These are a few charts I've been working on since graduation... I'm going to show them near Boston in the spring, possibly organized by time frame?
 |
| Mary Tyler Moore 1970-1977 |
 |
| 90210, 1990-2000 (first 5 seasons, I am currently watching season 9 and it's SO BAD) |
 |
| Ellen, 1994-1998 (all seasons) |
 |
| Friends, 1994-2004 |
 |
| Sex & The City, 1998-2004 |
 |
| Gossip Girl (2007-present, chart unfinished) |
These look great. Can you post a closer detail, or is there some way to zoom that I just can't figure out?
ReplyDeleteWoohoo seminar blogging!
I am excited too.
ReplyDeleteIt would be cool to see a detail of these, because I am unable to see the key. On the other hand, I have been thinking about that for the past day (the fact that I can't read the key of these charts), and that made me thing two things. First. I don't know if it matters. Meaning, when I see what shows you are analyzing I can sort of assume that the gist has to do with tracking relationships over time. Though, I, of course, am familiar with your past work, so I am sure that helps me assume the gist. This lack of readable key made me think that it might be interesting to make the viewer figure out what you are measuring based on their own knowledge of pop culture. Meaning, because I know xyz show, I would be able to figure out the key on my own, though it might take me a more prolonged look. Second thing. Not reading the key, makes me look at the charts and evaluate them aesthetically first, before being at all concerned with their meaning.
I am not sure if I am saying that you should ditch the key. But I liked how not having the key made me work for it a little. And that it heightens the absurdity of the pattern in a sense, because it makes what you are measuring less relevant. And how it became much more about design.
A few other things I was thinking about when I saw these.
ReplyDeleteOne. How much time goes in to them. DAMN! when it hit me, I had a moment similar to when in seminar Luanne explained her process of painting in many, many, many slow drying layers of paint. It is a process that there is no way to speed up, and that you can predict now how many hours it will eventually take. Neat and tidy, yes - short cuts, no. So the process and time impresses me, as most disciplined things do (I don't care what PCM says).
They remind me of subway maps. So there's that.
As a way to integrate them and/or make comparisons between the shows more. . . what about making each show one long horizontal line (with season breaks), and stacking the shows vertically. Maybe there would be some shows that would be a lot longer than others? Maybe some shows would wrap around the room? Not sure. I just think I would more readily compare the trajectory of the shows that way. Not sure if the comparison is important though. I think stretching the shows out horizontally like a time line would force the viewer to move around, walk back and forth, interact with the piece physically, which is something that I really like about the scale of some of the charts in you thesis exhibition. Of course, this could be me totally jumping the gun, because I didn't ask what scale these will be, or how you will display them. . . . have you gotten that far in your thinking? Will they be printed, or projected, or on a screen?
They feel a little too clean to me. I am not sure if this is because I am seeing them on a computer screen - the experience might be totally different in person, on paper, or whatever their final format might be. In you thesis exhibition (sorry to keep comparing this to that - does that feels a little backward or inappropriate?) there were some things that were so clearly handmade that counterbalanced the charts that were so clearly computer generated. I think there is something about the energy of something that is hand drawn that really adds a lot to this work for me. Like the obsessive nature of fan fiction or other pseudo social relationships we have with pop culture. I don't know, I just feel like there should be emotion in there somewhere, and one way to get that across is by hand (literally).
So -
ReplyDeleteMy initial response is why are you charting these shows in particular? I see a possible feminist - female - connection between shows like Ellen, Sex & the City, or Mary Tyler Moore - but you lose me with shows like 90210, Friends or Gossip Girl (cause I haven't seen it). 90210 and Friends seem like shows for young kids trying to learn about grownup relationships, but are not particularly provocative. I guess they are particular to certain time periods, but I kind of question the audiences that those two shows in particular receive/received.
I also agree that I would like to see larger files so that I can read the information a little better, but then I also don't know how much time I would really want to spend figuring out all of the connections or relationships between the people. Mostly I think it is interesting that durations of time for relationships, or 1 night stands have a rhythm, have a system in a way. Which is what you seem to be doing here - figuring out the patterns and how media examines relationships... Figuring out how long things last, how everything starts somewhere or comes to an end at some point.
But where I start to question the work, is that these are very superficial programs. Nobody actually thinks that people live like they do on 90210, or Friends - these are false realities. I'd be interested in maybe seeing some more of these similar to the one you did of the MOMA showing female artists. There, the discussion becomes a little more intriguing to me, because there is some sort of fact in it all. I see this based more in the woman's role somehow, but I could also see the work being driven my male actions - maybe charting when politicians (current news as an influence) have affairs. Or something about how "REAL" people also repeat these patterns. In conjunction with REAL, and FALSE, charting of relationships, I think I'd be more intrigued in the similarities or differences between those patterns.
Of course this is just my perception, mostly because I haven't watched most of these shows too in depth - so I'm craving something more than TV or video, but that could be the important part of this work that I'm missing - right now it is the essence of the work, and because I've never been invested in these programs it is a little hard for me to fully dive into the character's relationships.
I agree with much of what Kate said about presentation and some of the sterile qualities in the work. Because they look so computer generated, you loose the vision of you hunkering down at your computer or tv with some crackers and cheese, actually watching these films and documenting the systems. I think that's really important, and I think that if there is a way you could show your hand in this work it would make it a little more artistic in a way. Bethany Delahunt just built a house for her MFA show - pretty bad ass, but not as bad ass as the house LB & I are building, to code, to live in (hehe) but very interesting. Similar to the work of Andrea Zittel, but a little more DIY - recycled material, little more funky Bethany. She's transforming something like architecture, space and living into the dialog of fine art. I bring this up because I think there is important room for you to take these graphs beyond what one might see in a magazine, to actually relay information, and transform them artistically. Weavings, marks, possibly projections. I don't know. It is clear that SO MUCH work has gone into these, which kicks ass. If you're showing them in the spring it seems like you still have time to work these through - really great to see this much development and I hope my sloppy spills of words have been helpful.
Without access to their keys, I looked at these charts as a group, making comparisons based on time period(also because you mentioned that you might organize them that way). With this interpretation, the charts seem to illustrate the fact that television writing has become more complicated and less straightforward, maybe even more nuanced and specific. I think that's an interesting "extra" for your with the work, but I know it's not your main interest.
ReplyDeleteAll around, to a certain extent, I do wonder what the charts are supposed to tell me that I don't already know. I think that's my knee jerk reaction to the work. What's interesting to me is to think about how all of this media really does inform how we frame our own relationships in real life, whether we know it or not, and no matter how much we try to avoid it. In the thesis show, that became clear because you put yourself in some of the other work, and also because you weren't just comparing yourself to fictional characters, but also to female artists. It was so much more about the struggle to live one's own life and relationships through so many filters and with so many bogus rules and patterns. Do you have plans to make auto-biographical work for the show in the Spring?
You don't have to use yourself as the subject necessarily. But I do agree that I'm missing an emotional element. I think these charts are missing your personality. Tammy suggested making work about real people. Have you ever thought about making a chart about your friends, their lives and relationships? I think about that embroidery you made, "Progression." It was sort of catty, but also tragic and true. Forgive me if I have made this suggestion before. Suddenly I can't remember, but it feels familiar. I am getting old and repeating myself.
Thanks a lot for the amazing feedback. It's a little intimidating after not hearing such things for a while but it is incredibly helpful. I feel like I'm working much slower these days than I am used to, but I need to pull it together before the show and this is very helpful. Anyway, thanks!
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem like you are working slow! This is so much work! I feel intimidated by how much you have produced.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting, Carolyn. I feel like looking at your work, reading Tammy's and Kate's comments and coming up with my own has been very good for my brain.
In other news, I saw these maps this morning and thought of you:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/
I also thought everyone in Team Photo would enjoy them.
The maps are interesting. Isn't it weird how veiny they become? Tammy, the really purple thready one at the end almost looks like one of your decomposing flesh drawings. How does that work?
ReplyDeleteYes, I love how veiny they become! They are very anatomy and physiology looking to me.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking about the maps, and about Carolyn's work, I do think that it is interesting to visualize what we already know in a new way...that's what most art does right? Sorry if I am contradicting myself, but I have been thinking about this a lot for the past 24 hours.
Also, I wanted to clarify my statement about the "Progression" piece to say that I thought that I really liked it and I remember being very curious about it and your intentions for making it. What I mean to say is that I thought it's cattiness was a strength. I just re-read my previous comment from last night and realized that that might not have been clear.
Speaking of maps -- prepare for your mind to be blown:
ReplyDeletehttp://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/24/13441668-paleo-politics-the-really-long-view?lite
Sorry to give feedback so late: I agree with a lot of what has already been posted - so I'll try to bring up some new points:
ReplyDelete1. I think it would be interesting to try out alternative exhibition methods for these if you haven't already - I could see them on a pop-culture website or compared alongside a film review of the latest Judd Apatow movie or something. I'd love to see one animated as a moving GIF somehow. Perhaps this approach would reach a wider audience than the art-gallery-goer scene?
2. I like how you are trying out shows from different eras. Comparing information across different decades and shows might be my favorite aspect of the work. I wonder if a future map/chart might combine different shows from a particular year or overlapping set of years? What other shows are you considering? Golden Girls? I love Lucy? Melrose Place? Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Just curious...what about one-year shows that aren't renewed possibly/in part because of....xyz of how they portray femininity/masculinity as revealed in your piece....??
3. Could it be interesting to compare a character's romantic life on a show like friends vs. their romantic history in real life? Just thinking about how much Jennifer Aniston's character on Friends may or may not influence reactions to her "real" life romances. I.E. Rachel in friends always get the guy/is always desired and Jennifer Aniston was famously dumped by Brad Pitt. How do images from the show affect our reaction to the latter? The slippage between these portrayals could be an interesting space, maybe? Maybe this is too far from what you are doing.
Good work! Keep it Up!!!!
Thanks Roger!
ReplyDelete