Thesis Review

Potential viewers must be aware that a visit to the Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition is an underwhelming and frustrating experience. In fact, the gallery leaves one feeling angry and taken advantage of, as most of the supposed art witnessed was obscure, esoteric, and exasperating in its blatant eschewing of any consideration for the individuals taking the art pieces in. It is frustrating that the creators of the works in the gallery are leaving Washington State University with advanced graduate degrees—representing the pinnacle of their art careers so far—as most of the artists’ creations are a testament to art that requires more polishing before being placed in a gallery setting.
When entering the exhibition, one is immediately confronted by the artwork of Heather Losey McGeachy. One of the most worthy artists in the exhibition, McGeachy manages to uniquely combine her strong passion for digital media with physical means. Her vividly colored digital transparent prints (see Tyrin and Dunkoh) are constructed so that one can ‘peel apart’ the layers of her art. McGeachey explicates how her “layered imagery mimics the layers of data that form our experiences,” enabling the viewer to connect to the virtual and physical layers of his or her own life. This relationship is a stretch, but the meaning behind McGeachy’s work is clearly explained in her statements and provides viewers with an unusual but understandable perspective into the world we live in.
Unfortunately, the quality of the exhibit diminishes exponentially as one drifts further from McGeachey’s works and arrives at the sections devoted to Lauren McCleary and Dustin Price. McCleary greets viewers with a large installation piece that is an amalgamation of three separate works, Elephant Splat, Between Being, and Walk Wonder. The combined work exists in a large scale, surrounding the viewer in nearly every direction and providing one with the experience of being in the work rather than looking at it. However, viewers are largely left to fend for themselves, as McCleary gives no direction or background from which viewers can base their interpretations. The same can be said for the work of Dustin Price. A seemingly random collection of images, objects and words hangs on the walls of his exhibit. Anything seems to go for Price, from his pillow-surrounded tree in Untitled (the lack of a title leaves viewers with nothing grab on to here) to the oddly placed sweaters and spiral-rolled newspaper bits from We Are Just Fine. His works inspire no feelings beyond confusion and bewilderment, and viewers just may leave his exhibit feeling more aggravated and befuddled than when they entered.
Aggravation may be a sufficient word to describe the taste left in one’s mouth after viewing this exhibit. Looking at these theses through a Tolstoy-style theory, it is clear that, as a whole, the pieces exhibited do not clearly transmit whatever feelings the artists may be trying to convey. In fact, they leave the viewer more confused than ever. This may be intentional, as Dustin Price describes how “I understand that my process repeatedly gives way to questions that cannot be answered, but I believe attempting to understand these questions is often just as significant as answering them.” This may carry some weight, though Price and his fellow thesis presenters are perhaps giving their audience too much to try to understand, and instead of uncovering some deep meaning or symbolism within the exhibition, viewers are left in a dust of confusion and frustration. Thought and effort has clearly been put into this exhibit, but the artists must give more consideration to those viewing their works before their products can be called art.

Theory Things

Personally, I think that pretty much anything can lend itself to being analyzed in any sort of manner that one wishes. The only real difficulty lies with the ease in which something can be analyzed, and since we all like ease, I will choose to analyze Jackson Pollock. Mostly this is because I know next to nothing about Madonna or Spiderman. And while I can not claim to know much about Jackson Pollock, I think he might apply to Freud’s or Foucault’s theories more so than Spiderman or Madonna.
As I thought about this subject, I feel that both a Freudian Foucaultian analysis can be applied to Jackson Pollock. Freud says that an artist’s unconscious desires govern what is produced in their art, and I feel that Pollock fits that theory well. Pollock spoke of his need to somehow express his feelings in his art, and when he painted he seemed to be in a “zone” of sorts where his emotions could flow freely onto the canvas. I don’t think Pollock explicitly stated what emotions he was expressing in his various works of art, but it is clear that something strong was driving his works. I am sure that Pollock’s constant imbibing enhanced his emotion-expression, and Freud makes no distinctions as to whether his theory does or does not apply with the addition of alcohol (or other things for that matter).
I feel that that Foucault’s theory can apply to Jackson Pollock concurrently with Freud’s. Foucault espouses challenging artistic norms and questioning the general order of things, and Pollock certainly does this. At the time of its creation, there were not other works or art quite like those being churned out of Pollock’s studio. Pollock challenged the current status quo of what passed as art, and nowadays his works are still being analyzed. Pollock has left the meaning of his painting open to interpretation, and people try to search for meaning buried under the swirls and splatters of his paint. It is interesting to compare Freudian and Foucaultian theories, as while they are different in many ways, they can both apply to Jackson Pollock.

The Play We Watched

The Heidi Chronicles was probably something I never would have read if it were not for a class such this. With that said, I was pleasantly surprised after reading and viewing the play. Wendy Wasserstein created a unique and expressive way in which to portray the life of Heidi, a troubled person who never quite seems to find what she is looking for. The play touches on the issue of feminism—an issue that I have never given much thought to or worried about. In my view of the play, Wasserstein used Heidi to try on a number of brands of lifestyle in hopes finding one that would make Heidi happy. We see Heidi touch bases with everything from frightening feminist meetings (with potty mouth Fran) to involvement in strange relationships with her guy friends, homosexual Peter and domineering Scoop. All along the way Heidi tries to find herself, and at the end, I think she does. After years of “not being happy,” Heidi finally realizes what is important to her and stops trying to be a person that she is not.
I did, however, have trouble figuring out what the whole message of the play was, if there was one. As we talked about in class, The Heidi Chronicles was not a typical kind of play with an introduction, middle-part, climax…and so on, but rather it was more like a camera filming scenes and moving through time. At the end, I felt sort of a “well now what?” feeling, as if the play left me hanging and confused. Maybe that was Wasserstein’s point—to stop at a point where Heidi’s life if turning around and leave the viewer to surmise about what could happen next.
The play left me feeling sorry for Heidi, as she became caught up in a movement trying to break down the traditional social and gender barriers surrounding women. This is certainly a fight that I am not opposed to, though Heidi—and her friends—tried hard to an almost fanatical degree (Heidi not so much), and ended up missing out on happiness and enjoyment of life. This may not make sense to you, the poor person trying understand the garbled thoughts coming from my head, but I think my point would be that in one’s effort to become happy, it can be easy to lose sight of what really makes you happy and instead become less happy.

Nietzche and Tolstoy

So far in class we have discussed a number of art theories, some of which I find more meaningful than others. Our analysis of Plato, for instance, reinforced my opinion that his theory of art was confusing and not applicable to modern day situations. The last two theorists we have discussed—Nietzsche and Tolstoy—in a way exemplify my thoughts on art theories. Nietzsche’s theory seems rather bizarre and esoteric to me, while Tolstoy’s down-to-earth thoughts are relatable and comprehensible.
Nietzsche discusses art in an off-the-wall manner that I never would think of myself. Granted, I am not from Nietzsche’s time and hence wouldn’t look at things in the same way he did. Maybe it is the terminology Nietzsche uses that confuses me (and others, I imagine). Maybe I am supposed to familiar with the concepts behind such terms as “Apollonian” and “Dionysian”, but I am not and therefore have to learn not only his theory but the words he uses to describe his theory as well. Once studied though, the order and structure described in Nietzsche’s Apollonian characteristics contrasts well with the chaos and complexity of the Dionysian. To me, Nietzsche seems to be trying to quantify the feeling of an artwork.
In contrast, Tolstoy tries to present discrete, uniform criteria based on specific characteristics for which to classify art by. In class, we even learned about a “3 step” process by which to judge art with. This method makes the most sense to me as it is more relatable. As an engineering student I spend my days classifying things based on characteristics and not on feeling, so it is only natural I suppose that I “get” Tolstoy’s theory of art.
In my previous blog post, I tried to look at Jackson Pollock’s art through a Tolstoy filter. This got me thinking, however, that maybe some theories are more applicable to different kinds of art. I had some trouble fitting Tolstoy to Pollock, as Pollock’s work is hard to classify and the meaning behind it can be somewhat cloudy. It is, however, based heavily on feeling and I feel that applying Nietzsche ‘s theory and calling it “Dionysian” might make a little more sense.

I’m still not quite sure what to make of Jackson Pollock’s work. My gut reaction to seeing his work is probably similar to that of many other people—sort of a “come on, really?!” exclamation. When we discovered that the most expensive painting ever sold was a Pollock piece, we heard a chorus of statements amounting to, basically, that a 2nd grader could produce better work. I have to agree. For all we know, Pollock’s paint rack might have fallen over onto his canvas one day, inadvertently (or conveniently) creating something resembling art. I personally don’t like Pollock’s paintings and can not begin to understand it. As an art layperson trying to “get” Pollock, I feel like a 2 year old trying to understand the federal tax code. Not that most adults do for that matter. But with that said, I have a hard criticizing somebody who can create works so widely successful and admired. What is it about Pollock’s paintings that give them such great value? I don’t know, and as such would not pay large sums of money for his work except as an investment perhaps.

Looking at Pollock through Tolstoy’s art theory (while it is still fresh in everyone’s heads), we can see that Pollock certainly satisfies Tolstoy’s first condition for art: individuality of feeling. From learning about Pollock’s background and viewing his short video, he clearly puts a great deal of emotion into every painting. To him, the paintings are his personality and feelings. Pollock says he wants to “express his feelings rather than illustrate them,” and he accomplishes this by being “in” the painting where he feels more at home. Similarly, Pollock is sincere in the emotion he tries to transmit. However, he personally falls short in my book in the clearness with which he transmits whatever he is trying to say. Maybe I am base and simpleton, but despite all the hype and high prices commanded by Pollock paintings, I simply do not understand his works.

Faking It????

I take slight issue with the way Faking It tries to turn Paul, a self described non-artistic individual, into a “true artist.” Faking It seems to have a narrow view of what they are trying to transform Paul into, and their attempts to blend Paul into the established art community remove some of Paul’s open-thinking creativity.
In the beginning of the four-week “transformation period”, Paul is given free reign to create pretty much whatever he thinks is artistic, and his creative side expands into new areas he did not even know he could go. However, this artistic freedom is checked after a week or so as his tutors, who professionally produce art for a living, guide him towards making what they deem as acceptable art. Despite attempting to put passion and voice into his works, Paul is being somewhat molded into a stereotypical artist, someone who can fit in and mingle with the elites of the art community. Part of fitting into this stereotype involves transforming Paul’s image from who he is currently is towards somebody that his tutors think would be more accepted by other artists. To me, their message says that to look like an artist is to be an artist, and Paul seems to take this in stride by happily buying new clothes and cutting his hair. The result is a new identity for Paul, and while I do not agree with the show’s notion that to succeed in art (or anything for that matter) one must mimic other’s identities in creating their own, Paul’s new self jumpstarts him into playing the role of an artist—and after all, this show is about jumpstarting and doing things quickly.
It will be interesting to see how Paul’s month-long art “career” culminates, for despite being shaped into an artistic mold, his work is quite impressive for somebody with no art background. Of course, I am somebody with no art background as well, so my opinion may or may not be valid. I do, however, feel that it is hard to be a “fake” artist. The works Paul is creating are clearly not fake, and I find it hard to believe that others not in the know about his TV show situation would view his art as fake, if there is such a thing.