Essay Regarding Stencil

Riordan Henry

09/16/2008

INFO 390

Stencil Essay

This particular work is of a black t-shirt containing a sprayed negative of an abstract image of the grim reaper. This image specifically, is not a highly detailed image per say, because of the limitations on precision of spray paint coupled with a novice creator’s ability to accurately judge the outcome of a stenciled design result in a beginner’s product. This also works against any extreme attitudes of fascination with death and macabre. The simplistic design implies something of a more playfully created shirt, instead of a highly detailed, extremely visceral depiction of any specific image of death. The only color in the design is grey, which was chosen because the quasi dark image of a “grim reaper” would clash inherently with any true colors, thus the grey allows the image to be seen easily against the black background without trivializing the image in any way. Furthermore, the abstract of the image was the only feasible way to capture the image’s facial void without using extraneous pieces of stencil to include it. This was a decision made due to the symbolism associated with the stock image of the “grim reaper”, a commonly accepted figure of death and reminder of ultimate mortality. Also, this seemed to groove well with the medium of a black shirt.

This all works to create a context, though the context still depends heavily on the individual displaying it. This particular method of display would have a completely different meaning shown on say, an individual with khakis and a white button-down shirt as opposed to an individual with dark baggy clothing and a skateboard; excuse the clichés. This is to say further, that the shirt itself is not built onto its context, but rather that the context of this article can easily change depending on the individual displaying it. Thus, it is not a well-known anarchy symbol placed over a political sign, but rather a situational-dependent conscious decision based on the current mood of the wearer. Also, the communication of this article returns to the idea that it is more “playfully” accomplished through generality and simplicity. Were the image to be highly detailed, a more frightful communication would likely arise, portraying a bolder statement. The word playful may not be the most suitable for the subject matter, but if one were to view it as such, that statement could be construed as the wearer’s intention as well: a social commentary that death is part of life and possibly the wearer has come to accept that in a cynical, life-is-a-terminal-condition attitude. In addition to this, this shirt can be critiqued on the basis of itself being a cliché. The use of a clichéd image such as the grim reaper can be interpreted as belonging to a wannabe or “poser” genre, in the respect that: does the wearer really buy into this variety of culture, or is it something they think is a popular style and have a slight desire to belong to that brand of culture? This would rely more heavily on an inspection of a large production of these shirts and the resulting statistics of who was in fact wearing the shirts, which is relevant in the discussion of the wearer creating the context instead of the shirt itself creating a context.

Having first-hand knowledge of the creation of this piece forces a different view completely. Taking into account that the image was chosen due to its level of difficulty forces one to view the shirt as possibly fulfilling none of these views and just the creator’s choice as something interesting, but not likely to cause many problems during the creation. In either case, any audience viewing this work is likely to draw their own conclusions and is highly unlikely to consider the creator’s level of expertise or that the shirt is even home-made, though it certainly could be deduced. The idea of homemade items raises the question of Lauer and Pentak’s idea that visual “re-training” is necessary, especially since the creator clearly made this item for his/her self, thus it is more likely to be something important to him/her.

Questions for Readings Week 4

Questions for 9/16 & 9/18, 2008

1. McCloud’s stylistic essay done in the guise of a comic strip, points out the difference between the “conceptual” world and the “sensual” world by exploring the difference between the [generally] more abstract character as opposed to his/her more detailed background. We as an audience cannot experience these surroundings first-hand, just with our visual idea of it, similarly to our experience of the character, though the character may be more easily relatable through simplicity. This provokes the argument: doesn’t the background still essentially remain conceptual?
2. McCloud’s description of Japanese comics creating most protagonists as fairly simple, while characters meant to be seen as “others” are drawn with relative complexity. Does this carry with it the possibility of a belief of, “if it’s not me its something else and inherently frightening/inferior?”
3. Berger’s work mentions the concept that publicity suggests the present is undesirable and that the viewer needs something better, whereas the language of oil painting suggests the subject has something the viewer likely wants. Both types address the idea of social envy, why then does publicity commonly receive such a poor reputation? Both imply the viewer needs something more to be better. Is publicity just more transparent? More pushy?
   
   

P.S. I found McCloud’s essay/comic to be the easiest work to read in a very long time. I was just wondering if anyone else found it more enjoyable to read than the typically sterile essay in mere text…???

My Stencil Work

What I chose for my stencil work

My Graffiti Picture

How could this have happened?!

Readings for 9/9 & 9/11

3 questions on Lauer and Pentak reading:

1. Does the concept of visual training and “re-training” force us to turn an analytic or even cynic lense on the stock images of our cultural history or does it apply only when viewing items of artistic value?
2. The two points of view brought about by the discussion of artist Eva Hesse imply 1) that art comes from a creator and 2) art comes from materials. The first point of view seems intuitive, but how can the second make sense? Doesn’t art need a creator, even if it is nature?
3. This article suggests that many symbols lose or change their meaning when they cross boundaries (national, ethnic, etc.) but does that negate any possibility of symbols with inherent meaning? Example: a smiling face.