We have settled on the idea of “framing” for our exhibitions theme. Not framing in the literal sense, but as a representational idea — the way the artist conveys his message to the viewer. Each member of HAMS has written their own personal interpretation of framing for the blog. We hope to update as they alter due to the influence of new works and the solidification of our ideas. Here are three current members interpretations with more to follow!
Zoe Carlson, Class of 2015: With this exhibition, I hope to show the viewer that the way in which an artist chooses to frame the subject can have serious implications for the interpretation of a piece. The various choices concerning framing are not arbitrary, but are in fact very deliberate on the part of the artist. Some may see the frame as a constricting aspect of painting, and of art in general, but it is possible to break free from this restraint, and explore new artistic possibilities. Hopefully this show can be an example of that.
Piotr Pillardy, Class of 2015: My interpretation of framing has to do with how the artist frames the subject of the work, which is universally applicable to the visual arts in general. To take it further, the artist can frame a section of the work within through either a literal or implied frame. Through the use of this implied or literal frame, the artist can further emphasize or negate a part within the work, which alters the experience of the work as a whole.
Carlos Kong, Class of 2015: The act of framing reflects the process in which one renders the chaos of sensory perception interpretable, intelligible, and meaningful. In the realm of art, in which the frame of aesthetics is readily associated with processes and experiences of the senses, the notion of framing and the frame itself maintain both literal and metaphorical connotations that at once convey the physical materiality of the art object, its spatial logics and compositional ordering (or lack thereof either), as well as the various interpretive lenses that approximate signification and construct narratives of context and content. The literal frame locates and presents the art object in/on the spatial dynamics of a wall, a floor, a stage, a screen, a building. Yet, the act of framing, a rhetorical device of human construction, functions to isolate the methodological application of intellectual thought, history, philosophy, ideas, politics, emotion, and identity onto art that both render the subject’s experience of viewership meaningful and construct meaning in art from a singular, privileged point of view. However, framing is not limited to human control and discursive formation. Perhaps the power of art is its ability to frame the viewer, in which the capacity of art’s agency makes manifest the subject’s localization in a broader, universalizing, and trans-historical space that reaches towards the truths of the human interior and extends past the wonders of the world that we inhabit.