The Wednesday Guest Lecture
September 29th 2021
Second year, Willow Fisher
This year I have taken a different approach to blogging the Wednesday Guest Lectures. Last year I was writing everything down on paper in a pencil during the talk, although this was at the time helpful for me, long term it was not. I found that I was solely relying on this fast paced notes that may or may not have been accurate for my blogging, also overall it was just too time consuming and stressful.
So to combat this I am now blogging differently, using an app on my laptop, audio notetaker, the layout will look something like this: Screenshot from audio notetaker, imported file of the notes and images taken, and then my response to the artist and their work. The app allows me to record the session, make notes during it, and take screenshots to capture any images. I have found this much easier to work with and more effective for my blogging.
Screenshot above.
Imported file of notes and images captured in the lecture.
My response to the artist and their work
The first Wednesday Guest Lecture of this academic year we were introduced to American contemporary artist Nick Bastis. He began the session with a brief overview of his studies informing us that he has a significant background in architecture and human geography, that later in his artistic career is more prominent and apparent in his work. The mindset he was in whilst studying wasn't coordinating with his desired practice, as he described that he "didn’t feel he was making stuff on an architectural scale" so shifted his interests to sculptural work, which brings us to the first piece of work he presented to us.
In 2008 the artist moved to Chicago and worked in a school, nearby was this building. Nick found himself being Influenced by the building which was produced by Canadian-American architect Frank Gehry. Nick went on to recreate the piece of architecture with the help of his students creating a one-to-one scale model of the building. He revealed that what made the building appeal to him in the first place was the intellectual and artistic decisions the architect made that enforced the building with the impression to attract people. Using recycled materials, Nick and his students created their own building, recreating it in an entirely different context.
This piece of work by the artist stood out to me as it takes on quite a informal approach. Unlike other pieces it wasn't produced on a high budget with unrealistic expectations and presented in an orthodox exhibition atmosphere. Instead he finds an empty lot in the neighbourhood and with the help of his students, which were thirteen year olds, replicates the modern piece of architecture reimagining it in their surroundings with ordinary materials and conventional landscape. This trait from the artist appeals to me a lot as it fondly informs me that he is a passionate artist, not conforming to the standards of having to buy and use expensive equipment and materials. Nick reused materials he has came across, which was cardboard and tinfoil. What makes it better is that they had a small opening ceremony for the piece, really signifying the importance of the involvement and reception from the community, relying on others for help with the work rather than him alone. It's interesting how something so ordinary can have such an impact on someone, not just the audience that view it, which in this case would have been civilians coming across the piece on the empty lot, but also the people involved. To have the input from young people from the community is significant as they in a way are giving something back. Each of those students have their identities collected in the artwork that is reflected in its context, which I believe is the most important aspect of the work as he as an artist is sharing the praise.
What makes it even better is the outcome of the piece. Rather than preserve the artwork in an exhibition where it would have been observed, he decided to leave it as it was in the context it was created in on the empty lot. This choice of improvisation led to the piece being destroyed by local children from the neighbourhood. When talking about this experience he spoke of it fondly and even laughed about the incident. This positive outlook on a negative occurrence I think humanises the artist reminding me that he too despite being an accomplished artist is also an ordinary person. I believe that it reveals a lot about the person on how they relied solely on fate for the outcome of the artwork, which is almost unheard of from artists. I found that it made the artist relatable which is what I think is my focal point when attending these guest lectures, often we are presented with artists that think very highly of themselves and their work, losing that natural aspect when presenting themselves to us. This natural course of order Nick has followed with this piece of work says a lot about him, revealing his more realistic and conventional aspirations. With him just wanting to create this piece of work for the process rather than the received affirmation if he was to have presented this in an exhibition. It tells me that his focal point during this time was to capture the energy, experience, and personality from him and everyone involved in the architectural sculpture. This I believe is more effective and interesting than a sculpture in a gallery, he has given the piece a personality, its creative process and destruction builds a narrative for the piece that he is able to share with his students that were involved.
The artist remarked that at this point in his life (2008) he wasn't really sure of what he was doing and producing as an artist. However after this production of architectural work with his students he did comment that he was at the beginning of his journey of figuring out his interests in sculptural work, working in a way that formed initial foundations for him to start directing his attention to the concept of objects. More specifically he was interested in the proclamation of objects being reproduced and redistributed, informing us of the political and phenomenological effect is has and how this relates to the history. Having studies both art and art history this aspect appealed to him, encouraging him to look back to further develop his practice and understand it more. Nick started to look to the theory of mimetic function, something that can be copied, mimesis is a biological process of reproduction. He revealed that from this process of combinations from the repetitive nature something can be varied, resulting in alternating artworks.
The sculpture that influenced Nick immensely with his interest in sculptural artwork was "The Three Shades" produced by Augueste Rodin, 1886. The sculptor during the creative process of modelling and casting chose to produce one sculpture that was made up of multiples of a single cast. Utilising the performance of working in a repetitive manner. The sculpture throughout art history had been allocated as being the beginning of modern sculpture, demanding a change in the traditional occurrence when sculpting, disrupting the composition. I understand how this piece of artwork influenced and appealed so much to Nick Bastis. Its rejection of the normalities at the time with the art practice of sculpting shocked many when presented, this repetition didn't go unnoticed and disrupted the conventionalities accustomed to the narrative of sculpting. The artwork appeals to me as well.
My only negative opinion of this session is one of the works Nick presented to us. The work was a film he shot during his time in Lithuania for five years, which he said was inspired by an experience he had. When there he often saw soldiers walking the streets and on some occasions saw them performing general neighbourhood upkeep, like trimming the branches in trees. This unconventional encounter appealed to him because the soldiers were in their uniform still and for him it appeared that they were camouflaged within the environment whilst performing these tasks. He describes it being "like a strange slippage". The film he revealed had been shot himself but had the audio and subtitles taken from other films, although for him this must have been his way of incorporating influence into his work, I just don't think its morally right. I'm unsure of whether or not when this work was published the sampled areas were credited he didn't elaborate on that. From his perspective he saw the visuals, subtitles, and audio individually when his film is playing. The film itself is a continuous loop of a woman walking the streets with the soldiers visible cutting the trees. I didn't find this short film interesting, if anything I found it really repetitive and irritating.
The overall structure of the lecture I think was well balanced as the artist ran through their artistic practice in a chronological order, beginning with an introduction to them, their early work, influences throughout their studies and practice, artworks over the years, and most recent works. I say there was a balance because there was work that I liked and work that I disliked, the artist himself was positive and I felt he was relatable in the way he talked about his practice and experiences. If I were to somehow relate this artist to my own practice I think I could be influenced by his earlier architectural work, for example the to scale model of the Frank Gehry building. This is because I am looking at the architecture of Liverpool currently for my project and am using recycled materials like cardboard for my drawings. It has been suggested that I try to work 3D creating cardboard iterations of the buildings I encounter so Nick's building piece could be influential. Also looking about repetition in work, I work in a continuous line in drawings, repeating the linear marks I am creating so this is similar to his ideas of reproduction and repetition.