Friday 2nd December 2011

Well, today was the last day of the tour. I’ve had the most amazing time and wish I could go on checking out all the different arts in New York. At least I have another week here before I head to Rhode Island, then on to London and Singapore.

This morning Ash and I had breakfast at the Crepe/Pancake place again. Soooo delicious! I’m going to miss it! Mark met us at the hostel, I gave him a quick tour so that he can let students next year know what it’s like and what facilities it has. We then went north to the Studio Museum Harlem. A really interesting place that exhibits Afro-American work which I believe receives government funding.

The exhibit at the moment is a dedication to Romare Bearden. His art works were in the exhibition too, which was good because we could see how the artists were inspired by his work. Bearden created a huge artwork some time ago called “The Block” which has been re-created and re-imagined in this exhibition by artist Hank Willis Thomas. It is a representation of the neighbourhood of Harlem.

The gallery felt very local and had a supportive feel about it.

I thought the piece “Android/Negroid” by Wayne Hodge was really interesting. It was an image of a face with the only decipherable feature a smiling mouth full of teeth. It reminded me a lot of the artwork at the Sculpture Centre. The representation of black people in art was also evident throughout other art pieces here. Such as Robert Pratt’s “Pretty for a Black Girl”.

Wangechi Muto’s “Magnificent Monkey-Ass Lies” was a really interesting piece. The label read:

Wangechi Muto’s visual practice is a patient alchemy, transforming belittling representations of black women from across the disapora into images of glamorous glittering brown belles. Fashioning subjecthood out of a strategic repetition of found stereotypes, she gives us characteristically watercoloured and indeed renderings of an imagined world.

In “Magnificent Monkey-Ass Lies”, we see her deft meditation on the persistent falsehoods propagated since the origins of “racial science”. (Sarah Lewis 2011)

The other art work that really interested me, especially because of it’s cross-culture references, was Barkley L. Hendrick’s “Lawdy Mama” (1969). It’s label read:

In their collaborative song from the 1960’s, “Blues for Mama” singers Nina Simone and Abbey Lincoln ask the question again and again: “Hey lordy mama, what you gonna do now?” This song interrogates a figure of the African-American imagination who is compelled to act in the face of oppression. Barkley L. Hendrik’s painting of a few years later depicts a similar figure, a gorgeous vision in gold, black and brown.

Framed by religious iconography, she appears in the place usually occupied by the Virgin Mary, and is replete with a resplendent Afro-halo.

While Mary’s potency is traditionally engendered by God the father and the baby Jesus, this Mama doesn’t need a man or a baby. Rather than a superior infant, our lady of the blackness holds her own arm, posing, balancing and securing herself for the saintly task of standing up for put down women.

                                                                                                                                                      Malik Gaines 2011

I spoke briefly with Mark about the difference between African art, American art and Afro-American art. The different histories, cultures and contexts have informed what art they create and re-create. I really enjoyed my visit to Harlem and think I might come back next week for a little wander.

We then headed south and east to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. We met an artist named Loren Munk, he has been living here for the last 30 (?) years and certainly has a great deal of knowledge about the New York art scene, Brooklyn in particular. I will go through and list my thoughts and experiences of the galleries we visited:

Peroigi:

·        The coolest thing about this gallery is that they keep a flatfile of over 700 artists work that anyone can go through to get a sample. It’s a fantastic idea and one that should be ulitised by more galleries.

·        Here we spoke about the capital of relationships and how important it is to be a part of the network of artists (later I discovered that his is actually the subject of Munk’s work).

·        Brooklyn isn’t as “money” as Manhattan and so many of the galleries and artists here are DIY. They are responsible for getting their art seen and heard.

§  Talbolt:

·        Gothic realism works

·        All still life works

·        30’s style of commercial culture

Williamsburg became “cool” because of artists, but now the artists can’t afford to live here! I find the neighbourhood of Williamsburg very ‘art’ and the people are very individual and full of character. From their hair to their clothes, they are expressive. It’s a fun and upbeat place to be.

Figureworks:

·        12 years old.

·        Was once used as a studio, now he uses it all as a gallery and teaching space.

·        Currently a female artist is exhibiting her work, a lot of glass work.

·        As the name suggests, the shows are usually concerned with figures.

·        I liked the small room off the main room.

·        He shows a lot of historical art.

·        I was surprised at the price of the small Balinese art ($150).

Munk mentioned that Bushwick has a similar feel to what Williamsburg used to have. Bushwick has a lot of “up-start” galleries. A real grass-roots feel. The network is ever-expanding.

The Journal Gallery:

·        An intern named Sarah spoke to us about the gallery space and how it co-exists with the magazine publication The Journal.

·        The artworks here were spray paint underneath with watercolours on top.

·        Apparently the curator likes to show a lot of challenging works that are abstract, contemporary and/pr conceptual.

Sideshow Gallery:

·        This gallery has the largest open-call for artists in New York. He has had over 400 artists exhibit at one time.

·        The gallery is 11 years old.

·        I like the current exhibition by Tom Evans. It is colourful and thought-provoking. I have said before that I like simple, clean works, but this is colourful and I feel it works. Perhaps because he hasn’t tried to put any blacks or browns through it. The colours are clear and deep.

Parker’s Box:

·        12 years old (you can begin to see a correlation in ages of the galleries!)

·        The current exhibition is by Caroline McCarthy. She has an interest in how we perceive everyday objects and has placed connecting straws from the door, all the way around the ceiling of the art space.

·        The straws act as both the subject and the frame of the art.

·        They mentioned that she is a part of the neo-minimalist movement, I don’t know enough about it to know what that means or if she is.

·        The room at the back has a video playing and a gold vase. McCarthy put a camera inside the vase and kicked it around the studio. The vase, from IKEA, has become more valuable because it has become art. Even though it is scratched and not as well looked after as the other vases you could get from IKEA, the artist has put a value on it.

·        This artist is conceptual as she is so much about the process of the art making and w2hat makes art.

While walking the streets, Munk kept making comments about how shameful it is that new buildings are going up in the Brooklyn neighbourhoods where art studios used to be, etc. I find that he is anti-development, but pro-progress. He wants art to be evolving and organic and to be moving forward, but he doesn’t want the neighbourhood to do that.  It’s a catch 22.

We then travelled further east to Bushwick, getting off at Morgan Avenue. Straight across the road was 56 Bogart St, a new development that art studios have been moving into the ground level of.

We managed to get inside ‘Nurture Art’. It was their first ever show, and as I listened, the people behind the desk were talking about their audience. Who their audience currently is, who it could be, and how they will reach them. A very important discussion for this up and coming area.

The exhibition was called “Re-telling Stories”. The art itself was not to my taste, but I found what they were doing interesting. It is the beginning on a community.

Munk discussed the pro’s and con’s of Bushwick being more spread out than Williamsburg as we walked from closed gallery to closed gallery. Unfortunately, most of the artists seem to be in Miami at an art festival there.

We then headed to a bar called The Narrows. It was a dark and cool place to get a drink. I chatted with Loren Munk for some time about lots of different things, including his art and the evolution of the arts in New York. His art is about what he calls the ‘tribe’ of artists. That if we are an artist then we can be a part of this tribe; it is a choice to be a part of it.

People started heading off and I was sad that the tour was at an end. I have gained so much from being here and with these people that I just want to stay! Tess, Emily, Megan and I headed back to Williamsburg and ended up at a fabulous Mexican place. We had a lovely dinner (with some frozen Margarita’s) before Megan and I went back over to Manhattan and the hostel; a good end to a fabulous trip.

I’ve got loads of ideas for my review. I think I will write it on my plane trip from Boston to London. Here are some of my ideas:

·        PS1: MoMA; I loved this place and how it created so many different moods and reactions to its artworks.

·        PS1 before and after visiting the 9/11 Memorial. A comparison and how the art works work in context and life experience.

·        My learning of art.

·        Perhaps one of the musicals or shows I have been to. Perhaps a mix of them and how they work to create the contemporary New York.

·        A review of NY suburbs and how the galleries in them are representative of their locality.

·        New York: An Artists Inspiration. Looking at how NY is made for and by artists.

·        A review of the Chelsea Galleries and the Chelsea Precinct.

·        Development vs. Progress : Williamsburg to Bushwick.

·        Loren Munk’s art and it’s continued evolution.

Anyhow, a lot to think about. I think when I get away from the city I will have better luck in reflecting more objectively.

As this is the last day of the tour, this is my last official journal entry. However, I will probably keep writing and upload when I’m able. I don’t think my internet access will be as good when I leave the hostel as I will be travelling so much.

Thank you and good night.

Thursday 1st December 2011

This morning I got up and went down to the 9/11 Memorial. I was really interested in seeing it after the MoMA PS1 exhibition. I think if I were to go back to PS1 I would have a different experience now because I have had a different life experience. I felt very sad for the city. I also felt sad for all the victims in other countries hurt by American forces. I wonder if they have a memorial site...

To get there I was on the E train which has its destination as ‘World Trade Centre’, and I have to wonder at how this reminder affects the people that catch this train every day. A lot of them would have been down in the area that day, I would imagine. When down in this area of Manhattan I get more of a sense of loss and emptiness, and I don’t think it’s just Wall St. The new trade centre is going up and I sat to watch it being built. There were hundreds (probably more) workmen in the area, eating, laughing, working. I wonder what it is like for them working on it.

There are banners around the construction site that intimate that there are people working on it from all corners of the globe. It did affect the entire world and it’s good that they are now able to do something with the space, but my more cynical side thinks that it is arrogant of the Americans to assume that we side with them. I don’t side at all. Perhaps I’m being too harsh and reading too much into it. It could just mean that New York is so multi-cultural that the workers are just representative of the city and its people.

After the World Trade Centre, I walked around the financial district for a while, to gauge the feeling of this part of town, as I have done with all the other neighbourhoods I have been in. It is very grey and bleak. If you aren’t in a suit, you are a worker on a construction site. There are barely any tourists. The streets are smallish and cobbled. People are just going about their business. There isn’t much character here. I caught the train north from the Wall St station.

On the train, it occurred to me that Americans seem to take up more space. That is, they have wide stances with feet spread and wear big and/or baggy clothing. They ‘own’ the space around them. Unlike European countries where people try to take up as little space as possible. Europeans drive scooters, but even New York people drive big cars. It doesn’t make sense.

I got off the 6 train at 59^th St and began my journey north to East 75^th St (the Upper East Side). I went into (and out of very quickly, their prices are crazy) Bloomingdales, Barneys and other stores on the street. Most I just passed, knowing how depressed I would be if I went inside! I walked along Madison and 5^th Avenues mostly. It seems to me that there is a lot of traffic up here. I think it’s because the super rich, who live here, don’t catch the bus or subway, but are driven either by private car or cab. The parking stations here are always brimming with cars and their chauffers, there doesn’t seem like a lot of room either. The space seems very tight.

I saw Sotheby’s auction house, I can only imagine the art works and antiques they have in there. You even have to walk uphill until you get to 71^st St. It’s like the neighbourhood is reminding you of how elusive it is! Trying to keep you out! The streets are very clean and manicured much like its people. I also think the reason that the resident’s don’t walk their own dogs is because they don’t want to be seen with a dog going to the toilet. They can’t be seen using a pooper-scooper. They have images to protect.

Once at The Whitney we went straight to Sherrie Levine’s exhibition titled “Mayhem”. We discussed this postmodern artist and what her work aims to do. Mark’s tute was great; I wouldn’t have understood the work, or its point, if he hadn’t explained it. Levine would appropriate another person’s (a male’s) artwork and turn it into her own. She did this with the first set of photographs that hung on the wall in front of the elevators. She took photographs taken by Walter Evans, and then duplicated them. She is effectively saying that the art by Walter Evans was not original, so there is no problem with her copying it. They already belong to the library of images. The girl or boy in the photograph is the original, not the photo of it. The photo is just a copy.

Levine doesn’t believe there is anything new and so art, any art, isn’t original, because the artist got the stimulation for the artwork from somewhere. Meaning it was not original. By playing with copies, she questions whether the original or the duplication of it is better. Is the original better? Furthermore, if you were to continue to copy a copy, etc, the image would, over time, alter. In the end, the original and final copy would look different. But which one would be better? I think these are all interesting ideas and it had me thinking a lot about art and its credibility; much like that of the conceptual artists. She represents the representation.

Levine is also a feminist, so her art is a lot about pointing out the lie of the ‘male genius’ in art. She takes the male artist’s work and recreates them, so if she can do it, the male artist isn’t “great”. The work is very political in this sense. She also makes a comment on how all culture is arbitrary; it’s not about truth, but about how we will get through.

I liked the exhibition “Real Surreal” the most. I think this has mostly to do with the fact that I understand it better as I teach it in Drama. I like the darkness in it and the extension of reality. There is something so sinister about the artwork’s that gets my head thinking. I find them creatively stimulating and a good pretext for drama.

I wrote a lot of notes about the different shows, of what I did and didn’t like. One note that keeps coming up is the different experience I had between The Whitney and the New Museum. Yesterday’s gallery was all about touching and experiencing; interacting with the art. Today, at The Whitney, we kept getting warned to stand far away from the art. It really ruined my experience of it. Not that I stand close, but the feeling that I couldn’t just stand (even two meters away) and enjoy the art because one of the attendants would think I was about to run up to it and lick it or something! Perhaps because I am a Drama person, I prefer the exhibitions where I can touch and fully experience the art.

I went back to the hostel after The Whitney and went and got Chinese food for dinner with Mandy. It was nice to finally talk with her properly about her studies and what she plans to do. We had a really nice meal (too much food as usual), and it was nice to have the room to only us, it’s usually so full when I’m here. I have been able to write without too many interruptions or answering any questions. It’s been a peaceful night, which is different for my nights in New York!

Tomorrow we are going to go have breakfast together before we meet Mark at the hostel. Then we have our final day on tour, which is really sad. I don’t want to leave. I am seriously looking into jobs and internships here. Our tickets for Chicago have been cancelled. But that means we can hang out with the whole group for longer. I can go see it next week anyway when the others have left.

Wednesday 30th November 2011

After my frustrating day yesterday, today I was determined to get out of the room. I got up and went straight to The Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was beautiful. It was also overwhelming and I found it hard at times to concentrate on what I was looking at. I felt like there was so much to see and do that I became more desensitised than if I had gone to a bunch of galleries with the same work. It was a sensory overload!

The architecture of the building is amazing, majestic and intoxicating. I really enjoyed walking through the rooms and being able to view the art and the space it was stored in. I went to the following areas in this order: Ancient Egypt, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, European Painting/Sculpture, Modern Art and then photography and drawing.

Thoughts and evaluations:

·        The Egyptian art was earthy and had me thinking back to my high school Ancient History classes. I was glad to remember most of the stories about the different rulers and time periods. There is something very distancing about ancient artefacts, I find it hard to connect that these people once existed in our world. It’s incredible what has been recovered, such as the linen and cloths. It also makes me wonder how long it will be before some future generation has our bowls and plates and coffins sitting in a museum, labelled art. In that sense, it also makes me think about the discussion we had about conceptual art the other day at Beacon. Not that a bowl is conceptual art, but rather it has the same thought that something mundane (such as a bowl) could be labelled art. Ikea in a museum of art...there’s an idea!

·        I found the Asian art graceful and precise. I think the relics of these ancient civilisations are indicative of their personalities. The Japanese tea ceremonies I have seen are so particular and precise, so it only makes sense that the same art and craftsmanship go into how items, such as cups and vases, are made.

·        The European paintings had a lot of religious figures and symbols. Perhaps I am just noticing it more now because I am really looking at the paintings, but I didn’t think The Louvre had as much religious “stuff” in it in such a concentrated way.

·        The European paintings also included a lot of mythology which I am quite familiar with. There was a painting of Venus and Cupid. The description said that the Venus figure was representative of a bride and the painting was probably for a wedding in Italy. There were symbols throughout for love, etc, but the most odd (for me) was the one for fertility...Cupid was peeing on Venus. This is originally why I read the description, because I didn’t understand why someone would paint that in such detail and...beauty? The symbolism is clear now, but I still think there could be a better way to show it!

·        When I got to the Modern Art exhibition, I was proud to discover that I could name a lot of the artists just by looking at the art, before reading the name! I must be learning something!!!

·        One thing I didn’t see of Picasso’s (because there is an extensive collection here) was Guernica. I don’t know if that’s because I missed it or because it isn’t at The Met. I teach that painting at school for the Year 12 Drama Absurdism unit and would have liked to have seen it.

·        I find I prefer the Picasso drawings more than his paintings. I assume this is because it is from a different period in his life. I also think it’s because it’s charcoal on paper and I like black and white.

·        I learned a lot about different styles and periods of art history today. I’m feeling far more knowledgeable then when I came.

·        I went through a lot of different moods and mindsets in The Met, due to its size and all that it holds.

I then walked down 5^th Avenue and Madison Avenue, crisscrossing all the way down to 75^th St before getting on a bus. The Upper East Side exudes “class” and I get the feeling that everybody is judging everybody else. It is definitely not a comfortable atmosphere or laid back. There was a film set on 5^th Avenue as I passed and trailers on surrounding streets for cast and crew. It was too cold to hang around and see what it was for. I had to pinch myself to remember I was in New York. Having been here for almost two weeks now, it becomes so natural so quickly, and then you walk past a film set and remember where you are and that countless films, tv shows and other art forms have and continue to be made here. It’s crazy.

When I caught the bus, it went to the West Side, through Central Park. I didn’t know where it was going to go and really enjoy the adventures I’ve been going on without planning. When I got off on the other side of the park, the first thing I noticed was the difference in mood from where I had just been. It was more relaxed and casual. There were more tourists taking photos and families walking. It was nice. I felt more comfortable then on the UES, where it feels like a spotlight is always on you, ready for you to look silly...or poor. I wandered down to the south end of the park and Columbus Circle. There were some markets I wandered through before catching a train to Penn Station (34^th St). I was looking for food and a book...having left mine in Beacon on Monday L

Straight up from the subway stop was a tourist shop and I quickly found a blaringly touristy book and pen. I then went next door into McDonald’s (I know) to write. I had a drink and fries. My stomach wasn’t up to anything else and potato is comfort food to me J

I sat wrote down some notes about The Met so I hopefully wouldn’t forget too much more...I had already forgotten most of what I thought. I then got back on the train and went to 42^nd to get the R train to Prince St. When I got to Prince St I walked east until I found the New Museum. I took a few photos of the very recognizable building and then went for a walk as I was early. I went around the block, and on the opposite side to the museum were a few galleries that I checked out. One was called Day Blink and was film and digital photography. It was interesting and trendy. The one next to it was called Hendershot Gallery. This part of Manhattan feels far more urban and punk. There were basketball courts and soccer nets across the road from where I sat, with kids playing. The atmosphere was very different, again, from the UWS. I love that about this island. Every neighbourhood is totally different to the one next to it. There is such vitality here.

I went back to the museum entrance and waited for others to arrive. My knee was starting to hurt, pretty much the first time this whole trip, so I was okay with that. I managed to get some tap water from the cafe to take my pain medication. I had really been looking forward to this exhibition as it seemed interactive and pushed the boundaries.

Thoughts and notes:

·        The artist, Carsten Höller, apparently got a PHD in science before turning to art. Carsten is said to be interested in the role of the artist and uses his audiences as lab rats. The psychological reactions to his work are important.

·        This is evident in the first room we went into on the 2^nd floor. The large space was filled with flashing fluoro lights around the walls that went off in a sequence and surely would have caused an epileptic fit for someone who was so inclined. It did make a lot of people uncomfortable. This was the point of course. It also made it difficult to hold a tute, but I still gained valuable information about the artist that I wouldn’t otherwise have.

·        Höller acts as researcher and his work isn’t complete without an audience. There would be no reaction, and therefore no art, without us.

·        Mark made the point of, as you walk away there are still images imprinted behind your eyes and in your head form the lights, this is the art; which will be different in everyone. Mark calls them “after images”.

·        Höller’s art tries to break with the notion of the art as an object and, instead, make it experiential. The viewer is seen as a participant.

·        The fish piece was interesting. It placed the fish above our heads as we lay down, to look up at them.

·        It is about the work and the reaction to the work.

·        When we discussed why there were baby animals on the ground (made from foam and vinyl), Mark suggested a political reading. That Höller is democratic and centre left. That he is suggesting the need to protect the animals, suggested here in a state of vulnerability, perhaps why the crocodile was included with it. The fish may also link into this idea. By placing the fish above our heads, they are seen as higher status and we should take care of something so special. I did wonder if that environment was healthy for the fish though, I thought they required a stabilised environment and controlled light...not flashing lights.

·        Following on from this, Höller’s are is the democratisation of art. It removes the elitism of art and high culture, it doesn’t matter who you are, you can still experience art the same way as anyone else. It also explores art as entertainment. The slide and swing, for example. The flip side to this would be the art becoming an art fair or carnival.

·        Mark also suggested that the first floor we were on was about anti-critical, anti-analytical thinking.

·        The girls in my room later commented that they didn’t like the exhibition because it gave them a headache and the whole thing was awful. I offered the opinion that it was only the flashing lights that gave them the headache and it permeated everything. Without the lights, they might have enjoyed the exhibition. Perhaps this is a comment on ridding ourselves of things that hold us back? Moving forward, into the future? He does seem to be about future invention. As with the slide.

·        Höller’s work is about disruption and he calls his work “confusion machines”. It is incredibly avant garde and is designed to shock and confuse.

·        Still on the 2^nd floor was a series of small rooms with little “machines”. The first was of two tv screens with different images playing, the second I sat down with my elbow on the table and had to hold my nose with the fingers of that hand, while with my other hand, I had to press a vibrating machine against my arm. Apparently it was meant to make me think my nose was getting longer and shorter (when I had my eyes closed). It didn’t do anything.

·        The third room held a vile with a liquid...said to be a love potion. I couldn’t smell anything.

·        The last room had the participant sitting in a chair with their arm on a bench that when you pressed a button, little things would come up and hit your arm from under the bench. Apparently that didn’t do anything either.

·        It seems to me that they all have something to do with us believing in them, and the tension we feel before partaking in them. The slide too, has us worried before I do it. I believe that Höller is trying to get a reaction out of audiences before they even attempt any of his works, that that is the real art. The object itself is then anti-climactic and useless.

·        The 3^rd floor had a video room that showed three screens, all of the audiences. There were different time delays on the cameras. Again, the audience is relied on to see, touch, smell, etc. To become the art. The art would not exist without the audience.

·        I didn’t go in the tank of water as it would have taken too long to get dressed, etc, and I have been sick, so didn’t really want to go lie in warm water.

·        The chair swing was also anti-climactic. People must associate them with going fast and soaring, but this one goes slower than walking. The illusion of fun is there in the gold and mirrored reflections of light, but none of the actual feeling. I think Höller plays with our emotions and sense memory a lot in this exhibition.

·        On the 4^th floor, where the slide started, there was a cue of people in helmets. People were doing this again and again.

·        I was in line, ready to go, but I think the lights and the heat of the building got to me. I also hadn’t eaten much, so I was feeling a bit sick. I took the elevator down. I would have loved to have gone down the slide, but didn’t want to risk my stomach.

·        Overall, the experience was just that, an experience. I can look at it objectively and weigh up what I learned. I did learn something about the artist, and I am better for it. I didn’t necessarily love the exhibition, but I liked that he is different and trying art his way. I think it’s important that people are doing that. I’m interested to see what he comes up with next.

I left with Mandy, Cassie, Megan and Emma. We went to find the Marc Jacobs store on Bleeker St. We got a bit lost following Mandy, the only one who had been there before, but I like getting lost. We eventually found the store, which was directly opposite The Magnolia Bakery. The bakery from Sex and the City. Cassie was very excited and ate a red velvet cupcake. I just got a hot chocolate.

I bought a $3 ring from Marc Jacobs...crazy! The other girls spent more money; I think they were buying presents for people. We left and headed for the subway station. They all went back to the hostel room, but I went to Century 21 on Cortlandt St. I found new leather and cashmere gloves and a Calvin Klein dress. Very happy J

I then met Lochlan and some of the others on the train back to the hostel. I went to get a slice of eggplant pizza for dinner and then came back to the room. By that time it was nearly 9 o’clock. I managed to catch the Rockefeller tree lighting on the big screen tv downstairs with Ash and Lizzie.

I have spent the rest of the night writing this journal entry.

I think I will go down to the 9/11 Memorial tomorrow morning and see what else I can get up to before meeting everyone at The Whitney museum on the East Side.

Night!

Tuesday 29th November 2011

Last night, after going back to the hostel from Beacon, some of us went to find McGee’s. It is the bar that McLaren’s from How I Met Your Mother is based on. It is on our train line. Everything is so close here! The four of us had dinner, very delicious, from their HIMYM Menu. We then went to Karaoke across the road at Natalie’s insistence. They were private booths and it was fun, but I was pretty tired. We went home at 11. I went to sleep and woke up at 1am feeling really sick. I didn’t quite make it to the bathrooms before I was sick. I continued to be violently ill for the next hour. It was pretty scary. It seems whenever I get sick it’s pretty bad. The last time was in the UK and it lasted 7 hours, the time before that was Thailand for 3 days. So, I’m thankful it didn’t last long! I had to get in the shower to clean off, and was lucky that a cleaner was around to get me a towel. Not that he asked how I was, or if I was okay. It’s kind of odd that a male would clean a female bathroom. Even while I was in there, there must have been about 5 other females come in and out.

Anyhow, went back to bed and kind of slept. I woke up this morning feeling better, but very tired and with a tender stomach. Not surprising. I went and washed my hair properly and was getting ready to go with the rest of the group to meet Mark, but my hands wouldn’t stop shaking and I was really light headed, so I decided it was best I stay home.

I’m so annoyed and frustrated! I didn’t want to miss anything. This morning an artist was going to talk to us about her work and life in New York and America. I feel like I would have learned a lot! Grrr! But, I’d rather get better so I can go again tomorrow then be sick for the rest of the trip because I pushed too hard. I think I will go to The Met in the morning tomorrow before meeting up with the group tomorrow afternoon for a guided tour.

I’m just glad that I have been so busy in the past and seen a lot of shows outside of the tour so I can justify not going out today. I feel really guilty, which is stupid. I’m just over-tired and frustrated at not being able to fully enjoy every day that I have here. Well, will have to make up for it tomorrow!

Maybe I will go see a movie tonight if I’m feeling up to it. That’s my area of study and I wouldn’t have to walk far. See how my stomach feels later after I have some ginger ale. It seems to be helping. At least the sugar is helping, I don’t feel as dizzy.

Well, this is my depressing journal entry for today.

Monday 28th November 2011

This morning we all got up (except for Mandy) at 7am to get ready. Ash and I headed off first and got breakfast. I had a bagel again today. Can’t get enough bagel J

We then got to Grand Central Station with plenty of time to spare. It was a busy time of the morning and so the trains were busy. I love watching people on the trains, as I have mentioned numerous times before. They are interesting and provide endless amusement. I have heard some pretty bad stories from some of the others about their experiences with “weirdos” on the trains, but I haven’t had a bad one. I have had a lot of conversations with people though. About where they are from, what we are doing in New York, where we are all going and doing that day. I met a nice guy from San Francisco who was here for a holiday and was trying to find the 72^nd Street Station. Luckily the number 3 express that we were on stops there, I don’t think he knew what train he was on! I told him that my brother lives in SanFran and we discussed what it’s like. I would love to go there.

At Grand Central we found a few people already there and waited for everyone else to arrive. We had a bit of a problem with the tickets but eventually sorted it out. We then had a bit of a wander before needing to get on the train on Platform 21. Mark, Ash, Natalie and I went for a walk a bit of a ways. Ash showed Mark her newly acquired tattoo and we all had a bit of a chat about Uni Qlo...which I always think is UNI QLD when I see their posters! The train was very comfortable and the views of the Hudson River were amazing! The cliffs were gorgeous; I didn’t know it would be like that. I also liked seeing the towns and cities we passed through, like Yonkers.

Okay, so we just got on the return train to New York and I realised that I have left my notebook at DIA: Beacon...sigh. Pretty upset considering all my thoughts are in it... I also wrote 12 pages of notes today, so this will have to be purely from memory and I will have to do my best to remember everything and the artists names!

Dan Favin:

·        I found his work interesting in its approach, but not aesthetically pleasing. It was a good use of space and I asked if it is site specific, which Mark thinks it is.

·        The use of light and how it interacts with the art work is thoughtful. The second work of his that we looked at which had the red light and was like a frame to the space could also be looked at with the artwork next to it (going towards the door series). When you looked back at them together it was like a whole frame and was symmetrical except for the colour.

The rock:

·        I really enjoyed this piece. It was of a huge size and looked as though it was nested in a coffin in the wall. I associate this with the relationship between nature and the man-made world.

·        I like that the artist says to talk about the work in terms of its size and not the scale of it. I believe this is because the size can’t change but the scale can. Indeed, you would first have to choose a scale. The rock could be large or small depending on this scale. With size, it remains equal.

We then moved onto a conceptualist art piece that had writing on the walls and then diagrams of what the writing said:

·        I asked a lot of questions in this art piece. Although it was not visually interesting or attractive, I wanted to know the history behind the work and how the idea of conceptual art was formed.

·        Mark commented that the artists of this style would not look at the Mona Lisa and say it’s not art, but that they would question what makes it art. As though, saying it is art, makes it so. I have a lot of interest in this area. Not just with visual art, but with performative art and theatre and dance and film. Who gives it artistic value? The artist? The audience? The relationship of art is continually evolving and I think the idea of conceptual art gets us as an audience to question our relationship with art. That’s how I see it anyway.

Thread in space:

·        I had seen this work from the previous room and thought it was pieces of glass leaning against the wall. I thought the black threads coming from the roof were actually strong cords or cables. When I discovered that it was in fact only thread, my whole perception of the work and the space changed. I was suddenly more consciousness of my body in the space and careful not to touch it.

·        The angles that were used were really interesting and highlighted the architecture really well. It brought out the strong liens of the building itself and it was obvious that specific choices had been made here.

Holes in ground:

·        There were large holes in the ground in shapes (square/circle/etc) which we as viewers could not look into, except for the one on the end. It made one of the other people in our group frustrated and I feel like this is a part of the whole point and experience of the work. It was so large and I wonder how it practically works. It must be a permanent art work.

Broken glass and sand:

·        I found this art really interesting. My first impression was of the precariousness of the mirror suspended in the sand. When you walk around to the mirrored side, it reflects the roof above, which happens to be of a corner where the roof rises with a glass window. This must be deliberate. Once again, the art is supported by the architecture and the architecture by the art.

·        I have found that spaces such as this and PS1 have added to the artwork, and take the pieces away, they would still be beautiful. We are so lucky to have such inspiring spaces.

·        I found the juxtaposition between the hardness and fragility of the mirror and the looseness and ever-changing state of the sand it was held in really interesting. It depicts the decay and evolution of the materials which I find fascinating.

Artist at the end of the building in the dark:

·        I didn’t really like the artists work, but found it interesting that while is work seemed so half hazard and strewn across the space, it was actually very particular and thought through. The piece at the end where there was a cordoned off space with what appeared to be a body under a blanket, had a light projected on it in such a particular way that my perception of the artist and his work changed.

Robert Ryman:

·         I liked some of Ryman’s work. The work I responded well to were the more monochrome or simple works. I have mentioned before that I find the simple and clean works more to my taste, and it’s the same in this case. Although, I prefer his blacks/whites/greys/browns and not the yellows or pinks.

·        He also seemed concerned at times with how work was hung or suspended. There were actual pieces of, what looked like, sticky tape on some of the pieces. I find this an interesting idea. Like he is pointing out the practicalities of an art exhibition.

Downstairs Video:

·        The video installations were not very interesting to me. The only one that I was engaged in was the room that had green tinted videos that looked like surveillance cameras and stools/chairs that were in the centre facing out in a disorganised circle. It was creepy, sinister, and unsavoury. There was a “big brotherness” to it that was disconcerting. It was effective in creating a physical feeling, but I don’t know if the artist intended that particular reading of it.

Richard Serra:

·        I found that the pieces demonstrated sound and light really well. You could hear people talking, but it sounded like the opposite direction from where they finally emerged. The first of, what I think of as a snails shell, was quite insular and close. Some people felt uncomfortable. There was a definite spatial, aural and personal sense to the whole room.

·        The second tube didn’t involve us walking through anything or around anything to get into it and I immediately felt disappointed. I realise now that if this piece had not been included then I would not have known how much I liked the ‘journey’ of having to go round in circles! I felt the playfulness and teasing nature of the work.

·        The last piece is the one that really played with sound and light. I felt that the work responded to us in it more than we responded to it. Yes, we had to walk round and round to get in or out, but the artists work was actually projecting sound and light from us being there that it would have been so static had empty had we not been there. We gave it life and it existed as a living entity for the time we were there. It would have otherwise have been dead space.

·        Mark mentioned that the sheer size of the pieces has a little to do with the artist’s ego, but also that he likes to take risks and challenge his audience to do so too. For some people this was probably the case. I don’t know if it’s because I come from a theatre background, but interacting with the art only made it more enjoyable for me.

Interactive Art:

·        There was a carpeted space in the middle of the room that you could use. You could take the art pieces from around the room and interact with them in the space. I didn’t realise this at first, but soon figured it out as I watched to women play with one of the pieces. It’s an interesting idea and incredibly performative.

Room with chairs for “Discussion”:

·        This is one of my personal favourites. I found it more of a theatre piece than an art piece, but I am learning more and more of what art is and that the line between my field and this field is very narrow – if it exists at all.

·        The empty chairs seemed to be full and the energy felt charged, to me at least. It was a nice space, if small, that engaged me.

DIA: Beacon; last thoughts:

·        The train ride there and back really is a part of the experience and I feel both started and ended the experience.

·        The space was incredible. The architecture and building was astounding. The views from the windows and the light from the windows really opened the space. I think it works as a gallery because of where and what it is.

·        The change from New York was really nice. Being out of the city I am suddenly aware of the noise and chaos of the city. Not that I mind! But sitting on the jetty or watching the sun set was very peaceful and was a good end to the day.

Well, without my book of notes, I have still managed to write 4 pages! Go me! I have probably forgotten some really important points and art works...and certainly artist’s names!

I will upload this onto my blog when I get home. I may add some more yet, because we are planning to go to McGee’s tonight. It’s the bar the McLaren’s from How I Met Your Mother is based on.