1600s - Emergence of the bourgeois art market. With the rise of world trade more people were seeing artwork from other cultures. Similar codes are used but by people other than the aristocracy. Artists were able to work as autonomous producers, they started painting on canvas as it was portable and cheaper than directing onto walls. 'The Dog and the Magpie' was an early painting that didn't have a clear meaning. This was peculiar as neither the church or bourgeois would commission such work. Landscapes became more popular and as a result competition grew between artists. Since more landscapes paintings existed they became cheaper.

1700s - Artwork began to be made just for the fun of it. The enlightenment period, philosophy and industrialisation at the time contributed to the new concepts seen in artwork. Art was meant to be ambiguous, not just descriptive.

1800s - Development of modernist and avant-garde art. Art became a scene and space in itself. The painter has autonomy for the first time, they decide who to paint and how- they decide the narrative.

1945 - Exposure of elitist, classist, patriarchal colonial, euro-centric and white supremacist work with underpinning of modernist and avant-garde autonomy.

1970 - Explosive growth in the number and size of museums and exhibition platform. More gallery spaces, the idea of curators as a social and global practice emerges.

Early 2000s - Surge in the number of commercial art galleries and art fairs. Emergence of art as a financial asset. Art can be used to evade tax.

Late 2000s - Flood of art related degrees, PhD programs and research based practices.

There is an earlier work in the mid 1500s that looks remarkably similar, so which is the 'original'?

Do photographs diminish originality- Do not photograph signs.

Painting a copy of a painting creates a strange neutral stance.

Copying is never neutral, you're always filtering something or making some comment simply by creating a copy of the work chosen.

Saturn devouring his son by Goya wasn't painted on canvas. It was ripped from the wall of his house and pinned to a frame to create a fictional canvas painting for viewers to easily understand as an art piece.

Don't feel you have to 'understand' an art piece to make work from it, if you get something from it- make it your own.

I could create a piece of work and include instructions of how to make it, inviting the viewers to copy my work. This would deconstruct idea of originality and venerating technical skill. I could make an Ikea chair and place it in a gallery.

Nothing is original

I like the sculptural piece 'I've got Rhythm' by Betye Saar 1972. I think the way Saar has adapted and added onto a form that already exists in the world. This changes the way the viewer sees the work, it feels more direct and confrontational because Saar has taken a form already established in society and given it a new meaning. It feels like it's critiquing the users. Kind of like parents evening if you were the parent and the teacher is talking about your child, rather than talking about someone else's child. It feels more personal.

At art university you get insight into the language of the art world, you're given a place in it too. Like an invitation to join the 'club', you're made to feel like you deserve to be in similar spaces.

Read into Jacques Lacan and 'the Real'.

'We have to think about the negative with art, or we’ll just sit in this same-y soup'.

Positive theory of representation:

In order to be a picture a fact must have something in common with what it pictures.

What the picture must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it after its manner rightly or falsely is its form of representation.

You can’t paint fog, you have to paint what the fog alters to be able to perceive it. You have to paint the change the fog makes to it's surroundings to see it.

Artwork has to be slightly different to reality for it to be a representation. Otherwise it is too similar too not just be the same. The importance of negation.

Rauschenberg- erased de Kooning Drawing.

I want to create a drawing and rub it out, what effect would that give?

Film is all about anticipation, removing the pencil lines would create a moment of infinite anticipation. Frozen wanting.

Taking a photo of negative artwork makes it a positive when photographed.

Read the Four Stages of Public Art: Mark Hutchinson.

Interpretation reduces experience to a single perspective, makes it limiting.

New interpretations can free us from old ones.

The idea that art should be comprehended immediately through the senses is itself an interpretation. Does an artworks title count as an interpretation? Or is it a way of framing the image?

Sometimes an artworks title can be stronger than the piece itself. You can't create a work without an potential artist's interpretation. Even leaving work 'untitled' implies a way of reading it through a more abstract lens, subsequently framing it.

Although I rented out a DSLR so that I could taken videos in darker light and adjust the ISO and aperture these video came out much darker than I'd like. Later on I hope to re-shoot these in daylight or at dusk before it gets too dark for the camera to manage.