at the turn of the twenty-first century, this exhibition proudly celebrates the panoramic state of drawing today.
Andrew McCausland
ReplyDeleteDrawing is the act of visually expressing an abstract or concrete idea on a two-dimensional plane. But to define drawing one must understand what a drawing is. On my visit to the MoMA's Contemporary gallery, I gathered that drawing is more than what I had previously assumed. I was expecting most of the work to be colorless, framed sketches on paper, lined along the walls. Instead it was a myriad of variation in size, shape, color and style. From a twenty-foot tall collage of paper stapled together and covered in crayon scribbles, to a hanging sphere with a washed-out forest scene around the outside. It has never really occured to me that the physical aspects of a drawing can be totally limitless.
Aside from this newfound knowledge, I also discovered that drawings don't have to be a literal interpretation of physical matter. It can convey an abstract idea; it can express merely thoughts and beliefs. An untitled piece by Ray Johnson displays an assemblage of prints, paperboard, colored pencil, ink, and gouache on cardboard. This is an example of a drawing that does not portray a physical object or place, but perhaps Johnson's interpretation of the physical world to an extent. It could also be an interpretation of an idea or belief. This piece is also a good example of the entire Contemporary gallery as it displays variety in mediums.
My conception of drawing, was that "it is lines and shapes that are drawn to convey some intetions or emotions." I was surprised to see the collections at the museum, because I could see so many different styles and personalities in the drawings. I was amazed how silly or plain or of course complcated the messege can be.
ReplyDeleteSome of the drawings were very simple, some of them were very complicated and beautiful and some were sexual and made me feel uncomfortable. Perhaps it is because it is a little bit taboo to display something very sexual in Japan. ( if it is like art-sexual, it is okay. such as something sensual by a historical artists) however, i found some drawings offensive such as "Penis Hat" by
Paul McCarthy(2001). Cut-and-pasted printed paper, charcoal, pencil, and oil pastel on cut-and-pasted paper, 167 3/8 x 100" (425.1 x 254 cm).
That drawing, just looked like a developed version of a graffiti and collage. I was angry because I felt that I was underestimated that I would be happy to see it. It can be funny in a way, but it was surprising the drawing could possibly offend the viewers, and it is quite a possible intention the drawer had in mind, or a joke.
I have drawn stupid silly drawings with my friends, but it is hard for me to imagine drawing a huge drawing and putting on a big wall of Moma. It is a reflshment in the mind though. It is something that I would not like to do as a professional. However, the museum visit in general gave me such a variety of stimulation and i am so grateful that I gained how much acceptance and variety exists in the art world.
Kodo Nishimura
According to Wikipedia, “drawing is a visual art that makes use of any number of drawing instruments to mark a two-dimensional medium. Common instruments include graphite pencils, pen and ink, inked brushes, wax color pencils, crayons, charcoals, chalk, pastels, markers, stylus, or various metals like silverpoint.” Before I read this definition, and ultimately saw the Compass in Hand show at Moma, I conceived the concept of drawing to be much more limited. I thought of it as pencils and paper and never really gave it much thought beyond that. Seeing the exhibit kind of exploded my idea of drawing. At first I was going through thinking to myself, ‘yeah that’s nice but where are the drawings?’ but soon I realized that I needed to expand my perception of what constitutes a drawing to a far broader, more conceptual definition. A drawing is not just an arrangement of lines on a page, but rather an arrangement of ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhen tasked to select a drawing I initially selected Chloe Piene’s Thirty Years Old, a drawing in charcoal on paper. I selected this one because it supported my original concept of what a drawing was. It’s an erotic figure study of a woman whose face is represented as a skull, and I really liked the artist’s use of foreshortening to communicate the position of the woman as her body recedes into the background. But as I walked around the exhibit I was forced to question my assumptions about drawing as I observed the different works. Not only were a variety of unconventional materials used (like the cut out porn in the dubious Penis Hat collage), but a variety of subject matter was explored. When I selected Piene’s foreshortened nude I did it under the assumption that drawing was an expression of form. But there were pieces like Mark Lombardi’s flowchart that really confronted my assumptions. Whereas Piene’s female study seems like an obvious rendition of form, a piece like Lombardi’s flowchart is not so much a purely aesthetic assertion but rather a calculated exercise of a more conceptual, technical, but nonetheless valid, approach to drawing.
So drawing is a visual art on a 2-dimensional surface, and it's about, in a very broad sense, expressing an idea, a feeling, a form. Is it on paper? Not necessarily. Can you use gun powder? Why the hell not!
I started out defining drawing as the exploration of ideas through line. I stressed that the difference between Drawing and Painting is not the medium, but rather the use of line. I did think that a definition of drawing should be limited to the medium of graphite, originally, however I revised this before seeing the exhibit Compass in Hand. After seeing that exhibit, I had to revise my ideas of drawing completely. I had noticed at first the used of line and pencil, but as I moved throughout the exhibit, I began to notice that not only did they have pencil, but they had every medium one could think of, including tape (http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/TheBeardsOfWomen/IMG_0445.jpg). There was even a piece that was created out of cigarettes (http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/TheBeardsOfWomen/IMG_0449.jpg)(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/TheBeardsOfWomen/IMG_0452.jpg)
ReplyDeleteI felt that the pieces I saw challenged my whole concept of drawing. None of the drawings were meaningless, however some of them struck me as seeming that way. In particular Joseph Beuys' diptych on the right wall as you entered the exhibit (http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/TheBeardsOfWomen/IMG_0453.jpg). Titled 'Forces' and 'Blood / Nerves' it seemed like a random placement of lines. Right off the bat I felt like I would have to reformat my idea of drawing. Although there was line and it was in graphite, I could not tell what it's message was without looking at the titles.
I feel that after seeing the show my idea of drawing is simply the expression of ideas or of emotion through linear means. But what I think it really comes down to is that drawing is what you make of it.
Wikipedia defines drawing as "a visual art that makes use of any number of drawing instruments to mark a two-dimensional medium." Most people think of creating some form with pencil lines on a blank piece of paper. However, the exhibit at the MoMA displays a wide variety of drawings, from the traditional pencil on paper to tape on wall. Many drawings were done on printed photographs. I have always had difficulty accepting drawings done on photographs or images not done by the artist, so the exhibit helped widen my view of drawing.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, Thomas Hirchhorn's "Provide Ruins" series (2003) caught my attention. It is a collage of photographs and pictures marked on with blue felt-tip and ballpoint pens. The phrase "Provide Ruins" followed by the piece's number is repeatedly written. At first, it seems rather crude and effortless, so I was challenged to understand the meaning and accept the piece.
Not Jay Gatsby...GRACE KANG
ReplyDeleteIn a more personal aspect, my definition of 'drawing' is having the ability to make something come to life on a 2d surface. In my opinion i think drawing is something more than just taking a type of medium and plastering it on paper or even being able to replicate what you see onto the paper. It has an emotional aspect to it. But i think it's more perceptual based rather than imaginative, for example, you are more directed to draw a specific thing than something from your head. I think that explains why when you make a group of people draw the exact same thing, in the end a personal and individual style comes into the drawing. When i went to the MOMA to see the compass in hand exhibit, it confirmed my conception of drawing.
The piece i chose was the one done by Sherrie Levine, called "After El Lissitzky. It was done with gouache, ink and pencil on paper. As you can see, the medium used were very straight forward and simple, but the way the artist portrayed perspective pipe-like rectangles floating in the air was very vividly done. It reminded me of one of the drawings i did recently with pipes and perspective. This piece reflected my idea of drawing because though it is just rectangular pipes the artist brought it to life by putting her own style and individual 'emotions' to it.
From the exhibition “Judith Rothschild Foundation Contemporary Drawings Collection”, I was amazed by the drawings presented with various method and materials. Moreover, it visually enlarged my definition of drawing. I was assuming most of the works to be drawn with common instruments such as graphite pencil, charcoal, pen and ink, color pencil or crayons, but they were more than usual. I could tell by looking most of the contemporary works were based on unconventional ways which includes conceptual, collages, large scale and different series of drawings. They didn’t limit themselves in a traditional style of drawings; instead they challenged themselves to find the best way to explore their interests.
ReplyDeleteThere is a drawing captured my eyes, it is André Tomkins’s work called “Untitled (1965)”. I fully enjoyed watching this piece because I never seen this kind of drawing before. He uses the method of “Lack skin” which he invented the technique by accidently. It challenged me in many ways. That is a great example of a drawing that does not convey the act of making marks on paper, but it is drawn indirectly. In the process of his drawing, he plays with enamel that is poured in water, lays a sheet of paper over enamel floating on the surface of water. Here is the address where I found interesting how he approached his final piece.
http://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/38/andre-thomkins/i mages-clips/1/
sukki son
Pilsoo J
ReplyDeleteThe Judith Rothschild Foundation Contemporary Drawings Collection, is an extraordinary collection of drawing works on paper. Through a selection of more than three hundred works, it was necessarily true that it was inevitable we all re-thought the real definition of drawing. And like other students, I think these days contemporary artists are expanding the traditional definition of drawing beyond merely working on paper to include the use of unconventional media. In its exploration of various artistic style on the turn of the 21 century, I think this exhibition at Moma proudly celebrates the state of drawing today.
Marc Brandenburg 2001. - Pencil on fifteen pieces of paper
When I saw Brandenburg's delicate pencil drawings, it really seem like negatives of snapshots from a bizarre parallel world. His realistic scenes of demonstrators includes kind of some threatening effect. The silvery, shiny materiality of the graphite surfaces is combined. I really felt that he is trying to combine the aspects of realism and transfiguring in a contemporary manner.
First thing came to my head was pencil and white paper when I heard a word ‘drawing’. I always thought of white paper and pencil as they are most basic stuff that we could sketch and plan out drawings. However after went I MoMa, I realized that drawing isn’t just a drawing, which has limit in specific medium. There was no limitation in medium also in size. I could see variety of works that were done in lots of different medium. But for me, drawing should be in some level that people look at and notice what artist is trying to show. There were some drawings that I didn’t understand also didn’t want to accept as drawing. As I said before drawing should be in some level of quality that anyone can enjoy.
ReplyDeleteSo the work that I chose was Thomas Schutte’s ‘Mirror drawing’ (1999). I chose this because it meets the requirement of my word ‘drawing’ concept. He drew himself that were mirrored with watercolor, color pencil, pencil and paper. He didn’t use much of lines also did not put much of shades but they were still in great harmony with each other creating great portrait. I liked the way it’s drawn without details and explanation that I still can see artists’ intention.