"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
Go continue.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
The Gap
A few days ago a classmate posted another version of this message from Ira Glass on a group page on Facebook. I love it. If any of you ever feel frustrated about what you're working on, check it out.
Ira Glass on Storytelling from David Shiyang Liu on Vimeo.
Art doesn't just come to people "magically." Creative expression comes from ideas… and learning how to make them happen. The only problem is, we aren't just born with perfect experience in every media and we aren't just given the solutions to our ideas. We aren't even told how to decide which ideas to follow through with, and we might not even fully UNDERSTAND our ideas or direction.
I find as well, that the more I learn, the more I understand why and how things work, the more I hear how and why others have done things… the more TASTE and knowledge of materials and how to use them that I develop… the more dissatisfying it is to have mediocre art.
The cure?
Make more art!
Like my figure painting prof always tells us… "What you're doing is proving to me that if you did it more your work would be great." In other words, "you know WHAT you're doing, you just have to go through the messy experience of making it work (and learning what DOESN'T work!)."
Never say "I'm not a painter/illustrator/designer/writer/enteryounameithere" just because you tried being creative at some point and it didn't go well, or you found it hard.
ART IS REALLY HARD.
And it doesn't stop being hard work with experience. You just have more knowledge of what works, what doesn't, and of yourself as an artist. If you stop working hard you get sloppy, you get lazy, you don't notice things you need to work on, you stop pressing on into new territories, your color/measurements/values/concepts start digressing… You get the idea.
I recently read the book "Alla Prima: Everything I Know About Painting" by Richard Schmid, and he wrote how difficult painting STILL is for him.
Ira Glass on Storytelling from David Shiyang Liu on Vimeo.
Art doesn't just come to people "magically." Creative expression comes from ideas… and learning how to make them happen. The only problem is, we aren't just born with perfect experience in every media and we aren't just given the solutions to our ideas. We aren't even told how to decide which ideas to follow through with, and we might not even fully UNDERSTAND our ideas or direction.
I find as well, that the more I learn, the more I understand why and how things work, the more I hear how and why others have done things… the more TASTE and knowledge of materials and how to use them that I develop… the more dissatisfying it is to have mediocre art.
The cure?
Make more art!
Like my figure painting prof always tells us… "What you're doing is proving to me that if you did it more your work would be great." In other words, "you know WHAT you're doing, you just have to go through the messy experience of making it work (and learning what DOESN'T work!)."
Never say "I'm not a painter/illustrator/designer/writer/enteryounameithere" just because you tried being creative at some point and it didn't go well, or you found it hard.
ART IS REALLY HARD.
And it doesn't stop being hard work with experience. You just have more knowledge of what works, what doesn't, and of yourself as an artist. If you stop working hard you get sloppy, you get lazy, you don't notice things you need to work on, you stop pressing on into new territories, your color/measurements/values/concepts start digressing… You get the idea.
I recently read the book "Alla Prima: Everything I Know About Painting" by Richard Schmid, and he wrote how difficult painting STILL is for him.
 |
| Source: http://www.tuttartpitturascultura- poesiamusica.com/2013/10/Richard-Schmid.html |
 |
| Source: http://artistsnetworks.com/schmid/index.html |
Also, in this book he added a little nugget on "talent." I think it can apply to talent with anything: art, music, writing, mathematics, linguistics, etc. Just because we don't have experience with something, or it seems difficult, doesn't mean we can't do it… it just means we have more work to do. And any kind of talent might develop at much different rates in different people, but judging how much or little you have can be a cop-out of doing something, or trying to improve at something.
"Don't bother about whether or not you have it [talent]. Just assume that you do, and then forget about it. Talent is a word we use after someone has become accomplished. There is no way to detect it before the fact …"
And the only way to get there is through work. And not just repetition. It takes thinking, studying, researching, getting advice from others, trial and error/experimentation, analyzing, questioning, looking at other people's solutions, observing, reading….
So what does this tell ME?
I need to get back to work. Gotta get through this gap faster. :)
Friday, November 7, 2014
Digital Flash Animation Artists' Statement
Today's the day! Our animations are done, and we will be combining all of our scenes today. Hooray!
Here is our combined artists' statement:
The idea behind our project was to use a narrative of something that a child can imagine or relate to in order to learn something. In our case, we wanted to be able to teach the numbers 1-10, by introducing them sequentially into a storyline. We came up with a fun, catchy short film that captured the spirit of playfulness. There is a balance between the monotony of taking each number one at a time and a lively approach to number teaching.
In order to achieve this idea, we had to consider the following: how can we teach something, such as counting, in a fun way, what kinds of experiences can children respond to, and how can we be original in presenting a commonly taught subject matter? To keep the story fun and lighthearted, we made the storyline an adventure that a young boy takes to arrive at his own birthday party. We animated the numbers, giving them an aspect of cuteness, and giving children a way to really interact with and be interested in them.
Incorporating the numbers into our event, we created a storyboard wherein Tommy, the young boy, is approached by the various animated numbers (behaving like friends), in their sequential order, who will lead him to the party, and celebrate with him. This is something kids in our culture can relate to as birthday parties are a common occurrence.
Conceptually the challenge of this project laid within focusing our main idea into three short clips, in figuring out a new program to actually put our ideas into an actual animation, and working to integrate three different people’s ideas into one short story. After we came up with our concept, we had to adjust our ideas and “visions” of how it would look based on what we were able to actually do in Flash and to keep the flow of our animation. There was a lot of trial-and-error learning that occurred in trying to put our ideas into practice.
On the other end, some of the technicalities we went through to achieve our goal film was that almost every background had to be pieced together in Photoshop from multiple images, the number characters had to be meticulously constructed with eyes and mouths added to a number body, text was carefully thought out according to each scene and then implemented, the young boy was ‘taken apart’ to be animated, and each scene was painstakingly handcrafted together to form one animation.
Overall, our bright and vivid colors, simple and cute subjects, and our adventure-like storyline really helped pull of the idea of this film as being one that would appeal to a child. Yet, things kept moving and being introduced throughout the story, so that it would not become too boring. (Even though it was, in essence, just a story that introduced simple numbers one by one.) The inclusion of things for the boy and numbers to interact with along the way and at the party helped keep the story from being too rigid and mechanical. There were hints of his surprise scattered throughout each scene to let young views ‘guess’ at the surprise waiting for Tommy. This is an enjoyable piece that both adults can laugh at and kids can smile and relate to each in their own way.
Here is our combined artists' statement:
“A Number-ful Surprise”
Artists’ Statement
The idea behind our project was to use a narrative of something that a child can imagine or relate to in order to learn something. In our case, we wanted to be able to teach the numbers 1-10, by introducing them sequentially into a storyline. We came up with a fun, catchy short film that captured the spirit of playfulness. There is a balance between the monotony of taking each number one at a time and a lively approach to number teaching. In order to achieve this idea, we had to consider the following: how can we teach something, such as counting, in a fun way, what kinds of experiences can children respond to, and how can we be original in presenting a commonly taught subject matter? To keep the story fun and lighthearted, we made the storyline an adventure that a young boy takes to arrive at his own birthday party. We animated the numbers, giving them an aspect of cuteness, and giving children a way to really interact with and be interested in them.
Incorporating the numbers into our event, we created a storyboard wherein Tommy, the young boy, is approached by the various animated numbers (behaving like friends), in their sequential order, who will lead him to the party, and celebrate with him. This is something kids in our culture can relate to as birthday parties are a common occurrence.
Conceptually the challenge of this project laid within focusing our main idea into three short clips, in figuring out a new program to actually put our ideas into an actual animation, and working to integrate three different people’s ideas into one short story. After we came up with our concept, we had to adjust our ideas and “visions” of how it would look based on what we were able to actually do in Flash and to keep the flow of our animation. There was a lot of trial-and-error learning that occurred in trying to put our ideas into practice.
On the other end, some of the technicalities we went through to achieve our goal film was that almost every background had to be pieced together in Photoshop from multiple images, the number characters had to be meticulously constructed with eyes and mouths added to a number body, text was carefully thought out according to each scene and then implemented, the young boy was ‘taken apart’ to be animated, and each scene was painstakingly handcrafted together to form one animation.
Overall, our bright and vivid colors, simple and cute subjects, and our adventure-like storyline really helped pull of the idea of this film as being one that would appeal to a child. Yet, things kept moving and being introduced throughout the story, so that it would not become too boring. (Even though it was, in essence, just a story that introduced simple numbers one by one.) The inclusion of things for the boy and numbers to interact with along the way and at the party helped keep the story from being too rigid and mechanical. There were hints of his surprise scattered throughout each scene to let young views ‘guess’ at the surprise waiting for Tommy. This is an enjoyable piece that both adults can laugh at and kids can smile and relate to each in their own way.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Animation
Over the last few weeks, my Digital Creativity class has been working on creating short animations using Adobe Flash. We have no prior experience to the program, so it has been a long learning process. However, tomorrow is the day we finally present to the class, so things are getting wrapped up. Stay tuned to see what we come up with!
My section of the video will be the last third. Our story is of a young boy on his way to a surprise birthday party. Before he arrives at the party, he is introduced to numbers 1 through 10, and the video is intended as an entertaining instructional clip for young children. In my section, the boy will arrive at the party with number 10, where all the other numbers are waiting for him with birthday cake. It will be a memorable occasion. ;)
My section of the video will be the last third. Our story is of a young boy on his way to a surprise birthday party. Before he arrives at the party, he is introduced to numbers 1 through 10, and the video is intended as an entertaining instructional clip for young children. In my section, the boy will arrive at the party with number 10, where all the other numbers are waiting for him with birthday cake. It will be a memorable occasion. ;)
Friday, September 26, 2014
You're Looking at a Lie!
In my Creative Problem Solving class last year, one of the big topics that we had to consider was how our brain interprets things around us. When we look at things around us we see different values, hues, and forms. We see compositions of light and color. However, odds are this is not what is going through our minds when we open our eyes and look around us. We see a wall with a painting, a red mug with a tea bag floating in it, dirty boots tossed on the rug by the door… we see distinct things that have a label and a purpose. We make certain associations with different things based on their form and function, or their color and symbolism. This idea is the study of signs and symbols and their function, known as semiotics. In connection with images (photographs/paintings/video, etc), this implies that an image/object is a sign(s) and that that sign has a meaning(s).
The Relationship Between Images and Signs
So how did we come to see things as hands, mugs, and boots? What made us characterize these forms as such things. How do we identify anything? In psychology, we learn about this in connection with schemas.
Schemas, introduced by Jean Piaget, are frameworks by which we organize information in our minds, to more easily interpret things around us. It takes what is known about certain things, and generalizes it, so we can quickly make deductions. So, for example, if we see a square thing that opens and has a lot of vastly thinner squares inside, with black words all over them in lines, we deduct that it is a book, based on what we know about books.
Schemas are why when we draw a hand, we can almost always tell that it is a hand, even though it's not very accurate. Take a look at this hand for example.
Source:http://images.hellokids.com
Does this hand have any kind of value, showing the mass of the hand? Showing how 3-dimensional it is, and showing that it is made up of bones and muscles and flesh? No.
Are hands normally blue? No (Unless we have hypothermia..)
Do our hands have smiley faces and… suction cups (??) on them? None that I know of.
But yet, because it has five digits, attached to one main blob, in approximately the right proportional size we know right away that it is supposed to be a hand. It is close enough to our schema of what a hand should be to understand it.
Now look at the following picture.
This still is not accurate. It does not have the pale fleshy color of our skin. It doesn't contain quite all of the intricate wrinkles and 'imperfections' of our hands. But yet, the lighting is understandable, and gives it form. There is a lot more information (convincing information) than the first drawing, showing us the folds of skin, the nails, the smooth texture of the skin… It is more convincing, even though it's not an actual hand, because it gives more information that fits even more with our schemas of what hands should look like.
So schema's help us understand the world around us. This implies that the more we know or think about (the more things that may affect our schema), the more different interpretations we may have of things. Also, schemas are important to consider when we look at things, because how we associate things is directly influenced by how we think about things. I'll hopefully make this a little clearer.
So… why does this matter?
Being aware of schemas and how we interpret images help us understand how we can be deceived by it all.
Preconcieved notions that we have about different things (schemas?), experiences we've had, the society we live in, how much knowledge we have about a certain thing, how something is presented to us and by whom are all things that affect how we interpret things.
How Images Can 'Lie'
1) The Sway of What Isn't Actually Said
"The first chapter of "Practices of Looking", by Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright, says the following:
An image can denote certain apparent truths, providing documentary evidence of objective circumstances. The denotative meaning of the image refers to its literal, descriptive meaning. {So, when we look at an image of a horse, for example, we see a horse. That is the literal reading of the image} Connotative meanings rely on the cultural and historical context of the image and its viewers' lived, felt knowledge of those circumstances- all that the image means to them personally and socially." {So, we see that the horse is sweaty, and we insinuate that it was just active… or we see that there is a certain blanket on the horse which causes us to assume that the horse belonged to a certain someone who took part in that certain something back in that one year. These are the implications we get from the image based on what we know or imagine to be true, cultural or historical context (Ie: if we saw this picture posted by an animal rights group during a time in which animal cruelty is a big issue, we might assume that the horse was being abused…) In different situations we might read different things from the image, just as different people might take away different feelings from it, even though they are all looking at the exact same image. Put in a different context (seeing a photograph of a crazy phenomenon on a news station vs. someone's Facebook page for example) can give the image an entirely different meaning or validity. Just as it's good to know your sources and both their biases and their credentials when reading articles or writing research papers, it's good to consider context (both placement, social, economic, historical, religious, etc) of the image (or piece of art), where it came from, and what you might be reading into it that isn't actually there. Or… how it was framed (presented) to make you react differently to it than you would if it were given in another setting.
Schemas themselves can make us blind to what may actually be there. Say you know a few girls with freckles that are total klutzes. You subconsciously begin to associate females with freckles and klutziness, so when you are introduced to a girl you've never met before, you assume she's a klutz. She's not, but you envision her as that, because what you "know" about freckled girls makes you see that in her. If you think an image is a certain thing, or is trying to make a certain statement, because that is what your schemas are dictating, but it actually isn't, your brain has been tricked. Noticing when a schema is wrong, though, is very interesting, because it can arise curiosity and make you slow down and perhaps try to figure it out. Sarah Cwynar used this idea a bit less subtly in her "Flat Death" flower bouquets. The image here is obviously not of a flower bouquet, but is in fact made up of random plastic objects. We can see it as a bouquet, though, because it fits what we think a bouquet should look like.
Source: uarts.edu
Sturken and Cartwright also write that "A photograph is often perceived to be an unmediated copy of the real world, a trace of reality skimmed off the very surface of life. We refer to this concept as the myth of photographic truth."and then "It is a paradox of photography that although we know that images can be ambiguous and are easily manipulated or altered, particularly with the help of computer graphics, much of the power of photography still lies in the shared belief that photographs are objective or truthful records of events." Which leads to the next point.
2) Images Themselves Are Lies
For one thing, they can be manipulated both by context and presentation, as we just covered. But they can also be completely made up. Art can both be created from "scratch" or can take something real that exists and manipulate it into something else (ahem… Photoshop????), in a way that still passes off as real. The most convincing manipulations are those that change things, but do it in a way that they so closely match our schemas of what they should be, that we "accept" it.
However, images, and artwork, in its very essence is really a trickery, if you will. It is merely a representation of something. René Magritte poked at this idea in his painting "La Trahison des Images" (The Treachery of Images). Underneath the painting we read in Latin, "This is not a pipe." Because it is not a pipe. It is merely a painting of a pipe.
Source:foucault.info
Here is a spoof on Margritte's photo by Bansky:
Source: https://c2.staticflickr.com
This picture is a bit more truthful, perhaps, because there is an actual pipe contained within the piece (as in, a real pipe was actually used), rather than a mere painting of one. However, it is still a "lie" because if we reached out to touch the pipe we would just touch the screen of our computer. There is no tangible pipe there… it is just an image.
The key, then, to getting people to think and see what you want them to in art, is to present it in a way that convinces them that what you have put in front of them is believable, no matter how crazy it actually is. Even if (like in Sarah's bouquets), you can tell by looking at it that it's not quite right. And in viewing media and photographs and such like? Always be aware of what is being shown (and how it is being presented)… as well as what isn't being shown.
http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g/def_schema.htm
http://matthewjamestaylor.com/img/art/large/tonal-hand-study.jpgSurken, , and Cartwright. Practices of Looking. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 2012. N. pag. Print.
The Relationship Between Images and Signs
So how did we come to see things as hands, mugs, and boots? What made us characterize these forms as such things. How do we identify anything? In psychology, we learn about this in connection with schemas.
Schemas, introduced by Jean Piaget, are frameworks by which we organize information in our minds, to more easily interpret things around us. It takes what is known about certain things, and generalizes it, so we can quickly make deductions. So, for example, if we see a square thing that opens and has a lot of vastly thinner squares inside, with black words all over them in lines, we deduct that it is a book, based on what we know about books.
Schemas are why when we draw a hand, we can almost always tell that it is a hand, even though it's not very accurate. Take a look at this hand for example.
Source:http://images.hellokids.com
Does this hand have any kind of value, showing the mass of the hand? Showing how 3-dimensional it is, and showing that it is made up of bones and muscles and flesh? No.
Are hands normally blue? No (Unless we have hypothermia..)
Do our hands have smiley faces and… suction cups (??) on them? None that I know of.
But yet, because it has five digits, attached to one main blob, in approximately the right proportional size we know right away that it is supposed to be a hand. It is close enough to our schema of what a hand should be to understand it.
Now look at the following picture.
 |
| Source: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/021/8/4/Drawing_of_My_Hand_by_Rowen_silver.jpg |
This still is not accurate. It does not have the pale fleshy color of our skin. It doesn't contain quite all of the intricate wrinkles and 'imperfections' of our hands. But yet, the lighting is understandable, and gives it form. There is a lot more information (convincing information) than the first drawing, showing us the folds of skin, the nails, the smooth texture of the skin… It is more convincing, even though it's not an actual hand, because it gives more information that fits even more with our schemas of what hands should look like.
So schema's help us understand the world around us. This implies that the more we know or think about (the more things that may affect our schema), the more different interpretations we may have of things. Also, schemas are important to consider when we look at things, because how we associate things is directly influenced by how we think about things. I'll hopefully make this a little clearer.
So… why does this matter?
Being aware of schemas and how we interpret images help us understand how we can be deceived by it all.
Preconcieved notions that we have about different things (schemas?), experiences we've had, the society we live in, how much knowledge we have about a certain thing, how something is presented to us and by whom are all things that affect how we interpret things.
How Images Can 'Lie'
1) The Sway of What Isn't Actually Said
"The first chapter of "Practices of Looking", by Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright, says the following:
An image can denote certain apparent truths, providing documentary evidence of objective circumstances. The denotative meaning of the image refers to its literal, descriptive meaning. {So, when we look at an image of a horse, for example, we see a horse. That is the literal reading of the image} Connotative meanings rely on the cultural and historical context of the image and its viewers' lived, felt knowledge of those circumstances- all that the image means to them personally and socially." {So, we see that the horse is sweaty, and we insinuate that it was just active… or we see that there is a certain blanket on the horse which causes us to assume that the horse belonged to a certain someone who took part in that certain something back in that one year. These are the implications we get from the image based on what we know or imagine to be true, cultural or historical context (Ie: if we saw this picture posted by an animal rights group during a time in which animal cruelty is a big issue, we might assume that the horse was being abused…) In different situations we might read different things from the image, just as different people might take away different feelings from it, even though they are all looking at the exact same image. Put in a different context (seeing a photograph of a crazy phenomenon on a news station vs. someone's Facebook page for example) can give the image an entirely different meaning or validity. Just as it's good to know your sources and both their biases and their credentials when reading articles or writing research papers, it's good to consider context (both placement, social, economic, historical, religious, etc) of the image (or piece of art), where it came from, and what you might be reading into it that isn't actually there. Or… how it was framed (presented) to make you react differently to it than you would if it were given in another setting.
Schemas themselves can make us blind to what may actually be there. Say you know a few girls with freckles that are total klutzes. You subconsciously begin to associate females with freckles and klutziness, so when you are introduced to a girl you've never met before, you assume she's a klutz. She's not, but you envision her as that, because what you "know" about freckled girls makes you see that in her. If you think an image is a certain thing, or is trying to make a certain statement, because that is what your schemas are dictating, but it actually isn't, your brain has been tricked. Noticing when a schema is wrong, though, is very interesting, because it can arise curiosity and make you slow down and perhaps try to figure it out. Sarah Cwynar used this idea a bit less subtly in her "Flat Death" flower bouquets. The image here is obviously not of a flower bouquet, but is in fact made up of random plastic objects. We can see it as a bouquet, though, because it fits what we think a bouquet should look like.
Source: uarts.edu
Sturken and Cartwright also write that "A photograph is often perceived to be an unmediated copy of the real world, a trace of reality skimmed off the very surface of life. We refer to this concept as the myth of photographic truth."and then "It is a paradox of photography that although we know that images can be ambiguous and are easily manipulated or altered, particularly with the help of computer graphics, much of the power of photography still lies in the shared belief that photographs are objective or truthful records of events." Which leads to the next point.
2) Images Themselves Are Lies
For one thing, they can be manipulated both by context and presentation, as we just covered. But they can also be completely made up. Art can both be created from "scratch" or can take something real that exists and manipulate it into something else (ahem… Photoshop????), in a way that still passes off as real. The most convincing manipulations are those that change things, but do it in a way that they so closely match our schemas of what they should be, that we "accept" it.
However, images, and artwork, in its very essence is really a trickery, if you will. It is merely a representation of something. René Magritte poked at this idea in his painting "La Trahison des Images" (The Treachery of Images). Underneath the painting we read in Latin, "This is not a pipe." Because it is not a pipe. It is merely a painting of a pipe.
Source:foucault.info
Here is a spoof on Margritte's photo by Bansky:
Source: https://c2.staticflickr.com
This picture is a bit more truthful, perhaps, because there is an actual pipe contained within the piece (as in, a real pipe was actually used), rather than a mere painting of one. However, it is still a "lie" because if we reached out to touch the pipe we would just touch the screen of our computer. There is no tangible pipe there… it is just an image.
The key, then, to getting people to think and see what you want them to in art, is to present it in a way that convinces them that what you have put in front of them is believable, no matter how crazy it actually is. Even if (like in Sarah's bouquets), you can tell by looking at it that it's not quite right. And in viewing media and photographs and such like? Always be aware of what is being shown (and how it is being presented)… as well as what isn't being shown.
http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g/def_schema.htm
http://matthewjamestaylor.com/img/art/large/tonal-hand-study.jpgSurken, , and Cartwright. Practices of Looking. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 2012. N. pag. Print.
The Art of Tyree Guyton
Who is Tyree Guyton?
Tyree Guyton is a painter and a sculptor. He is the artist behind the Heidelberg Project (Read about it at http://www.heidelberg.org) and transforms Detroit neighborhoods through art. He basically made his own neighborhood an indoor/outdoor art gallery. Outside of these installations on Heidelberg Street, he also makes paintings and sculptures.
Guyton is from Detroit and is incredibly involved in his community, believing that we are all bound together by the same energy. Not only does he create art, but he works to spread the positive affects of art through the community by working it into education programs as well, so that the community can bloom from the inside out.
What is his work about?
Tyree Guyton sees his work as a solution to what is falling apart in a world where values are disappearing and "rules are broken everyday." He aims to bring order, hope and beauty to the chaos. He sees the "evolution of life" in everything and wants people to see that in themselves.
In a more concrete and specific way, Guyton works to transform areas of poverty, violence, immorality, and crime into something beautiful and new.
What are his art making strategies?
Guyson makes small compositional studies of his work before he starts. He's a man with a plan. :)
Guyson is also very intentional with what makes up his work. As he writes, "My work is a science that deals with colors, shapes, objects that brings about a rare beauty to the mind and eyes of people, a type of esthete." His colors and forms reflect the "magic" he views his artwork as being. A signature aspect of his work are polkadots. Polkadots, to Guyson, symbolize diversity, and I believe it does so in a very bright and positive way (colorful, unique, and vibrant symbol!).
Source: http://www.tyreeguyton.com
http://www.heidelberg.org/who_we_are/
Tyree Guyton is a painter and a sculptor. He is the artist behind the Heidelberg Project (Read about it at http://www.heidelberg.org) and transforms Detroit neighborhoods through art. He basically made his own neighborhood an indoor/outdoor art gallery. Outside of these installations on Heidelberg Street, he also makes paintings and sculptures.
Guyton is from Detroit and is incredibly involved in his community, believing that we are all bound together by the same energy. Not only does he create art, but he works to spread the positive affects of art through the community by working it into education programs as well, so that the community can bloom from the inside out.
 |
| Source:http://www.heidelberg.org |
What is his work about?
Tyree Guyton sees his work as a solution to what is falling apart in a world where values are disappearing and "rules are broken everyday." He aims to bring order, hope and beauty to the chaos. He sees the "evolution of life" in everything and wants people to see that in themselves.
In a more concrete and specific way, Guyton works to transform areas of poverty, violence, immorality, and crime into something beautiful and new.
What are his art making strategies?
Guyson makes small compositional studies of his work before he starts. He's a man with a plan. :)
Guyson is also very intentional with what makes up his work. As he writes, "My work is a science that deals with colors, shapes, objects that brings about a rare beauty to the mind and eyes of people, a type of esthete." His colors and forms reflect the "magic" he views his artwork as being. A signature aspect of his work are polkadots. Polkadots, to Guyson, symbolize diversity, and I believe it does so in a very bright and positive way (colorful, unique, and vibrant symbol!).
 |
| Source: http://www.heidelberg.org |
Source: http://www.tyreeguyton.com
http://www.heidelberg.org/who_we_are/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)