PARRY'S POST

Response to Stephen Carter-Novotni’s “Frozen Menagerie: Jeremy Johnson explores the scientific art of dissection and taxidermy”

This exhibit is meant to show that humans and animals are connected by similarities in our basic anatomy. Jeremy Johnson is interested in showing viewers the process of dissecting animals. The public dissections are displayed in his home most of the time a few times annually. He wants his audience to understand the anatomy of the creatures (deceased by natural causes). The shows, which go on for hours are meant to get the viewers to think of their own mortality. The other half of his work involves taxidermy. He puts the animals back together in poses either very stoic (typical of most taxidermy) or very animated as if frozen in time.

This interest in mortality and the composition of bodies (animal and human) started as a child. I think it’s really great that art can allow you to explore a strange interest and in this case teach the public about that interest. Despite the creep-factor in these shows, they do educate by way of instruction through Johnson’s voice. I think it’s important to stay open minded to subjects and practice you might normally gasp at in order to be a more informed person.  I can understand why Johnson believes these shows would cause viewers to access their own mortality and understand the basic composition of all creatures being so similar. Because we are so similar compositionally, it makes sense to appreciate that like us other people and animals have emotions that should be respected.  We will all die one day so might as well be nice and be treated nicely back while were still around. I think humans need to be shocked in order to change our views. We are naturally stubborn (some so much as to think they are much more special than most) and should be less so.

Article available at: http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-26471-frozen_menagerie.html 

Response to Robin Cembalest’s “In a Post-Audubon Era, Things Can Take a Nasty Tern” by Kristen Parry

The title of the short article plays on John James Audubon, the ornithologist best known for his book The Birds of American (1827-1839), which identifies many bird species, some of which are now extinct. “The Nasty Tern” comes from the title of a work by Ralph Steadman’s called Nasty Tern. Which depicts a violent or “nasty” extinct bird called the Tern. The article touches on people’s fascination with extinction; in this case focusing particularly on extinct birds. I think people’s fascination with extinct birds may stem from being familiar with stories of the Dodo bird and wanting to investigate further into the less known species now absent from daily life. Although extinction is sad to think about, especially when thinking of the future of many of our currently endangered species or eventually ourselves, we are fortunate to have documentation of the past. In Audubon’s book we can see beautiful illustrations close to what these birds would actually have looked like during the time their species was alive. Resources like this are useful to people interested in rediscovering the extinct species but also those interested in re-interpreting them through art, such as the many images of drawings created by various artists in the article. I believe it is in human nature to want to hold onto the past. I had my own moment of feeling this sense of loss and urge to rediscover something while I was at the Royal Ontario Museum weeks ago. I had not thought much about dinosaurs before other than thinking they were cool, but when I came across a section of skeletons for underwater dinosaurs I was stunned. I had never learned about the underwater creatures in elementary school while learning about the T-Rex, Triceratops and the other typical main attractions. I was looking at the actual bones of a Pilosaurus. I think I felt similarly but to a much less degree that I had discovered this creature. Now I have this urge to create prints or something to remember this creature (despite being a nasty one) and bring it back to life like others have with the birds through their art. We shall see where this goes, if anywhere…maybe Pilosaurus Christmas cards?

Article available at: http://www.artnews.com/2012/11/19/post-audubon-bird-art/

Response to Jose Roca’s “Prints, or Contemporary Art”

This article discusses the dilemmas a contemporary printmaker will face when trying to be taken seriously as not just a “printmaker”, but also as an artist. Printmaking seems to be an underappreciated form of making art. Roca believes the technique is addressed too much, which undervalues the actual content of the work, saying it must, “…be reclaimed from technique-as-content and be understood as content through technique.”. I think art should be judged less so on medium and more so on content and intricacy. Prints should be looked at the same way as other mediums because there are really fantastic prints just as there are really fantastic drawings, sculptures, etc., and of course the reverse. The process and amount of work put into making a print before actually making the multiples is completely underestimated.

Because we as printmakers aren’t appreciated as much as we might like we might limit then our own definition of ours as artists to the technical discipline of printmaking. I think this can definitely cause problems for an artist in any medium. We must remain open-minded in order to stay creative. By defining ourselves within one medium we may limit the possibilities that other mediums such as drawing, painting, sculpture etc. can offer us.  We should remain devoted to printmaking because it is such a marvelous method of making work but we should never limit ourselves to possibilities of making works better even if that involved letting the more classical or art historically appreciated forms be added to our skill set. Roca addresses the benefits that print offers such as “generosity through multiplication…to reach a wider audience”. I completely agree with this statement and it is partially why I have stuck with such a medium and is attracted to other works made in this way. Finding a print I really like is similar to winning a lottery. I say this because not only am I adding a beautiful work to my collection, but it is also at a reasonable cost.  I am able to appreciate art and own my own pieces without having to have a hefty sum like I would if I wanted to buy a painting by a mediocre artist. Of course we can view some of these high priced works in museums and galleries, but it is not the same as having it in your home and apart of your daily surroundings.  Considering the amount of work a lot of prints can take before producing multiples combined with how reasonable of a price you can often find them for if you look is exciting. Everybody should be able to own a piece of art that they really love. Art should be inclusive, not exclusive.

Article available at: http://www.philagrafika.org/pdf/WS/printsorcontemporaryart.pdf