Born Magazine creation
Not to be missed. Simply NOT to be missed! Born Magazine (online mag) brings together graphic/visual artists with poets and prose writers to make magic.
http://www.bornmagazine.org/projects/chimney/
http://www.bornmagazine.org/projects/conjoined_twins/
Picasso's Woman With Book
It fascinates me that an artist could potentially relay a singular thought/expression/concept across a thousand different types of media. Perhaps the message would be the same, or in each case it would have a slightly different meaning.
Something else that fascinates me is when I stumble upon something that stares me in the face every day but I never really see it as beautiful or artful. And then — eureka! — I get it.
I’m talking about the act of reading aloud, the art of reading aloud. It is a type of art, yet one of a myriad that we don’t think about often.
I read to my kids every day. Sometimes they pick the books, sometimes I pick the books. Usually I read to them, sometimes they read to me. Yet we always tell a story a different way each time. We get something different out of it. We narrow in on one character, zoom out to get the whole view. Perhaps we go into it looking for something different each time.
I suppose the art of reading out loud is not the words themselves or the illustrations in the book, it’s the way the words are spoken. Lilting in places, s—l—o—w in places, rapid-fire in places. Filled with emotion (or not), crafty, cheeky, peppy, fiesty.
The NYT published a recent article on this topic that beautifully demonstrates the “art” of reading aloud:
Reading aloud captures the physicality of words. To read with your lungs and diaphram, with your tongue and lips, is very different than reading with your eyes alone. The language becomes part of the body, which is why there’s always a curious tenderness in those 18th and 19th century literary scenes where a book is being read aloud. The words are not mere words. They are the breath and mind, perhaps even the soul, of the person who is reading… It’s as though they’re reading what the words represent rather than the words themselves.
Vic Reeves, "Water Rail" (2006), in an edition of 50, £253, at the London Original Print Fair
I love prints. They can get a bad rap, though, like they were made simply by pressing “copy” on a photocopier. Here’s a description of the process that is pretty good:
An artist does not make a print from an original painting. She conceives and executes it as an original piece. This generally involves one or more of the classic printmaking techniques like lithography (stone or plate), intaglio processes (i.e. etching, aquatint, engraving), relief printing like lino- and woodcut, screen-printing , digital manipulation (e.g. indigo printing). The artist cuts, draws, engraves, or otherwise creates the image. The intention is not to reproduce an original work but to create a new one.
Whereas…
When an original painting is copied it is called a reproduction and not an original print and is, basically, no more than a high quality poster. To make an original print takes an enormous amount of skill and time. Each print requires individual attention. Each coloor and tone requires manual input onto individual plates or screens.
This is just one cute chick. Or is it a quail. A seagull? (???!!!)
Art & Degrees of Freedom 