Our project brief of ‘Rupture’ consisted of destructing a series of images in any possible way that turned it from its original status to a new piece of art. I was intrigued by the thought of ‘How can you destroy a pre-existing image but still keep it as an art piece?’ It mainly focused on my ideas of whether erotic/suggestive art was produced for a pornographic market or was it purchased for sexual pleasure. I decided to focus on negative space and covering of an image, to contradict what we are given when studying commercialised modelling for magazines, against what sexualised models appear in pornography. This is because there are certain parts of the general views and aesthetics that border each other in these fields. To ‘destroy’ the image:
Piece 1 and 2:Looking at both magazines and pornography, I removed the skin/nude elements of the image, leaving just the clothed structure of the body. They both become just as effective as each other in showing how there is more to the body than any idea of indecency/eroticism.
Piece 3 and 4:These pieces play off the idea in 1 and 2, but I decided to paint the nude body to highlight it, by using colours not associated to skin colours it emphasises a way to look at the body in a different manner. Our clothing can’t define us and we should all learn to love the bodies we were given.
Piece 5:This piece was again compiled from two images; I cut both into strips and played around with the way they faced so that the body became less visible. Using the negative space magazine piece I painted the spaces in pink and purple, this was a more abstract way of representing the body on top of the real thing. Piece 6:The last piece was to deface an image in an ironic manner, I think that the adverts placed in these magazines are worse than most of the images that are shown. Ironically, I think it defaces women’s values in this world, placing them in a negative and dirty light. By writing ‘DIRTY’ over and over again, I wanted to prove a point to what was hidden behind it.
Comments