Hi, my name is Thinkie, welcome to my blog!
I'm a student in cultural studies, a museum enthusiast, a scrapbooker and an art journaler. I love to travel within Europe and I enjoy photography. You can read more about me on my homepage.

Blog

Blog Archive

Categories:
Art (History)
Art Journalling
Books & Literature
Cupcake Mascots
Fantasy
Food
History
Inspiration
Life
Museums
Other Crafty Adventures
Other Cultural Studies stuff
Other Cultural stuff
Philosophy
Photography
Poetry
scrapbooking
Trips & Travels

LinkedIn-profiel van Thinkie Batenburg-Mets weergevenMe @ Linked-In

Me @ Pinterest

Check out Cupcake's Flickr account!
Thinkie.
Get yours at bighugelabs.com/flickr

My Youtube Channel

I enjoy:

Ali Edwards
Celine Navarro
Michelle LaPoint Rydell
Revlie
Marit
Elise Blaha
Annemarie
Les ateliers de Karine
Amy Tangerine
A Beautiful Mess
Balzer Designs
Bram's tea blog

And in Dutch I enjoy:

Maarten Batenburg
Museum Meermanno
Roeland van Wely

I live, I love, I create, I capture, I learn, I enjoy.

London 2011: Tate Modern

During my visits to Tate I scribbled down some notes. They are so random, there's no making them into a cohesive whole so I'm going to share them with you pretty much as I jotted them down, with a little editing and adding.

After World War II - the end of the fifties: expression, intuition, existentialism. Is this when the idea behind the art became more mportant that the visual part?

I saw 'The Snail' by Henri Matisse. In kindergarten kids get an image of something and then can stick little squares, circles and triangles of different coloured paper on it. This sort of reminds me of that... Why does one belong in a museum and the other ones on a fridge door at best? Balance in the composition and use of colour? Or the idea and artist behind it?

The 'Cage' series bij Richter made me think of the style of the papers scrapbook manufacturer Basic Grey used to make: layers of colours, partly scraped off and than new layers added.

Reading 'Extremely loud and incredibly close' by Foer and coming across a display of keys across the street from a tube station and art by Richter who was born in Dresden.

Being inspired to try certain things in my scrapbooking/art journalling. Like by 'Overall Show' by Vito Acconci; panels with photos, drawings and notes on them. Goes to show that the viewer is an important part of how art is perceived, I'm experiencing this as inspirational for my art journalling because that links to my experiences/horizon. But I'm pretty sure that's not what Acconci had in mind while making it. What's more important: his intentions or my way of perceiving the work? Gadamer would probably say both, for him, understanding is a merging of the horizons of the one who created some thing and the one interpreting it.

Seeing works by Kandinsky, Monet. Learning about surrealism, Bauhaus...

In the information that accompanies works by Rothko it says that his paintings are objects of contemplation, demanding the viewers complete absortion. Makes me think of icons. And indeed, in the 1960's he made 14 works to fill a chapel

"Autonomous abstract art, no basis in reality, nor any symbolic implication, manifested something that had not previously existed". Is that possible, to create something new, without the influence of what you've seen and experiences? Place yourself outside of the intertext? Can you make something totally new?

Automatic writing and painting (Míro, Jean Arp). How do people do that?!

Sometimes art is art because of the context and the times it was made. Does art stay art even when it looses its social relevance? Or can it only be considered art when its meaning seems eternal?

Photos of interiors without people in them by Simryn Gill made me think of the work of Marrigje de Maar.

Thinking that maybe I should go back to analogue photography for a while, to force myself to really put some thinking into the composition and lighting of every photo. I've been in a bit of a rut for a while when it comes to photography.

'Trivaux pond' by Matisse. Beautiful light. Coherence. Everything is related to everything.

Andy Warhol took self portraits and said: "If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There's nothing behind it." That made me think about presenting myself trough 'art' and self portraits. What aspects of me would I be showing that way, how personal are the things I make and how I look?

In general, I wasn't very interested in modern art. But as I'm starting to familiarize with it I'm finding works, schools, artists that inspire me. I keep experiencing a pull between my intellectual and my creative side. Art history is part of my studies, so they somewhat meet there, but now that I barely have time for crafting anymore the need to create stuff keeps stirring. Thinking about this at Tate made me ponder on what those two sides of me have in common. Learning/examining? Collecting? Documenting? Looking?
Examining things trough art. I can imagine that is true for many artforms, and something I do in my art journalling.

Geplaatst op 06-10-2012.
Meer berichten over Art (History) Museums

Jouw reactie


compulsary, will not be shown.
to confirm sender; spam-protection.