Research

After meeting with my tutor i have been adviced to look at alot of items.
Just starting to document all my research on here.
Hopefully this will be soon followed by a a huge appendix of work i have not yet put up.

Dazzle Ships,

Dazzle camouflage, also known as Razzle Dazzle or Dazzle painting, was a camouflage paint scheme used on ships, extensively during World War I and to a lesser extent in World War II. Credited to artist Norman Wilkinson, it consisted of a complex pattern of geometric shapes in contrasting colours, interrupting and intersecting each other.




At first glance Dazzle seems unlikely camouflage, drawing attention to the ship rather than hiding it, but this technique was developed after the Allied Navies were unable to develop effective means to disguise ships in all weathers.
Dazzle did not conceal the ship but made it difficult for the enemy to estimate its type, size, speed and heading. The idea was to disrupt the visual rangefinders used for naval artillery. Its purpose was confusion rather than concealment.[1] An observer would find it difficult to know exactly whether the stern or the bow is in view; and it would be equally difficult to estimate whether the observed vessel is moving towards or away from the observer's position.[2]

All in information from wiki

Art history

Winston Churchill considered deception in war to be an indispensable "element of léger de main, an original and sinister touch, which leaves the enemy puzzled as well as beaten."[8]
In 2007, the art of concealment was featured as the theme for a show at the Imperial War Museum. The evolution of Dazzle was re-examined in this context. Picasso is reported to have taken credit for the modern camouflage experiments which seemed to him a quintessentially Cubist technique.[9] He is reported to have drawn the connection in a conversation with Gertrude Stein shortly after he first saw a painted cannon trundling through the streets of Paris.[2]
In 2008, the Fleet Library at the Rhode Island School of Design announced the rediscovery in its collection of 455 lithographic printed plans for the camouflage of US merchant ships during World War I. These documents were donated to the RISD library in 1919 by one of the school’s alumni, designer Maurice L. Freeman, who had been a camouflage artist for the U.S. Shipping Board in Jacksonville, Florida. Portions of the collection were publicly shown at the RISD library for the first time from January 26 through March 29, 2009, in an exhibition titled "Bedazzled."

Other links are on wiki website.

Now you see it....... now you don't. The times march 10 2007

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1479657.ece

The use of camouflage accelerated with the arrival of the aeroplane in war. Artists, as masters of optical illusion, were called in to develop forms of disguise to stop vulnerable targets being bombed to destruction. It was the French who led the way thanks to the Cubists — even though their experiments had nothing to do with warfare. Picasso and Braque were investigating the nature of perception, and whether there might be a way of painting objects that could somehow be more rounded and more comprehensive than traditional Western perspective allowed for.


To Evaluate, the ships were camoflauged not to disguise into the back ground but make the form unrecognisable to enemies. this would not appear familiar on a horizon. I think it also relates to optical art. What optical art could i attempt? it is also thought it Dazzle comes from cubism and i feel it does closely relates.

Statement of intent, i hope.....

I feel it is very important to highlight that my work is more social experiments than of an aesthetic value. Although I did start my last project trying to understand aesthetics the notion of approach and interaction of a viewer is more stimulating to me.
In the later part of my last project I was painting in small scale and became focused on how a viewer was approaching and interacting with a piece of work. The size, orientation and positioning can all contribute to this but how is a picture read when all the fundamentals have been subtracted?
I am planning on taking away the main focus of an image and see how the remainder of the piece is interpreted. This maybe taking away small parts or completely erasing the image altogether. I plan on taking away the elements by scratching, rubbing or using a chemical reaction. I will be looking at using iconic images that people can build a relationship with, either from recent media or an historical event/person(s). This then proposes the question how will this iconic image be interpreted once tarnished? In the past I have painted very small scale (2” x 2”) and I still want to attempt this size but feel I need to range myself in different scales and not restrict myself. I will be using a variety of media and various surfaces. I also need to research with different mark making tools for the tarnishing of the image and into various chemicals. It is also important that I complete a range of studies, experiments and practices before producing a final image as I need to figure the boundary of subtraction and when it just becomes a lost image.

The Bluebells

'The Bluebell Woods' 2011
Oil on Canvas
7cm x 120cm

The start of something...

'Untitled series' 2010
Oil on Acetate

3 paintings 4cm x 7cm approx

Medium upon this surface gave a shiny residue. They have potiential to become a series and move people in a greater amount. The paint in the background has been rubbed away to show the image underneath. Posing the question why paint on photographs? I liked these images and thought they could really work. When a passive comment was made about how it takes you on a journey thought this could be an interesting idea to play with.

On approach to work the viewers pushed to see them. How can I create an image that many can observe at the same time?

The work became black and white as I wanted to experiment how a lack of colour can alter visual aesthetics of an image. They did not warm to the images as I had hoped but maybe this is because there is no narrative or cryptic to untangle. Need substance for Black and White images.

Back to the fundamentals....

My work currently is experimentation with scale and paint. Below is 'Reaching for the light' 2010. This was the first 'none gag' piece I have shown in the institute and I think it was recieved quite well. The 'Gag pieces' are a critque of the YBA's and at the time I was so miserable that mocking people was the only way of letting it all out so to speak. To say they was not recieved well would be an understatment but Uni is 3 years to mess up and learn from the consequences. So scraping back to the fundamentals of 'What makes good art?' I have been experimenting with an audience in a relationship to scale, colour and subject. I also wanted to present banal objects and see how I could make these 'Beautiful'. And I found out that you cant make a piece beautiful to everyone because, much like the word love, beauty is not defined with one picture in the dictionary but can be intepretted in many ways.



'Reaching for the light' 2010
2" x 2" oil on canvas.

Seven Deadly Sins

So above we have (right to left)

Top Row

Envy: Jake and Dinos Chapman, upon their tree
Sloth: Damien Hirst, Heading for the checkout with his shark in the trolley
Greed: Charles Saatchi and Nigella, Playing monopoly

Bottom Row

Gluttony: Jenny Saville, Walking away from the buffet
Pride: Tracey Emin, Sitting in her tent advertising for Penis
Lust: Andy Warhol, Lying in bed with Marilyn
Wrath: Jeff Koons, The Bunny burns down the Factory

OK! so they are not brilliant and did offend a few (even talk about the universities ethinical policy) but I have now realised the images that work are the ones that de-masuculate the character.

These were some time ago so I have moved on but hoping one day when I have a clearer outlook on the industry they could be a collection and coming to a store near you! (if there is no ethinical policy scheme)

Gag Pieces

So as promised I am going to publish some of my past work which I am a little sceptical about. They are toungue in cheek and not everyone will like them but it is an important shift in practice



'Dead fish do not swim in jealous tides' 2009

A recreatation of Damien Hirst's famous shark. As an artist you do look up to people like Hirst and the changes him and his era made to contemporary art of the 90's. But even though they are sucssessful and very good at what they do should us artist's of today be idolising Hirst?



'Untitled 2009'

I could not help but feel I was reaching my own dimise whilst becoming so fixated by this Shark.