This third example of a response to the Chazen prompt is by Dorian McClendon, who took an experimental approach to the assignment, forcing himself to find weakness in a painting he enjoyed and success in an artwork he did not.
There are many different ways in which artists try to buck the trend and add their own style to a piece by breaking the conventional rules of what ‘art’ is and creating their own. However, these self-made rules do not always result in a successful work of art, but instead, end up as a failed attempt to do something different.
An example of a work of art that succeeds according to its own rules that I encountered in the Chazen Art Museum is entitled Whorl by Gillian Jagger. This piece was made in 1974 out of fiber, molding paste, paint, and stain. Even though I did not necessarily like this piece when I first saw it, it made me stop and stare at it and provoked me to take some time to view it and to think about it. It appears that the argument of this artwork is to show that there is more than one medium that can be used to create a successful work of art. The visual detail that reveals this argument is Jagger’s usage of things other than paint to create this work of art. The fibrous and sinewy look to it is what sets it apart from other pieces and what gives it a different feel than what would be had of this same piece if it had been created with paint. The rules of this artwork were to create something simple, like a whorl, and to portray it in a different, interesting, and not so simple way. It appears that Jagger believes that things found in nature are useful for creating successful art. Whorl looks as if it were made from animal fur, suggesting that Jagger and her works are rooted in the natural world. The artwork succeeds, according to these rules, because of what I stated earlier. When an artist creates a work of art, the main goal is to provoke thought from the viewers and to have their work be appreciated and carefully studied, which is what I did with Whorl.
I was also able to find a work of art that does not succeed according to its own rules at the Chazen Art Museum. This piece is by Hans Hofmann and is entitled August Light. It was made in 1957 and is oil on canvas with the dimensions of 52-3/8 x 60-1/8 in. The argument of the artwork is that abstract images can be utilized to portray non-abstract situations, such as the different lights that would be seen in a day in August. The visual details that reveal this argument are the random shapes Hofmann uses in the painting as well as the fact that the work does not appear to be oriented in any particular way. The rule of August Light is to condense all of the various hues of lights seen throughout the month of August into one painting. The medium for satisfying this rule involves the use of primary colors and basic shapes. It can be speculated that Hofmann was trying to oppose the other artists of his time and genre that might have been showier and more flamboyant, which is why Hofmann stuck with basic colors and shapes to show those artists and viewers of their art that there is more than one way to create a successful work of art. However, Hofmann failed at creating a successful work of art because the random shapes and colors strewn about the canvas do not give the appearance of light in August. Instead, it just looks as if Hofmann was trying to do something different to get attention from his peers, but this feeble attempt comes up short in my opinion.
Both of these artists were clearly trying to do something different and trying to set themselves apart from the artists of their respective genres and time periods. Although I did not particularly enjoy Whorl, it succeeds because it is thought provoking and because it actually looks like what it is intended to be. And, even though I thoroughly enjoyed looking at August Light, I would have never guessed that it was supposed to portray the lights seen in August had I not read the information card next to it; making it unsuccessful.
