Christopher Martin Creed Analysis
5 Things about him:
° I like the materials he uses
° I like the placement of his work
° I like the way his work deals with and creates limitations
° I dislike elements of simplicity in his work
° I like the titles he uses in association with the work
I like the materials he uses:
Martin Creed uses materials from the everyday world to create his art. He will often use office supplies such as clean white paper, blue tack, polystyrene and cardboard. What interests me about using such materials is that he places these common supplies, used in a common way in an elitist arena such as a gallery. He is using materials which are considered low art' materials and places them in a high art' environment. I enjoy the way he uses such commonly …show more content…
found and used objects in a common way to create his art. He does not use these materials to create some elaborate construction, but rather he uses them in the way they are meant to be used. What I mean by this is that he uses blue tack the way it was designed to be used; he doesn't alter its original purpose. I feel there is something ingenious in using materials in this way, as a lot of art I see or contemporary art I study is all about the way in which one can change the function of a particular material. I like the way Creed is in a sense questioning the philosophy of an art gallery, like in Work No. 95' (1995) which amplifies the hidden, behind-the-scenes sounds of activities in a gallery. By exposing the sounds of everyday object i.e. phone, fax, computer keyboard etc, Creed is taking away the majestic holiness of a gallery, rather than a gallery being a place of quiet contemplation, or place to marvel in true beauty' of an art work. Creed is exposing the business side of a gallery, business deals are made, money transferred, arguments are held, yes arguments, even in the place famous for a whispering hum. I think that he is confrontingly obvious, here is blue tack, and this is how it is used. He does not try and fog our minds with over dramatic metaphorical meanings of why blue tack is stuck to the wall, it just is. I'm not saying that Creed's work has no meaning, but I am saying that he uses these materials in such a common way that it questions both the use of the materials in the art world and the hierarchy that is commonly associated with the art world. By using these common materials in a gallery Creed begins to investigate the relationship between art, materials, a gallery and the audience. Who has the power? Who decides what the art is really representing/expressing? Why does a gallery authenticate a thing as an artwork'?
I like the placement of his work:
With this statement I am referring to both his gallery work and outside works. Creed often creates works consisting of neon words (Work No. 232: the whole world + the work = the whole world' [2000]). What is interesting about these works is that they are not located in a gallery, but rather in public areas. Thus meaning that not only are the typical gallery folk is able to see these works, but so is the general public. People who would not see these works normally, are exposed to them. I believe that this different environment creates and different or new response to the work. People without the vast knowledge of many art dealers, collectors and creators are also able to judge what they see possibly in a more naive, pure manner, or possibly more restricted manner. By presenting his work in public areas Creed is dealing with the constraints of the gallery (a common theme in his work). I often feel that artists' work is labeled in the sense of money, who has enough money to enter the gallery, who has enough money to buy the work. But, by placing his work in the middle of a busy, public area, there is a removal of that monetary importance and a return to the importance of the idea of the work. No one had to pay to see this work; it is free for all. This gives me the impression that Creed's work relies more solidly on the idea rather than the acknowledgment, appreciation and fame that popular artists often receive.
I also enjoy the tension Creed creates with his work when displayed in the art gallery. In a collaborative show he will often make sure that he is the first artist to put his work on the walls. Creed purposely puts his work in rather awkward spaces on the wall, meaning that when the other artists attempt to display their work, they must work around Creed's. This is especially apparent in such works as Work No. 263: A protrusion form a wall'. This work is quite literally what its title says, a protrusion from the wall. I really enjoy the tension this creates for both the viewer and other artists. There are (what I see as) very stern rules within a gallery, one of them being that the walls are white, straight, and flat. However, Creed is totally messing with this rule. To many this work could simply appear as a odd construction, not necessarily some amazing art piece. This idea I also like. That this work can be confused between a mishap, and art. Another example is Work No.79: Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball and depressed against a wall' (1993), this work could be confused as a piece of gum on the wall. I like this idea because is allows the viewers involvement and discovery in the work. It also questions the notion of hierarchy within art and the gallery. In the sense that the art is not a male's masterpiece, but rather an investigation involving the participation of the audience. The artist does not attempt to know it all, rather he is questioning ideas and situations. He is dealing with very contemporary issues, with the increase of importance of art forms such as folk art and street art, Creed is able to maintain the connection with the gallery while questioning its philosophy.
The placement of his work is interesting because of its importance to the issues Creed deals with in his work, the value of art work and the size/type of audience it receives.
I like the way his work deals with and creates limitations:
This statement is evident in both the ideas within his work and the physical work. The work Work No. 115: A doorstop fixed to a floor to let a door open only 45 degrees' (1995) is an example of the way Creed has shown limitations. When looking and interacting with this work there is a certain amount of annoyance, and confusion. This is an interesting element to his work as you see it, interact with it and read a description about it, however, you are still left wondering what the hell it is there for. I like the idea of an artwork existing without an obvious reason; the viewer has to consider the physical and metaphorical combined in order to understand this work. Thus meaning the viewer is involved with the work to a certain extent. Its not just something to look at, but something to interact with and think about, this idea I like. That the viewer is given a certain amount of power, they are not just the dumb civilian witnessing the miracle of the amazing artist. In this work I feel that Creed is looking at possible physical limitations in a gallery that translate into metaphorical. A gallery can be limiting in the sense of artists expression, the people who view the work, and the way in which the work is viewed/read. In this way Creed looks at limitations in the sense of artist verse viewer. Often the when viewing an artwork the audience simply looks at the work, and read the blurb, having no choice or discussion about what they think the work is about. However, Creed allows the viewer to have their own say, he still has his initial ideas and thoughts on the work, but he also encourages the viewer to do the same. Creed is in a way attempting to break down the barrier between the artist/art world and the audience/rest of the world.
Other works of Creeds such as Work No. 263: A protrusion form the wall' (2001) attempts to create limitations for both the gallery and fellow artists. By creating such a work, Creed is limiting where work can be placed. Limiting other artist's possibilities of displaying work. The way Creed makes sure his work is up before anyone else's also creates limitations in term of space for other artists. He also attempts to remove or deal with the limitations of a gallery by placing his works that consist of blobs of blu-tack in the middle of the wall. Galleries are often very strict about such things as the walls; they want the art to hang perfectly, the most focus being given to the hung work. However, by creating this extension from the wall not only has he disrupted this perfection', but he has also limited the wall space within the gallery.
In terms of Creed's ideas within his work limitations are dealt with in works such as Work No.232: the whole world + the work = the whole world'. With this work, Creed has chosen to display it in a public place rather than a gallery. Hence allowing/inviting anyone to view his work, rather than the selective gallery goers. In this way he is eliminating the selectiveness that an art gallery invites. He is also tackling the idea that galleries are extremely limiting in terms of who views the work, and how it is viewer. By removing the gallery, he is removing many limitations on his work. A gallery creates a totally different environment from a public area. The unwritten rules of a gallery such as everyone must speak in whisper', are removed. With a gallery, a lot of the time people find it difficult to discuss negative points about the work in front of the work, especially because of the silence. However, this limitation is removed when works are placed in public areas.
The limitations within the artwork are constantly evident in Creed's work, I like this because he is addressing a very contemporary issue which engulf us at the moment. Because his works are dealing which such current issues I feel they are extremely relevant and popular to today's culture, both to the art world and all the rest of us regular' folk.
I dislike elements of simplicity in his work:
Works such as Work No.
79: Some Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball, and depressed against a wall' which consist of quite literally a small amount of blu-tack pushed into the wall show the extreme simplicity which is often seen in Creed's work. I feel that this work lacks. That's it, the work is so (almost ridiculously) simple, and so is my response. It lacks in aesthetic qualities, in evoking an emotional response other than huh?!' and in depth of meaning. I find it quite simply to be lacking. Creed would go on to talk about this particular work as a creation of things. But what has been created? He bought some blu-tack and pasted in on a wall in an art gallery. In one positive note he is possibly looking at the power of the gallery by seeing how far he can take his art'. Questioning what art is in relation to a gallery. But one thing remains the same, Creed still considers thumbing up blu-tack on a wall art. I feel I am liberal to a certain extent when looking at art, but this simplicity bugs me. To me it is the same as getting a bit of tape, sticking it to a gallery wall, titling it and saying its art. I don't buy it. I like a lot of Creed's work, and the issues discussed around it. But I have difficulties believing this work is for real. Is he taking the piss? Laughing in the face of the critics and audience who say they enjoy', even praise this work? I am suspicious of his intentions when creating such works. Maybe this is the point, for me, as a viewer to question his intentions. Thus, creating this uneasy tension between the work and the viewer. I this work stresses me out, for example; how is it moved? Does it always remain exactly the same? These question I find perplexing and confusing, and without an answer. How can this work even remain authentic? It is in part these questions that bug me and allow me to doubt the intentions of the artist. It is works such as these that are considered popular' and extreme' in art at the moment. Thus, we reach
the big question, Is Creed creating such works to gain popularity, fame and money? I don't feel I am able to in anyway answer these questions, and I don't really expect them to be answered. What I am saying is that because of these questions I doubt his work and intentions and am therefore less infavour of such works. The way in which Creed uses simplicity can often be seen as suspicious or resulting in work that is lacking in both an aesthetic means and a depth in meaning. I dislike the possibility that Creed is selling out by creating popular' art.
I like the titles he uses in association with his work:
I find the titles Creed uses interesting in many ways. It is like Creed has added in the description he wants to give his work into the title, meaning the viewer doesn't even really need the general blurb about the work. He is able to be so precise with his words that generally the audience understands the basic meaning of the work. Example, Work No. 360: Half the air in a given space' which consists of half the room being filled with balloons. As the audience you view the art, and through reading the title you are able to get an idea about what Creed aims to show, and the ideas he is dealing with. This aspect of simplicity I do enjoy, you are able to get an idea of the work simply through the title. You don't have to read a massive paragraph written with words you can't even say by someone other than the artist. This way, Creed in a sense has more control over the way in which his art is read, and understood.
I also enjoy the use of work' that leads every title. It is like Creed is reaffirming the work, it is not just a thing, but also a work, something which involved time, thought and emotional value. However this also contradicts what Creed sometimes says about his work, which is that he creates things'. That is something rather confusing about Creed; he often contradicts himself and his work. However, my reading of the use of the word work' is that it is a way of reminding or informing the audience they are viewing an artwork. This is especially useful when viewing such works as Work No. 79: Some Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball, and depressed against a wall' or Work No. 263: A protrusion from a wall', which could at times cross between the art world and the rest of the world.
After the word work' Creed then adds No.' followed by either two or three numbers. However, these numbers aren't in order of the works he creates but as Creed says, random. Totally random, with no connection to the work, or its relation to the work before or after it. This is rather peculiar and off putting, as the rest of the title is both related to the work and to its meaning, then suddenly there is a random number associated with the work. Something meaningless is sandwiched between meaningful statements. This creates a sort of juxtaposition and tension between the meaningful and meaningless, both within the title and his work. It is rather puzzling to see an unassociated number in the title of an artwork. A number that has randomly been picked and assigned to an artwork. In a sense these numbers have been assigned simply to differentiate on work from one another, they are not given meaning until they are assigned a work to be associated with.
I like that Creed's titles could also simply be a whole lot of symbols joined together to create meaning, separately they do not hold the power that they do together.
I like how the title has two different readings; it is both a number of symbols joined together to create meaning through their association with an art work, and the justification and description of what the audience is viewing. I enjoy the power given to the title; it is a title, a description and an acknowledgment of what it is being viewed.
° I like the materials he uses
° I like the placement of his work
° I like the way his work deals with and creates limitations
° I dislike elements of simplicity in his work
° I like the titles he uses in association with the work
I like the materials he uses:
Martin Creed uses materials from the everyday world to create his art. He will often use office supplies such as clean white paper, blue tack, polystyrene and cardboard. What interests me about using such materials is that he places these common supplies, used in a common way in an elitist arena such as a gallery. He is using materials which are considered low art' materials and places them in a high art' environment. I enjoy the way he uses such commonly …show more content…
found and used objects in a common way to create his art. He does not use these materials to create some elaborate construction, but rather he uses them in the way they are meant to be used. What I mean by this is that he uses blue tack the way it was designed to be used; he doesn't alter its original purpose. I feel there is something ingenious in using materials in this way, as a lot of art I see or contemporary art I study is all about the way in which one can change the function of a particular material. I like the way Creed is in a sense questioning the philosophy of an art gallery, like in Work No. 95' (1995) which amplifies the hidden, behind-the-scenes sounds of activities in a gallery. By exposing the sounds of everyday object i.e. phone, fax, computer keyboard etc, Creed is taking away the majestic holiness of a gallery, rather than a gallery being a place of quiet contemplation, or place to marvel in true beauty' of an art work. Creed is exposing the business side of a gallery, business deals are made, money transferred, arguments are held, yes arguments, even in the place famous for a whispering hum. I think that he is confrontingly obvious, here is blue tack, and this is how it is used. He does not try and fog our minds with over dramatic metaphorical meanings of why blue tack is stuck to the wall, it just is. I'm not saying that Creed's work has no meaning, but I am saying that he uses these materials in such a common way that it questions both the use of the materials in the art world and the hierarchy that is commonly associated with the art world. By using these common materials in a gallery Creed begins to investigate the relationship between art, materials, a gallery and the audience. Who has the power? Who decides what the art is really representing/expressing? Why does a gallery authenticate a thing as an artwork'?
I like the placement of his work:
With this statement I am referring to both his gallery work and outside works. Creed often creates works consisting of neon words (Work No. 232: the whole world + the work = the whole world' [2000]). What is interesting about these works is that they are not located in a gallery, but rather in public areas. Thus meaning that not only are the typical gallery folk is able to see these works, but so is the general public. People who would not see these works normally, are exposed to them. I believe that this different environment creates and different or new response to the work. People without the vast knowledge of many art dealers, collectors and creators are also able to judge what they see possibly in a more naive, pure manner, or possibly more restricted manner. By presenting his work in public areas Creed is dealing with the constraints of the gallery (a common theme in his work). I often feel that artists' work is labeled in the sense of money, who has enough money to enter the gallery, who has enough money to buy the work. But, by placing his work in the middle of a busy, public area, there is a removal of that monetary importance and a return to the importance of the idea of the work. No one had to pay to see this work; it is free for all. This gives me the impression that Creed's work relies more solidly on the idea rather than the acknowledgment, appreciation and fame that popular artists often receive.
I also enjoy the tension Creed creates with his work when displayed in the art gallery. In a collaborative show he will often make sure that he is the first artist to put his work on the walls. Creed purposely puts his work in rather awkward spaces on the wall, meaning that when the other artists attempt to display their work, they must work around Creed's. This is especially apparent in such works as Work No. 263: A protrusion form a wall'. This work is quite literally what its title says, a protrusion from the wall. I really enjoy the tension this creates for both the viewer and other artists. There are (what I see as) very stern rules within a gallery, one of them being that the walls are white, straight, and flat. However, Creed is totally messing with this rule. To many this work could simply appear as a odd construction, not necessarily some amazing art piece. This idea I also like. That this work can be confused between a mishap, and art. Another example is Work No.79: Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball and depressed against a wall' (1993), this work could be confused as a piece of gum on the wall. I like this idea because is allows the viewers involvement and discovery in the work. It also questions the notion of hierarchy within art and the gallery. In the sense that the art is not a male's masterpiece, but rather an investigation involving the participation of the audience. The artist does not attempt to know it all, rather he is questioning ideas and situations. He is dealing with very contemporary issues, with the increase of importance of art forms such as folk art and street art, Creed is able to maintain the connection with the gallery while questioning its philosophy.
The placement of his work is interesting because of its importance to the issues Creed deals with in his work, the value of art work and the size/type of audience it receives.
I like the way his work deals with and creates limitations:
This statement is evident in both the ideas within his work and the physical work. The work Work No. 115: A doorstop fixed to a floor to let a door open only 45 degrees' (1995) is an example of the way Creed has shown limitations. When looking and interacting with this work there is a certain amount of annoyance, and confusion. This is an interesting element to his work as you see it, interact with it and read a description about it, however, you are still left wondering what the hell it is there for. I like the idea of an artwork existing without an obvious reason; the viewer has to consider the physical and metaphorical combined in order to understand this work. Thus meaning the viewer is involved with the work to a certain extent. Its not just something to look at, but something to interact with and think about, this idea I like. That the viewer is given a certain amount of power, they are not just the dumb civilian witnessing the miracle of the amazing artist. In this work I feel that Creed is looking at possible physical limitations in a gallery that translate into metaphorical. A gallery can be limiting in the sense of artists expression, the people who view the work, and the way in which the work is viewed/read. In this way Creed looks at limitations in the sense of artist verse viewer. Often the when viewing an artwork the audience simply looks at the work, and read the blurb, having no choice or discussion about what they think the work is about. However, Creed allows the viewer to have their own say, he still has his initial ideas and thoughts on the work, but he also encourages the viewer to do the same. Creed is in a way attempting to break down the barrier between the artist/art world and the audience/rest of the world.
Other works of Creeds such as Work No. 263: A protrusion form the wall' (2001) attempts to create limitations for both the gallery and fellow artists. By creating such a work, Creed is limiting where work can be placed. Limiting other artist's possibilities of displaying work. The way Creed makes sure his work is up before anyone else's also creates limitations in term of space for other artists. He also attempts to remove or deal with the limitations of a gallery by placing his works that consist of blobs of blu-tack in the middle of the wall. Galleries are often very strict about such things as the walls; they want the art to hang perfectly, the most focus being given to the hung work. However, by creating this extension from the wall not only has he disrupted this perfection', but he has also limited the wall space within the gallery.
In terms of Creed's ideas within his work limitations are dealt with in works such as Work No.232: the whole world + the work = the whole world'. With this work, Creed has chosen to display it in a public place rather than a gallery. Hence allowing/inviting anyone to view his work, rather than the selective gallery goers. In this way he is eliminating the selectiveness that an art gallery invites. He is also tackling the idea that galleries are extremely limiting in terms of who views the work, and how it is viewer. By removing the gallery, he is removing many limitations on his work. A gallery creates a totally different environment from a public area. The unwritten rules of a gallery such as everyone must speak in whisper', are removed. With a gallery, a lot of the time people find it difficult to discuss negative points about the work in front of the work, especially because of the silence. However, this limitation is removed when works are placed in public areas.
The limitations within the artwork are constantly evident in Creed's work, I like this because he is addressing a very contemporary issue which engulf us at the moment. Because his works are dealing which such current issues I feel they are extremely relevant and popular to today's culture, both to the art world and all the rest of us regular' folk.
I dislike elements of simplicity in his work:
Works such as Work No.
79: Some Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball, and depressed against a wall' which consist of quite literally a small amount of blu-tack pushed into the wall show the extreme simplicity which is often seen in Creed's work. I feel that this work lacks. That's it, the work is so (almost ridiculously) simple, and so is my response. It lacks in aesthetic qualities, in evoking an emotional response other than huh?!' and in depth of meaning. I find it quite simply to be lacking. Creed would go on to talk about this particular work as a creation of things. But what has been created? He bought some blu-tack and pasted in on a wall in an art gallery. In one positive note he is possibly looking at the power of the gallery by seeing how far he can take his art'. Questioning what art is in relation to a gallery. But one thing remains the same, Creed still considers thumbing up blu-tack on a wall art. I feel I am liberal to a certain extent when looking at art, but this simplicity bugs me. To me it is the same as getting a bit of tape, sticking it to a gallery wall, titling it and saying its art. I don't buy it. I like a lot of Creed's work, and the issues discussed around it. But I have difficulties believing this work is for real. Is he taking the piss? Laughing in the face of the critics and audience who say they enjoy', even praise this work? I am suspicious of his intentions when creating such works. Maybe this is the point, for me, as a viewer to question his intentions. Thus, creating this uneasy tension between the work and the viewer. I this work stresses me out, for example; how is it moved? Does it always remain exactly the same? These question I find perplexing and confusing, and without an answer. How can this work even remain authentic? It is in part these questions that bug me and allow me to doubt the intentions of the artist. It is works such as these that are considered popular' and extreme' in art at the moment. Thus, we reach
the big question, Is Creed creating such works to gain popularity, fame and money? I don't feel I am able to in anyway answer these questions, and I don't really expect them to be answered. What I am saying is that because of these questions I doubt his work and intentions and am therefore less infavour of such works. The way in which Creed uses simplicity can often be seen as suspicious or resulting in work that is lacking in both an aesthetic means and a depth in meaning. I dislike the possibility that Creed is selling out by creating popular' art.
I like the titles he uses in association with his work:
I find the titles Creed uses interesting in many ways. It is like Creed has added in the description he wants to give his work into the title, meaning the viewer doesn't even really need the general blurb about the work. He is able to be so precise with his words that generally the audience understands the basic meaning of the work. Example, Work No. 360: Half the air in a given space' which consists of half the room being filled with balloons. As the audience you view the art, and through reading the title you are able to get an idea about what Creed aims to show, and the ideas he is dealing with. This aspect of simplicity I do enjoy, you are able to get an idea of the work simply through the title. You don't have to read a massive paragraph written with words you can't even say by someone other than the artist. This way, Creed in a sense has more control over the way in which his art is read, and understood.
I also enjoy the use of work' that leads every title. It is like Creed is reaffirming the work, it is not just a thing, but also a work, something which involved time, thought and emotional value. However this also contradicts what Creed sometimes says about his work, which is that he creates things'. That is something rather confusing about Creed; he often contradicts himself and his work. However, my reading of the use of the word work' is that it is a way of reminding or informing the audience they are viewing an artwork. This is especially useful when viewing such works as Work No. 79: Some Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball, and depressed against a wall' or Work No. 263: A protrusion from a wall', which could at times cross between the art world and the rest of the world.
After the word work' Creed then adds No.' followed by either two or three numbers. However, these numbers aren't in order of the works he creates but as Creed says, random. Totally random, with no connection to the work, or its relation to the work before or after it. This is rather peculiar and off putting, as the rest of the title is both related to the work and to its meaning, then suddenly there is a random number associated with the work. Something meaningless is sandwiched between meaningful statements. This creates a sort of juxtaposition and tension between the meaningful and meaningless, both within the title and his work. It is rather puzzling to see an unassociated number in the title of an artwork. A number that has randomly been picked and assigned to an artwork. In a sense these numbers have been assigned simply to differentiate on work from one another, they are not given meaning until they are assigned a work to be associated with.
I like that Creed's titles could also simply be a whole lot of symbols joined together to create meaning, separately they do not hold the power that they do together.
I like how the title has two different readings; it is both a number of symbols joined together to create meaning through their association with an art work, and the justification and description of what the audience is viewing. I enjoy the power given to the title; it is a title, a description and an acknowledgment of what it is being viewed.