"The Castle At Bentheim, After Jacob Van Roysdael"
"Individuals"
"Marinara Medusa"
Muniz focuses primarily on medium in the above pieces. "The Castle at Bentheim" is made of sixty thousand feet of sewing string, "Individuals" is made of chocolate syrup, and "Marinara Medusa" of actual spaghetti. These real-life mediums are a symbol to everyday life, as the materials are all household items. In his review of Muniz' work in Masters of Deception, Al Seckel details how Muniz attempts to create visually provocative artwork through use of a wide range of mediums. He uses the fact that humans tend to draw quick conclusions about what they see to his advantage, often using images that already exist, but changing them in a way that changes the way people think about them. According to Muniz, changing the way people think is one of the primary goals of his artwork, but he claims to go about it a little differently than Seckel says. He uses the layers and non-traditional materials to make it more difficult for the viewer to understand the piece. This way, they engage the piece in a more in depth level, and are led to analyse it deeper than they would other artwork. The thousands of feet of sewing thread used in "The Castle at Bentheim" entirely alters the way the image is viewed. The thread makes the image seem as if it is all interconnected and flowing together. It is far more provocative and leads to a wider range of connections and conclusions by the viewer than a traditional photograph or painting would.
Since you have these goals that the artist has given, it might be interesting to structure your response to the work to (in part) address those goals. In other words, how can you help the reader of your response understand how using string makes it possible to engage with the work on a deeper level? When you say it is more provocative, how could the writing lead the reader to understand that and how it happens OR why this matters?
ReplyDelete