Highschool nonsense | Musings

Some slightly altered notes from my cringy highschool time which were actually interesting and I will probably come back too later:

Abstraktni obraz cropped (2018, CC4.0) Tadeas Navratil, Takashipoma

I chose the theme of my piece to be on the relationships with which we hold between Mass-produced artworks or commercial works, commonly regarded as lower value than fine art pieces and how we set these values among the art world.

When I chose to do Superflat, I was looking for a modern style of artistic movement. Upon finding this movement, it struck a chord with me. Mainly due to it's portrayal of hard hitting issues such as Capitalism and Hyper-sexualisation in our modern society etcetera with a relatively simplistic aesthetic. So I began to focus on works that were incredibly 'deep' or philosophical one may say, in a style which some may say took away from the message. I wanted to deliberately do this in order to ask the question as to what the relationship was between what the collective viewer calls low end and 'fine art'.

So the aesthetic became comic book styled and the message the opposite to the percieved notions which come with creating art in this style. I wanted to ask the question of the reader as to why a piece done in for example oils is valued higher than a piece done on the same topic and with the same values of one carried out by comics, or with the case of Superflat 'Manga'.

So I began making a series as well as practising the technical stylings of traditional works held in museums, worth large amounts or held as some of the most famous pieces of art today. The series made was made in the same animation style as that used by the Superflat movement (Takashi Murakami, Aya Takano, Yoshitomo Nara, Chiho Aoshima) whilst accommodating in personal views on deeply philosphical points on modern day culture. These included the pieces; The God Complex, The Poverty Gap, The Model, To Be Above, The World We Have Made For Ourselves and involved the use of a character who was more the embodification of my ideas towards these situations in what was the right path to take on these topics [as a cringy highschool student taking mandatory classes].

The God Complex follows the current plight modern society faces with religions. In the piece the figure sits in the middle of 4 paths. 3 visible and the final one facing the viewer, that being symbolic of the viewpoint of the viewer in all this. The figure dismisses each of these paths to pursue a black butterfly, a reference to 'Bleach' (Tite Kubo 2001-2016) in which these butterflies represent the path to the afterlife. The smoke, blood and gloop emanating from each choice represents the aftereffects of going down these paths and their implications, which lie unseen and clearly unacknowledged by the figure. Not in that they do not know of their shortcomings, but dismisses them due to this, thus ignoring them entirely. I wished to ask the question here that we must have a god ruling over us, and that we are not simply content to be the masters of our own lives and futures. Instead to live out our lives in a zen like manner of peace, facing death on our terms. 

The Poverty Gap asked of our economic ruin. With the stock market crash of 2008, came the recession. The figure sits atop a cliff, here meant to represent capitalism (yes Das Kapital 1867-1894). The so called 'rock' or 'base' of our societal financial system. They are an active member and thus has to view into this problem as do all the other members of those involved. This includes the social classes and more recently female workers and feminists in our society. These are the larger individuals in between and atop the rock also. They are seen to be digging away at the rock, and yet pulling up a large wooden barrier either side. These are the bonds which we use to allow capitalism to work, yet we chip away in our daily lives at the very same system because we allow inconsistencies in social class, such as the 1% of people owning the majority of wealth across capitalism for example. We are hypocrites of the finest kind, upholding systems which were meant to help equal trade and fair pay for workers have instead allowed corporate financial takeovers. Then there is a large bird flying through the sky above carrying people in rags bundled together in its beak. These are the lowest class, the poor, as the lower down the illustration you go the higher the class being. This is due to their involuntary part in their choice to be poor. Nobody of course chooses to be poor, they are simply born into an unequal society across the world (thinking of Thomas Mores Utopia 1516 and Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, 1651 in the social contract theory sense, really Hobbes 'the state of nature', John Locke and Francis Bacon's philosophy of nature). They escape then the clouds below them which are representative of the government. Governments meant to be fair and for justice, have instead become corrupt and biased (thinking in a Blazing World, 1666 by Cavendish, Utopia sentiment). The average opinion of politicians in the 21st century is one of broken promises and austerity. They pump money into the economy and only that currency is granted to be legal. The reason as to the poor sitting above these clouds then are due to the money made here being on the 'black market'. In areas such as human trafficking, prostitution and other illegal activities where money is to be made from vulnerable minorities. The hammer stood on by the rich and held aloft by the middle classes is socialism, breaking up some ideals and motions held by capitalist supporters (was heavily inspired by the work of the social realists, later Atkinson Grimshaw and Turner in contrast to the enduring Whistlers). The reason though as to why it is called The Poverty Gap is due to the split in the rock, here meaning the differences among the social classes and the ideals which they inhibit, endorse and craft themselves into in our modern day society.

The Model is a play on words with fashion models and being the epitome of something, The picture was taken from an advert about runway models. The image was of the model being readied and it struck me as it showed numerous people making the final product being sent out to the consumers. Not a single person as glossy magazines make a reader think. It showed that these women and men are not perfect, flawless sculpted and toned bodies but instead people pushed to their limits with entire teams of designers, hairstylist and cosmetic specialists to help them. I thought it thoroughly showed the contradiction of modern day advertising in which we allow our bodies to become commodities (simulacrum in a commercial sense in going against Baconian philosophy in the role of studying science in an ode to god, instead in pursuing science for pure profit based metrics or seeing nature as something to be tamed and sold, and the Roman continuation of the body/man as sepearate to nature and a nature-tamer, rather than man as nature under gods in the Animistic/Shinto sense) to be sold on the premise of 'sex sells' (or asexuality and nymphomania almost). And that this was the model example of this, delivered by an advert nonetheless. 

To Be Above was about placing ourselves above others. Here the figure was situated above the 'below somebody' who had placed themselves on a soap box (the soap box figure is the American art world, the ground figure is everyone else who just wants to enjoy their 'Asian cartoons'). A common analogy for somebody believing their worth is above that of others. They scold a once again dismissive gfigure who is too busy looking at a rounded object on the floor (a reference to the shit in the sewers, in the way that Muqi's, 1210-1269, 6 persimmons has to answer to the hierarchical Global North's pandering that it's 'just some fruit', that no it isn't just some fruit, it's valid art with metaphysical and philosophical notions outside of an American ethnocentric context, in the same way that Manga is a cartoon and therefore, 'for kids' because 'all cartoons are for kids', ie, dismissing entire art traditions as invalid because they do not fit into a bigoted and in the bigger picture niche ethnocentric worldview. That is that the west imposes its views on other people, looking down on them, yet Muqi is not bothered as they are more interested in the natural ongoings around them to care about one cultures framing of what 'valid landscape art' is. Muqi does not care. Americans may care in some dominance fight sense, but East Asian peoples are too busy just getting on with life and laughing at silly notions that Americans push when they are proud of their own culture and histories). This is to symbolise that everyone thinks of things as being below or above them at times. The grate in reference to Marilyn Monroe and her famous white dress picture (thinking of Lichtenstein and Warhol, as well as Hollywood and Laura Mulvey's 1973 Male Gaze theory) as a note of cultural reference as to belittling others by sexually objectifying them, as we have in the mass media towards women, otherwise called the male gaze of the camera. It made the point though that to be above something, you must first make a hierarchy (an ode to art before and after the Elizabethan era portraiture of women and that of Continental European women who swore their allegiance to patriarchal modes). The box also notes that ground us if equal level, making both characters here to be equal in their rights and stance. 

The World We Have Made For Ourselves was an environmental photographical set I made which was to prompt the question of why we pollute the world we live in  and carry on doing so. The world the paper person is in is a city made of rubbish. This was notably made of one weeks worth of rubbish from one person. I wanted to ask of the moral implications we have with living in this manner. (The work of Hayao Miyazaki and the Animistic underpinnings of Shintoism).

For my final exam I wanted to place myself on equal footing with the viewer and ask myself to think outside the box, using a prompt list and six main objects so as to allow the viewer to think for themselves in giving them thought provoking material in the randomly assorted objects we find in everyday life. The main theme being that the character is aware of their being simply one person, and that in order to leave the predetermined room they have made for themself, they must look to outside sources, outside of their comfort zone, room and individual tastes so to speak. The fact that each item floats (Ink wash painting from the Tang Dynasty, Zen Buddhist paintings from the 14th century known as Suiboku first painted by Josetsu 1405-1496 or Sesson Shūkei (1504-1589, objects 'floating' across a 2-D space coming from Edo/Azuchi-Momoyama art culture, principally the floating world of Asai Ryoi, 1612-1691, in his Enso and screens such as the Hasegawa school, Rinpa school's Ogata Korin and the Kano School until 1683-1755 and Maruyama Okyo for example in contradistinction to Western ideals of landscape art as including human figures such as Pieter Breughel the Elder, Nicolas Poussin or Northern Mannerism) is to allow the viewer to link / connect items between each object on their own terms. To literally think outside of the box so to speak than taking the content at face value. Thus they must think outside the box (my final Undergraduate paper of Artefacts, Semiotics or the study of signs and Mediveal social media townhall pamphlets springs to mind). It may also be noteworthy that the diagonal drawing of the room is styled after Ukiyo-E (and Fukinuki-Yatai or Women's style Onna-E-maki), the style which inspires much of Eastern animation ad superflat as an art movement aesthetically. I did this during the exam by using a prompt sheet with no images to make the subsequent final piece. It was all based from memory.

https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/landscape-painting-in-the-netherlands

https://kaguyaschest.blogspot.com/search?q=onna-e

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqi

https://www.olivierrobert.net/post/landscapes-and-minimalism-the-influence-of-japanese-sansui-in-photography

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-japanese-concept-onkochishin-to-apply-for-a-better-future-750ad88da153

kengo kuma studies in organic

ito jakuchu

Elizabeth I and the Madonna Hortus Conclusi Hypothesis | Musings

 Millefleur means 'thousand flowers' in French. It refers to tiny flowers which were woven into the Flemish tapestries of the late medieval and Renaissance period of Europe. 

The Faerie Queene and King Arthur (1788, PD) Henry Fuseli

For our mysteries in mysteries folks, this is meant to be Spenser's Gloriana.

Elizabeth I interestingly enough paid a great many of these weavers to make their works for her because of the treaty of Hampton Court (1562) being rescinded by Catherine d'Medici (1519-1589) which occurred during the siege of Havre in 1572. The treaty had been signed by Elizabeth I and Huguenot leader Louis I de Bourbon, prince de Condé in the 1560's.

Due to the internal politics of France, which at the time was under the rule of Catherine, political factions began to form such as the Huguenots which become politicial outliers during that time. Catherine made the situation into the mess it was seeing it as a personal attack on herself. Her imposition of the Catholic faith upon protestants in France and other territories she held power over lead to those skirmishes becoming what was known as the French wars of Religion (1562-1598). Catherine fancied herself an absolute monarch, whereas Elizabeth knew she served the public of England at the end of the day.

Thus, as a protestant herself, Elizabeth sided with the Huguenots whom she and her council regarded as persecuted under Catherine's anti-protestant purges and wars. In 1562, 3,000 English troops were asked by the French to occupy Le Havre, and Dieppe. Elizabeth took this as a sign to aid her allies and did what was requested of her, sending the men. When the frogs decided to get their act together and not bicker anymore, Elizabeth refused to withdraw on the grounds that she wanted to take back Calais, which in her predecessor Mary I's time, was British territory. Mary had famously lost it whilst ruling as Catholic on the throne of England. It was said when Mary would be cut open, on her heart would be written 'Calais' such was the political turmoil it caused for the realms at the time.

Returning to frogs, Catherine sent all the religions to attack Havre in 1563. After this time, Elizabeth would never trust the Huguenots again, and neither would Catherine, but the Protestants Burghers who funded the guilds that made the tapestries would continue to be patronised in support of Elizabeth's desire to see Protestantism flourish and Catholic powers diminish, a role her rake father also desired to see, but less so because he knew how to rule a country and more so because he wanted to bang more women without the Pope telling him who he could and couldn't have in his harem.  Catherine on the other hand decided Catholicism was the way forward and caused what became known as the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, wherein 3000 protestants were killed, leading to many of them fleeing to England and bringing their specialist skills and Protestant beliefs with them. Elizabeth refused during the massacre to send more support abroad, but did indeed help the refugees of those situations who came to England.

Hortus Conclusi and Elizabeth

Elizabeth figured herself as an iconoclastic figure for particularly Elizabethan Catholics, such as was the foregone, excommunicated conclusion. 

Therefore she sought to replace her image as that of a new kind of Madonna figure specifically. She may have read into the idea of Mary Magdalene as a figure of linking herself to wider mythological and religious importance, given both of their brand connections to purity and virginity as socially acceptable under the banner of religious acceptance.

This brings us to the metaphorical idea of Elizabeth as part of the Hortus Conclusus of the Elizabethan court, that is someone who would would seated in an enclosed garden in medieval portraiture and tapestries from around 1330. The term originating from the Latin: "Hortus conclusus soror mea, sponsa, hortus conclusus, fons signatus" ("A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.") As such, Mary in late medieval and Renaissance art, illustrating the long-held doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well as the Immaculate Conception, was shown in or near a walled garden or yard. This was a representation of her "closed off" womb, which was to remain untouched, and also of her being protected, as by a wall, from sin. In the Grimani Breviary, scrolling labels identify the emblematic objects betokening the Immaculate Conception: the enclosed garden (hortus conclusus), the tall cedar (cedrus exalta), the well of living waters (puteus aquarum viventium), the olive tree (oliva speciosa), the fountain in the garden (fons hortorum), the rosebush (plantatio rosae).

Richard II and Elizabeth as a lineage of portraiture

Richard II was the first English king to commission portraits of himself, but he was also regarded as a despot. These 2 things when taken together seem to be the opposite of what someone like Elizabeth would have wanted to evoke. When we consider however that Elizabethan patronage often was more about the politics of the time than of showing the immediate face and aesthetics of the Elizabethans, given that that was seen as a negative Catholic trait, we can begin to see how this might point us instead to more political motivations of Elizabeth's.     

These included the notion of the royal prerogative, which saw Richard limit the power of the private mercenary armies of the English to become the single army which would be the Army of England. This saw a flocking of power to Richard, which specifically created new kinds of tie and patron systems during his reign. These became a high point for the concentrations of money and power, which lead to the establishment of new high forms of art. These measures were the ones Elizabeth aspired to, perhaps even courted to taunt the likes of Catherine, Philip and the Pope who saw her as a despotic bigot, so that she could concentrate power in ways which benefitted her and which consolidated her public image in the aftermath. 

Thus it was sometimes not what was worn and displayed, but rather the political message behind the action which was more intriguing and would have to be 'read into' by the people at the time to elicit the true meaning of Elizabeth's actions and desires. Most often curated by the men she kept around her and the advisors she often worked with in her governments and machinations of statecraft.

They may also be a harkening to the courts and arts of the earlier Tudor periods, such as the Devonshire Hunting Tapestries (1420's) 

Millefleur tapestries

There is an interesting theory that the scale of the flowers and this inconsistency in size is related to the ideas of how the Elizabethans and Tudor patrons saw these items in regards to power and God. It is believed the sizes were not lifelike because by this point, allegory and story telling were influential in telling relations of the tales in the tapestries, especially given their scale and patronage only by wealthy individuals and elites.  Rather instead the point of size differentiation was to read the difference in meaning between each of these points to reveal further information about what was going on.

If we look at the Paris/Flanders/Brussels schools for example, there consists of many of these tapestries 3 particular zones of pattern.  The first being central zones of figures, islands of plants for example. The second top half of the background of vertical bands of patterning or animals. Thirdly the bottom half usually filled with rows of plants with gaps between. These patterns are seen in the The Hunt of the Unicorn set (c.1500) and The Lady and the Unicorn (also 1500). 

These really interesting things might have something to do with one another but for now I prewrote this and I'm craving gelato so bai bai.

Elizabeth was creating a series of links to her patronage by having the power to wield influence in continuing her own legacy over that of other throne claimants. The gideon tapestries for example are a symbol of the wealth transfer for wall rugs Elizabeth could muster simply because she existed. Her court in this way did this, as they were following the cult of Gloriana, a mythical brand of queendom and purity believed only by a few, but enough to get a court going.

How is this relevant?

There are no extant tapestries of Elizabeth herself, so you may be asking how and why is this relevant. It is most likely I think so, because it gives us an idea of the political legacy and the tales the public tell about Elizabeth's reign, which we often forget legitimised a previously straught gender debate.

Thus it is not imperative that there is a tapestry, it is simply the legitimisation of the idea that Elizabeth had legitimacy and right to rule as she saw fit, and that her patronage and usurping as some would have seen it, was to be the way forward, as the rest around her had not the brain, stomach nor heart to do what she had done in becoming married to her country and leading in the style of branded iconography in statecraft as she did. Her hortus conclusus was her image as a virgin Empress, her control of the seas a tale spun to allow her to command armies and navy's abroad, her rule legitmised for a puny and weak country which was up against the Spanish Habsburg, specifically her hated cousin in law Philip 2.

Catherine her own contemporary, did not even recognise this as a legitimate rule or form of ruling, yet allowed Mary I to do so, even though at those times she was considered a 'barren woman'. Elizabeth sought her own path out of the chaos around her, leading to forming the new idea of Elizabeth as the Madonna, her image taken in the form of creating patronage around her court and the politics of the wider European stage and in legitimising the past mistakes of Henry VIII whilst forging ahead with the politics of state, rather than the immediate wants of her flesh and blood, mortal body. 

Elizabeth was making sure she would live to 60, 70 or 80 after a childhood of severe turmoil, and did the same for her country. More than could be said for the likes of Empress Matilda or Catherine, who saw their countries as places where they had sole domain and could ravage. They know lie often in historical memory as footnotes, Elizabeth's image carries instead an air and myth of legitimacy to this day.