Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...26 ...27 28 29 31


  02:40:00 am, by   , 254 words  
Categories: Non catégorisé, Art, Collage

Collage: illustration or construction

For me, there are two kinds of collages: illustration and construction.
Illustration is the most widespread kind. Techniques:
You simply insert some alien element null in a picture - for ex. you take a diver and put him into a normal landscape;
you make changements in scale, like a giant insect etc.;
you put things upside down.
Generally, in this kind of picture, you have a relatively coherent space (cf. surrealistic pictures).

Construction has to do with edges and rimes. It's about assembling forms and thus create new associations, like in composed words. I usually speak of grafts. Techniques:
you assemble different items while paying attention to their borders;
you work with "rimes", repetition of forms from different objects.
With this kind of collage, you necessarily distort the pictorial space. For the onlooker, it means that he has to decide which form he will privilege, because the relationship between subject and background ist disturbed.
What's the interest in disturbing the poor onlooker, already disturbed by contemporary art?
Because of the conventional aspect of illustration, which - at least in my eyes - comforts the onlooker in his way of seeing. Whereas for me collage wants to change the ways of seeing, as all great art has always done. Not for mere provocation, but in order to open new mental spaces. The danger in doing it is to confuse the onlooker too much, like in conceptual art for ex. Here is the strength of magazine collage: the material is already familiar, it's the cut&and assemblage which makes is alien.


You must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!

Form is loading...


  07:31:20 am, by   , 269 words  
Categories: Art, Collage

Collage in education: the school of freedom and pleasure

I have been in education for many years, mainly teaching art in its various forms. My last experience, which is not yet finished, is work together with people having psychiatric difficulties. I initiated collage on works that were already done by pastel. We worked in tandem and I suggested some adjunctions from magazines. It worked really well and everybody was happy.
This startled me because psychologists used to tell me in the past that collage was a risky tool: it might disturb and frighten fragile minds, it would be better to paint or draw.
This is a very common prejudice. Painting and drawing, or clay modelling etc. are seen as reflecting reality, as a constructive means. Collage, on the other hand, is seen as destructive because of its use of fragments.
This idea doesn't withstand logic. Painting does exactly the same - brushstrokes, dots, different elements assemble in a way collage does. As for the originality of painting/drawing vs. collage, just look at real works and you'll see how many element are "loans" from other paintings, photographs etc.
The only difference ist the facility of making a collage without any artistic "gift",freed from school memories and the repeated experience of failure when drawing or painting. Aren't adult people often drawing like 5 years old children and ashamed of that?
The pleasure you can have with collage and seeing the result, is the discovery of the own creativity. It is the experience of creative power which made my people so happy, the experience of total freedom, of daring associations they would never make consciously. Who can be afraid of that?

You must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!

Form is loading...


  04:52:17 pm, by   , 270 words  
Categories: Art, Collage, Painting

Art and money

Once you have chosen collage as your main means of expression, you have made some sort of vow of poverty. Because, with a little exaggeration, collage is made of crap, won't last for centuries, is an expression for children or decoration...
I believe that many collage artists are wannabe painters: they want to be considered as full artists (cf. the complaints in the collage blogs). They do not assume their outsider status. So collage won't make us rich in $ but in creative possibilities. Because collage is more interesting than still life, nudes or other academic disciplines.
On my site and in various exhibitions, I offered my collages (A4) for approx. 80$ piece and had not much success with it. I conclude from that that price is not the real reason to buy a piece of art but very profound motivations . Surely one of them is status. So, what could collage offer to the potential buyer? Anti-status: underground art, anti-art attitude, but we can see that most collectors want neo-pop like Koons or others. This art is fashionable, not anti-art but yes-art.
So the future of collage itself is brilliant as a technique, but not as an objet de luxe. Better make a crystal skull with diamonds (Damien Hirst) than a vulgar sheet of paper with torn paper fragments. Or paint some nurse (Richard Prince) in a fashionable style. Or sign chinese.
So, for me, collage is outsider art and I want this to be seen in my pictures. So long so good for art. And the money? Well, I have made it till now without wealth, guess it won't change now.

There is one comment on this post but you must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!

Form is loading...


  07:21:00 pm, by   , 97 words  
Categories: Non catégorisé, Art, Collage


It happens quite often that when achieving a collage, I must laugh or at least smile because the picture looks witty. Why? Surely because of the strange assemblage of heteroclite objects (see the famous definition of Lautréamont). Is it allowed in painting? Generally, one usually finds irony or derision today. Funny pictures come mostly from designers, I think. Is it because artists think themselves so important? In my collages, I like to go from one extreme to the other. Being a humorist would change me into an amuser. In my eyes, art can be more than that.

You must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!

Form is loading...

  10:17:34, par   , 152 mots  
Catégories: Non catégorisé, Art, Collage, Painting

Collage vs. painting

I want to reflect here on collage and my way of making them. Enjoy.

Citation of Cesar Domela," a photo shows an object, whereas the photomontage presents an idea."

It seems to me that this definition hits the point.

Collage is a language for everybody, clear, strong, easily comprehensible
. It may be used for propaganda as under communism, but it can also be subversive, by the new meaning created with existing images.
In my conception of collage, this is the main point. Painting seems to me too much rooted in tradition, failing to free itself from it. Even the works of Picasso, displayed in Paris (Picasso and the masters) show this effort. Picasso creates very powerful works, but they are fundamentally linked to tradition.
When I am making a collage, I feel much freer than in a painting, where I have to struggle a lot like in one of my last paintings

Il y a un commentaire sur ce post mais vous devez être connecté pour visualiser les commentaires. Se connecter maintenant!

Formulaire en cours de chargement...

1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...26 ...27 28 29 31

Novembre 2020
Lun Mar Mer Jeu Ven Sam Dim
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
 << <   > >>
Blog on art, centered on collage. It is meant as a sort of logbook of my creative work.


  Flux XML

powered by b2evolution