Brenda’s e-portfolio: Nulla dies sine linea

The bright green may shock your eyes a bit. It gives me pink afterimages. @_@

This was done for our Chemistry SIA product. It’s the background for a text adventure game in the style of… really old text adventure games. You should play the game, it’s quite fun in a silly way! Liza coded the game. Alena did a lot of research. And I did the background. Hm… I sense some sort of heterogeneous work spread here.  (Just joking.)

I wanted the design to be strong and really stand out. It’s supposed to be an industrial background, so that explains the smokestacks and nasty-looking reactor things in the back. I did this completely in MS Paint – but I had the advantage of lots of reference pictures. I stuck them all together in a collage in Paint, re-arranged them, added smoke and more or less traced over everything.

Come to think of it, the green’s a tad too bright, innit? -screws up eyes-

 When we were doing the Science Mentorship Programme in NUS (National University of Singapore), I took a lot of pictures. Most were pictures of us (Liza, Alena, me) doing our work in the laboratory. We were doing something to do with proteins, so we were in the Structural Biology lab. I’ve picked the two most striking images from the hundreds of photos that I took:

1) Metal holders for conical flasks

It’s monochromatic! I like how the metal reflects the light. I stuck my digital camera really far into the tray to get this picture.

2) Concrete Jungle

…Not really. This is a very strange picture. The plant just happened to be there, smack in the middle of all the concrete and glass and plastic. Quite interesting.

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

Surrounded Islands, 1983

Constantin Brancusi

Table of Silence, 1938

1. Describe the two works.

“Surrounded Islands” consists of 11 islands (in Biscayne Bay) surrounded by floating pink fabric following each island’s (or group of islands’) contours. The individual rafts of fabric used to form the surrounding, floating rafts varied in width from 3.7 to 6.7 metres and 122 to 183 metres in length. Although there were 11 islands, there were nine configurations in total, as two islands were surrounded together by the pink fabric on two occasions. The fabric was made of woven polypropylene and was shiny and bright pink. The islands were uninhabited and covered thickly with vegetation.

“Table of Silence” is part of the Targu Jiu Memorial, which consists of a number of works by Brancusi in memory of World War I. “Table” consists of one round table and 12 hourglass-shaped chairs. The tables and chairs are made of light-coloured limestone. The table is 2.15 metres in diameter and 0.43 metres thick, while the “leg” on which with table is mounted is 2 metres in diameter and 0.45 metres high. The 12 chairs are arranged in a circle a distance away from the table, surrounding the table. The table and chairs are set in a clearing in a forest, near a river.

2. Compare the treatment of space and form between the two works.

“Islands” depended very much on the islands themselves and the water upon which the fabric floated to give the fabric form, as the contours of the islands determined the shape of the fabric, and the water supported the fabric and let it bob up and down with the current.

“Table” is very set and heavy, with forms determined by the sculptor’s hands, unlike “Islands”, which depended on nature’s surroundings to give it form. “Table” consists abundantly of circles. The top surfaces of the chairs and table are all circular. The forms, then, are somewhat geometrical, yet organic, as circles are found abundantly in nature too. Thus the work manages to somehow blend in with its setting by its form, as “Islands” did, but not by colour.

“Islands” was done on simply huge scale compared to “Table”. “Islands” made liberal use of the open space out on water, giving the work a scale so huge that it became part of the environment, from the point of view of a human viewer.

“Table”, on the other hand, is reasonably smaller, somewhat like a real round table and chairs, and has made use of a clearing in the forest-garden. It restricts itself to round spaces by the very shape and arrangement of it. However, the tables and chairs do blend in quite nicely into the surroundings.

3. Discuss the spiritual significance of the two works, and if they represent the “spirit” of its age.

According to the artists’ website, “Islands” was “a work of art which underlined the various elements and ways in which the people of Miami live, between land and water”. (http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/si.html)

“Table”, on the other hand, is part of a ensemble which pays homage to heroes from World War I. The Table of Silence is meant to represent the last meal of the soldiers before they fight.

The heart of “Islands” is not the environment or the islands, but the people around the area. Similarly, the focus of “Table” is not the meal, but the men who ate the meal at the table in silence before they went to give up their lives.

“Islands” is rather recent, having been done in 1983. As said, it is meant to talk about the many ways the people of Miami lived between land and water. It does this by highlighting the connection between sea and land through the pink fabric. However, it does not really capture the spirit of the age directly. But in another respect, it captures perfectly, by means of the process of setting up the work, the endless red tape and bureaucracy which may, regrettably, be the hallmark of the modern age for artists who work on such a scale as Christo and Jeanne-Claude.

“Table”, I think, does represent the “spirit” of its age. It was done around 1938, which was after the First World War and before the Second World War. In the period directly after so much bloodshed, many felt a sense of terror or shock, and many paid quiet homage to the people who had died in the bloody course of war for their countrymen. “Table” does just this. It highlights the somber mood that the people then might have cast their imagination of their noble soldiers in, with empty table and chairs signifying the loss of these people.

Ng Eng Teng

Mother and Child, 1980

Auguste Rodin

The Thinker, 1880-81

1. Describe the two sculptures.

“Mother and Child” is a ciment fondu sculpture in the round. It depicts a mother cradling a baby protectively in her large hands. The forms are stylized, rounded and biomorphic, using space to suggest missing parts such as elbows. The legs are simplified and appear to be wrapped in bands that suggest a sarong. The feet are bare. The hair of the mother figure is in a semi-circle shape, with the straight line across the top. Hollows are used to suggest eyes in both the figures of the mother and child, but the other facial features are not stylized to that extent. The mother and child both seem to be smiling. Although it appears dense and solid, these suggestive spaces lighten the sculpture considerably. The upper body and lower body of the mother form a “v” shape, the upper body being vertical and the lower body at an angle to it. The shapes have a somewhat bulbous quality, but not exaggeratedly. The sculpture has a bronze-like patina and a somewhat rough texture. It is mounted on a column surrounded by a small water-fountain, around which there is a ledge for people to sit on (it is outside a shopping centre).

“The Thinker” is a bronze sculpture in the round. It depicts a naked man sitting in deep contemplation, his brow in deep furrow, body bent forward, hand supporting chin, knees together and feet propped up on a base that resembles a tree stump. The rough texture of the base is contrasted with the smooth texture of the main figure. The human form is realistically and naturalistically modeled, if a little bumpy. The main figure sits in a closed posture, leaning forward, causing the sculpture to look slightly off-balanced from a certain angle.

2. Compare the treatment of the human form in Ng Eng Teng’s Mother and Child to Rodin’s The Thinker.

The human form in “Mother” is stylized, but elegantly so. The form is immediately recognizable as human, although it has undergone simplification and abstraction. This simplification and abstraction draws attention to the parts that the artist would have us notice: For example, the mother’s hands are enlarged and the elbows missing, in order to draw attention to the protective nature of the mother over her child, whom she cradles. The expressions of the faces of the mother and child are serene and content, even though the eyes are replaced with their suggestion by hollows.

“Thinker” is also instantly recognizable as a human form, having undergone no stylization. The form is natural and realistic, and extremely so. The figure’s smooth texture is contrasted to his rough seat, emphasizing the detachment of the figure from the surroundings, so that the human figure stands (sits) alone.

The human forms in “Mother” are female and child, while the form in “Thinker” is male. The female and child forms are simply modeled and simplified, as the sculptor has chosen not to emphasize the individual distinctions of mother and child as feminine or childlike, but to focus on the figures in relation to each other (through their position to each other, and the cradling hands). The legs of the mother appear to be a kind of protective cradle which partially hides the child. The thinker, however, is alone. Being realistically modeled, he shows the rough musculature of a man. He is quite a sole figure and his posture (suggesting his thoughts) is the main focus of the work.

3. In your opinion, comment on which is the more effective at showing human feelings. You may quote other works from the same artists.

“Mother” shows the close bond between mother and child. It also highlights the protective nature of mothers with regard to their children. The fact that the mother figure envelopes and encloses the child figure highlights this. Some have suggested that this is actually an expression of anxiety and fear, as the figures are huddled close together. However, their serene expressions do not seem to suggest this to me. But in that vein, Ng Eng Teng’s “Fear II” (1978) also explores the theme of fear or protection from the outside world. In “Fear II”, the figure is huddled into a small ball, somewhat like how the mother figure of “Mother” draws her child close to her. This need for protection is a basic human emotion, and I think that “Mother” brings this across very well, especially in the context of a protective mother-child relationship.

“Thinker”, on the other hand, shows contemplation, a quite drab human state of mind, nothing so instinctive as protection of one’s child. The very posture of the figure brings across his contemplative state of mind very well: The closed position, the thoughtful rub of hand under chin, the downcast eyes. The figure seems to even be bearing the very worries of the world upon his hunched back. It is a very straightforward representation of a feeling; as an actor portrays feelings, so does this sculpture seem to be a snapshot of that portrayal, with no frills of symbols or exaggeration or abstraction. “The Burghers of Calais” by Rodin depict similarly, with no aid but the human figure realistically modeled, humans in despairing deliberation as they advance towards their fates. By the poses of the figures, Rodin was able to bring across emotion. So it is with the thinker.

Looking at “Mother” and “Thinker”, it may be seen that both are able to effectively bring across human feelings to the viewer. “Mother” does it with emphasis by simplification and abstraction, while “Thinker” opts to do this through realistic portrayal of the human form. However, “Mother” may have more than one interpretation – whether it is an expression of protectiveness or fear and anxiety is open to interpretation. “Thinker”, on the other hand, is quite obviously an expression of deep thought and contemplation (what the thinker is thinking about, on the other hand, is not quite clear on its own). Therefore, I think that “Thinker” is more successful in conveying a definite human feeling.

I like the architecture. The angles provide some interest. I’m rather proud of how sharp the picture is – must be the light and the auto-focus.

A bit of fun to end this slew of works:

A spontaneous doodle of one of my old jokes (Zheng knows this).

This was a rather long time ago, but I liked it. One thing I learnt from this class exercise was that one can distinguish shadows by lightening the perimeter of the dark areas.

White chalk on black sugar paper (A3? A2?)

This is much better than the fineliner Hamlet doodle. This was done with a Zig marker (those two-headed water-based ones) over perhaps 1.5 hours on yellowing A4 sketch paper. It was a doodle too – I started with the head. Then it grew out into the arms, cloak, shattering fragments, then a shadow – then a dagger and words. The words are all taken from the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy, except for the ones in the cloak (“Words, words, words. The matter? Between who?”) which are responses to Polonius in the rather amusing scene where Hamlet “mistakes” him for a fishmonger.

(Note: This post is both a “picture post” and a “writing post”.)

Technical aspects: As with ballpoints, I used the texture of the paper to allow the ink to “graze” over the surface to form skittish marks, for the lightly shaded areas (see the area around Hamlet’s face – although it’s not too clear). This method is a bit taxing but yields nice results if you have the patience. It’s for when the ink is too dark or the mark size is too wide for hatching. Doing this helps create “shades” without going to the trouble of pointillism.

I used the larger end of the marker for the big flat expanses. Unfortunately, there are a lot of white “holes” due to impatience and also the inability to go over the spots as the water-based ink was warping the paper and almost seeping through. This is why I prefer gel-based inks to more watery (or alcohol-y) inks. Copic markers, for example, give very good, even areas of colour with the alcohol-based inks, but the disadvantage is that the ink just goes through the paper (although not warping or fraying it). I like black Zig markers because the colour is intense enough and the 0.5 “nib” of the thing has a very nice touch, rather like a quill in its hollow point, but the weak point is in the ink – touch your work with sweaty palms and there it goes. Water-soluble, you see.

As with most doodles, the composition grew out of a point on the paper. However, the black on the right side is too heavy. The words are meant to lessen the impact of the contrast between large white and black areas. The words coming out of the dagger were seriously just going wherever I wrote them – I didn’t stop to plan. Luckily enough, it seems to have turned out fine in terms of balance due to the horizontal rows of words contained within the sinuous lines.

Thematic aspects: This work is based on William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. You see, I ruminate a lot over the soliloquy in question, mainly for mental exercise when I’m bored – trying to see how it fits in the play, what it reveals about Hamlet, how he might say it, etc. So although this began as a doodle, I quickly found that I was drawing Hamlet when I started colouring in his “suit of sables” (the black cloak that the melancholy Dane is supposed to wear). From then on, thematic considerations guided the otherwise spontaneous generation of this piece.

Naturally, it would have to be a sober black-and-white piece to reflect the bleakness of Hamlet’s mood and his story. When I was inking in the inky cloak, I thought that a big chunk of black was too much, so I added in a fracturing glass pattern, to suggest his internal conflict breaking him down or at least putting some stress on him. The shadow behind him is a sort of “alter-ego” or at least the other side of Hamlet: the one that reviles his mother, abuses Ophelia and drives him to the figurative cliff by the time he pronounces the question, “To be, or not to be.” The undercurrent of suicidal thoughts in this soliloquy has been picked up by more than a few directors, most famously in Olivier’s 1948 Hamlet film. And thus it is only the shadow who clutches the dagger – for now pointing away from Hamlet. In Coronado’s 1976 video, Hamlet was played by a pair of twins to represent his “divided nature” (Rosenthal, 2000), so I suppose this piece also reflects this to a certain extent.

Now, what about the words? Naturally, I chose to write out the soliloquy, but only half of it; the last doodle was a bit of an overkill with all the words crammed in. The Question begins at the tip of the dagger as the dagger is one of the solutions. To be, or not to be – if one chooses to not be, one needs some way to end being. (I shall not discuss the soliloquy in depth here – for further analysis see the Preface and Long Notes to the Arden Shakespeare edition of Hamlet.) I chose to end the strings or chunks of words at key phrases or begin them with the more pivotal points in Hamlet’s consideration of the Question (e.g. “To die, to sleep, to sleep, perchance to dream”), in order to draw attention to these points. As for the “WORDS” (quoted from the play!) crammed into his cloak, that was a bit of last-minute inspiration which summed up rather nicely what went on in Hamlet’s head/subconscious – slabs and slabs of words driving him to certain doom. He thinks too much (like yond Cassius who has a lean and hungry look). The ever-present deluge of words in his head is shown by him being surrounded by it on the page. The play itself is dominated by Hamlet’s thoughts, so it seems apt to give air to them in this piece.

Pictures unloading, steer clear.

1) The cover page (tentative and drawn yesterday from my veins) of the book of “birthday cards” from each class to the school.

2) A continuous design. Picture quality’s not fantastic because I can’t scan, it’s too big. These are the covers for each level. I can’t tell you how nervous I was about writing with the Chinese calligraphy brush. As it turned out, all went well, except the last one (four). The river of colours is always dulled when it has to pass through grey…

As you might be able to tell (pardon the quality!), the main “river” is paint. Since my blue acrylic formed a hard seal over the top due to the cap being ill-fitting, I had to forcibly extract paint using nothing but a chopstick, so the process of this work was terribly messy. Anyway, the English words were written with a English calligraphy pen (auto-inking, thank goodness). The extra lines around the “river” are gel markers. I intended for the river to be a rainbow sequence, but what was purple turned out to have its gel marker equivalent in brown instead. I wonder if anyone will notice the continuity when it’s all slotted into the file.

3) As you can see, I’m numbering this, so this post contains more than ONE work! They all took pretty long to do individually, even though they look simple. (Following the school value of simplicity – but it’s tougher to do a simple design than an elaborate one, it seems.) This is my class’s. Which I did because I forgot to ask for help. Oh well. The grey paper gives my white colourpencil a chance to come out and do some work! In real life the white looks quite good. Otherwise, the rest of the picture is somewhat imbalanced. The 90 was a horrendous exercise in colouring with pencils…

Pencil (2B and 6B only) on A4 sketchbook. I drew a small one, then I drew a bigger one, then I drew the biggest one, just for variety. It hints at some kind of attempt at composition. I had a lot of problems drawing the condensation on the side of the coffee-pot, though. I don’t think I found an elegant solution to it. Referenced from pictures taken of coffee-pot with coffee in it, made by Mr Lim.