For the midterm our team of four decided upon an illusion that will take place inside each of our lockers. The other day we filmed each other in front of a green screen doing the activity we want to project. This was the first time I’ve ever gotten rid of a background in After Effects and replaced it with something else. The background I chose for the video as practice isn’t what I’m going to use. I also need to consider the amount of green screen space needed in order to run. The idea is to have myself running back and forth between the two metal walls of my locker as though I’m trapped inside but disappearing in and out of the walls.
I realized through this editing process that I want to change almost everything!
Some of Robert Irwin’s work sort of reminds me of Lichtenstein in the way he plays with dots. When the viewer is very close up the painting seems almost nonsensical, but then once you step back and view the piece as a whole, it all comes together to create a whole, compact structure. The similarity is further enunciated because both artists require the viewer to take a closer look at what is going on. You can focus in on the dots or you can take the whole image in as a whole. Perhaps the only difference here is that Irwin doesn’t want to create hyper-realistic images of people when stepping back and viewing his work, whereas Lichtenstein does.
In a way, Lichtenstein and Irwin both thought of the canvas as a constraint. They discovered an abstract way of portraying what they wanted to demonstrate by thinking about ways to expand their technique outside the realm of a constricted space. I think they both achieved this in the sense that you can view and experience their work differently when up close and far away.
Playing with dimensions and alteration of physical space in relation to what the human eye can understand is crucial to Irwin’s experimental work. How light and space play with each other is evident in the illusions he creates.
Then there’s the Whitney exhibit of 1977 – the empty room. You could walk into that room and say that there’s nothing it in. That there is nothing going on and nothing to be seen and no physical objects and so what is there if anything at all other than a room? But I think Irwin would argue that there are elements that are crucial to the experience of being in an “empty” space that exist beyond what we can impose on that area. What I’m trying to say is that, a room isn’t empty at all if there is light and space and a person who is able to experience it, after all, a person being in that space has the opportunity to alter it and see it from a certain perspective. One this is for sure, I think the only way to experience Irwin’s art is in person. Having read about it and seen pictures online I’m intrigued by the illusionist nature of his work and can only imagine what it would be like in person.
Watching this film today makes for an interesting dialogue… I suppose there are times where being “fake” can be considered more dangerous than others. For example, the accusation of being fake news is far more egregious than being accused of forging a painting but that depends on who you’re speaking to!
Orson Welles is absolutely an interesting person. I couldn’t help but notice that he looked as though he was reading from a script like the actors of Saturday Night Live are at some points in the film which made for some very bizarre on-screen interactions…
Elmyr de Hory is undoubtedly someone with incredible talent that has spent most of his life artistically pretending to be someone who he’s not but absolved himself through this documentary…I guess it goes without saying that someone who ruthlessly “copies” someone elses work is not to be regarded as an “artist” but if someone is capable of such deceptive copywrite, can you really be disregarded if the quality is to par?
A little bit into the film I’m not so sure how genuine a “fake” artist Elmyr knows he is. What does he do this for? Market and demand? It’s pretty interesting, he burns the painting he just made to clearly make a point. What is the difference between Hory and the natural subject — who is the real artist here?? Is it the forger or is it the original artist?! Does it only matter if you find out what you’re looking at is a fake?
Orson Welles, a seemingly self absorbed person, is intrigued by someone equally as ego-centric, and that makes for a very interesting perspective in the film. I enjoyed watching this movie even though at times the pretentiousness of the subjects were a little gross.