I'll admit, when listening to Richard Nicholson's lecture I found myself so wrapped up in his powerpoint presentation that I ended up thinking more about the formal qualities of presenting and of the images he chose than I did about his words. I loved the pauses. It was so dramatic. They were moments of reflection. Usually when speakers have text on the screen they read from it, talk over it, or some combination of the two. Not Nicholson. In an act reminiscent of a movie or documentary, when a quote or phrase came on the screen he let there be silence so the audience could read and even have a short moment to reflect. It was a very beautiful and effective strategy, though in the case of audience members like me, it may have been detrimentally so. It kept me in a perpetual state of spaciness.
I did think it was a wonderful technique that many people, despite how simple it is, do not employ. It was worth discussing for that reason alone. His excerpts from books like The Things They Carried (a book which really leaves you stirred and feeling almost empty inside) were very powerful as well.
His whole presentation I felt really contributed to his theme of the war story. His statements, his selected excerpts, and his rather slow, documentary-style presentation all reflected a desire to tell of war as it is. It is important to put forth images of war which portray the disgusting, disorienting, and displacing experience it is for those directly involved. It is not something to be glorified and moralized, yet it is something which should be documented and remembered.
There are many ways of doing this, as Nicholson demonstrated. The works that struck me the most from Nicholson's talk were the textile casts of people's backs, the toy soldier series, and the calligraphy. The textile casts were very cold, disturbing, and isolating. They represent the massiveness and waste of war by presenting us with a group of backs to which we cannot associate faces and individuals.
The toy soldier series is quite different in tone. It is a much more satiric take on the issue of war. It stirs up our memories of being children playing with toy soldiers and says "that's what war is." It is "just a game" and soldiers are just "moved around." Soldiers are not individuals, they are manipulated by others.
The calligraphy work was also very interesting. While it is abstract and created in a very haphazard manner, it is also rather figurative. The viewer can easily blend the blotches and strings of ink together into a scene of battle. There is a sense of tension and pushing and pulling inherent in the work.
I think over all, the most important thing I took away from Nicholson's talk is that a presentation can and should reinforce the topic on which you are presenting. Content is not the only information you gather from a presentation. Tone of voice, pace of speech, layout of the powerpoint, and other such factors also contribute to the message you express to your audience. Nicholson did a wonderful job utilizing all of these elements.
It was great to finally see some of Nicholson's work, and get a glimpse of his early life. I am always very interested in how people's past experiences seem to influence their art. Knowing now that he was born in DC, his father worked for the government, and one of his first memories was of watching the inaugural parade really sheds some light on his work (at least for me). In my opinion, his upbringing in the nation's capital really shows through in his work, as he is very much concerned with expressing the truth of war and how architectural structures define a place.
This said, I am very glad Sue raised the question about the figure because that is the only reason I really understand his fascination with architecture. Selfishly, I was glad to hear that his reasoning for not using figures was not because he overtly rejects them, but rather because he wanted to do something he felt wasn't already being done extensively. Because I can't stand drawing straight lines, I tend not to give architecture much thought. Therefore, I found rather interesting Nicholson's point that architecture and specific structures can really take us to a particular place, and even time, more quickly than a figure can. While that is not always true, of course, it was certainly a valid point I had never considered before.
His mention of abstraction as an attempt to get at the essence of something was important for me as well. I have found that I am using the word essence quite a bit in discussion of my work, but I certainly do not consider my work abstract. I will have to figure out exactly what I mean by the word essence and make this clear to my audience, since obviously the term is rather vague.
Perhaps the most important topic he discussed, however, is scale. When he began to talk about his purposeful use of a rather small scale, I was reminded of a similar value I used to possess but had lost sight of. I always refused to work large. While it was partially because working large was inconvenient, it was also because I did not want to fall into that mindset of big-equals-good. I like small art. I think small art can be just as powerful as large art. I don't like that big art gets an easy response, and I really don't like to think that people like my work primarily because of its scale. I started making my work larger in response to my audience and, I will admit, I like it. The large scale is fitting for the work and has a purpose other than just being large, but I completely agree with Nicholson that art can be monumental and small.
I'll admit, when listening to Richard Nicholson's lecture I found myself so wrapped up in his powerpoint presentation that I ended up thinking more about the formal qualities of presenting and of the images he chose than I did about his words. I loved the pauses. It was so dramatic. They were moments of reflection. Usually when speakers have text on the screen they read from it, talk over it, or some combination of the two. Not Nicholson. In an act reminiscent of a movie or documentary, when a quote or phrase came on the screen he let there be silence so the audience could read and even have a short moment to reflect. It was a very beautiful and effective strategy, though in the case of audience members like me, it may have been detrimentally so. It kept me in a perpetual state of spaciness.
ReplyDeleteI did think it was a wonderful technique that many people, despite how simple it is, do not employ. It was worth discussing for that reason alone. His excerpts from books like The Things They Carried (a book which really leaves you stirred and feeling almost empty inside) were very powerful as well.
His whole presentation I felt really contributed to his theme of the war story. His statements, his selected excerpts, and his rather slow, documentary-style presentation all reflected a desire to tell of war as it is. It is important to put forth images of war which portray the disgusting, disorienting, and displacing experience it is for those directly involved. It is not something to be glorified and moralized, yet it is something which should be documented and remembered.
There are many ways of doing this, as Nicholson demonstrated. The works that struck me the most from Nicholson's talk were the textile casts of people's backs, the toy soldier series, and the calligraphy. The textile casts were very cold, disturbing, and isolating. They represent the massiveness and waste of war by presenting us with a group of backs to which we cannot associate faces and individuals.
The toy soldier series is quite different in tone. It is a much more satiric take on the issue of war. It stirs up our memories of being children playing with toy soldiers and says "that's what war is." It is "just a game" and soldiers are just "moved around." Soldiers are not individuals, they are manipulated by others.
The calligraphy work was also very interesting. While it is abstract and created in a very haphazard manner, it is also rather figurative. The viewer can easily blend the blotches and strings of ink together into a scene of battle. There is a sense of tension and pushing and pulling inherent in the work.
I think over all, the most important thing I took away from Nicholson's talk is that a presentation can and should reinforce the topic on which you are presenting. Content is not the only information you gather from a presentation. Tone of voice, pace of speech, layout of the powerpoint, and other such factors also contribute to the message you express to your audience. Nicholson did a wonderful job utilizing all of these elements.
Nicholson's discussion of his work:
ReplyDeleteIt was great to finally see some of Nicholson's work, and get a glimpse of his early life. I am always very interested in how people's past experiences seem to influence their art. Knowing now that he was born in DC, his father worked for the government, and one of his first memories was of watching the inaugural parade really sheds some light on his work (at least for me). In my opinion, his upbringing in the nation's capital really shows through in his work, as he is very much concerned with expressing the truth of war and how architectural structures define a place.
This said, I am very glad Sue raised the question about the figure because that is the only reason I really understand his fascination with architecture. Selfishly, I was glad to hear that his reasoning for not using figures was not because he overtly rejects them, but rather because he wanted to do something he felt wasn't already being done extensively. Because I can't stand drawing straight lines, I tend not to give architecture much thought. Therefore, I found rather interesting Nicholson's point that architecture and specific structures can really take us to a particular place, and even time, more quickly than a figure can. While that is not always true, of course, it was certainly a valid point I had never considered before.
His mention of abstraction as an attempt to get at the essence of something was important for me as well. I have found that I am using the word essence quite a bit in discussion of my work, but I certainly do not consider my work abstract. I will have to figure out exactly what I mean by the word essence and make this clear to my audience, since obviously the term is rather vague.
Perhaps the most important topic he discussed, however, is scale. When he began to talk about his purposeful use of a rather small scale, I was reminded of a similar value I used to possess but had lost sight of. I always refused to work large. While it was partially because working large was inconvenient, it was also because I did not want to fall into that mindset of big-equals-good. I like small art. I think small art can be just as powerful as large art. I don't like that big art gets an easy response, and I really don't like to think that people like my work primarily because of its scale. I started making my work larger in response to my audience and, I will admit, I like it. The large scale is fitting for the work and has a purpose other than just being large, but I completely agree with Nicholson that art can be monumental and small.