Ryan: I think it is interesting how Warhol chose a wide variety of subjects for his work, from celebrities to carcrashes, soup cans to himself, and yet the same thing happens with each work, something is turned into an inexpensive object that can be bought and sold and hung up in a museum or a person's home. You talked about his life style and how he hung out with the rich and famous a lot. I wonder what can be said about the superficiality of his life, and if this tranlastes through to his work. For example, I read somewhere he wore wigs. Oh yeah and about the whole idea of his art being turned into consumerism, campbell's soup made a disposible paper dress called the "souper dress" that was printed with warhol soup cans that they used to promote their product. And Warol himself also made a "brillo" dress for one of his show openings...
Karen: I kind of like how even though Miro's work doesn't really have recognizable figures in it, they are not purely abstract. I wonder what the significance of the women birds and stars was? I saw lots of stars but i didn't really see women or birds. Maybe you could focus on why he chose to depict women in that way?
Sierra: Your paper is really interesting, it's just that I don't feel it is all that original. It would be nice if you could find a way to link it to the class more concretely... Maybe say something about what painting a whore does to the value of the piece, and how people feel about it know.. I mean no one cares whether she was a prostitue or a princess, it's famous because it's manet...
Brianna: I think looking at the objectification of women, and the use of their bodies in advertisement is interesting, but why did you start out with traditional nude paintings? I feel like you should look at some old time ads that don't use naked women. The jump from that 1930's painting to contemporary advertisements just felt too big. Another way to transition would be to find some contemporary art that objectifies women, but that might be harder.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Brittany, Jazzmin, Phyllis, Sara
Brittany: In the most famous melting clocks painting, you said the blob in the middle is supposed to be a self portrait and then you said you could almost make out a figure. it you turn your head 90 degrees to the left, you can see an eyebrow and the lashes of a closed eye...
Jazzmin: I liked how you began, with a very strong sounding thesis. However, you didn't seem to prove it, and i don't see the relation to Basquiat. I thought you were going to show that graffiti art can show one what the expectation of an individual in a specific society were, but instead you starting talking about how Basquiat was really great. Also, you thesis sounded great, but maybe more for an anthropology or sociology paper than art history.
Phyllis: I love Oldenburg, I was going to do a comparison with his floor cake and something else for our last paper. I think its interesting that his art can be so large scale yet still allow people to walk right by it, like the clothespin. Maybe you could talk about public art and how if a piece is in a museum (floor cake) versus in a public corner (clothespin) people look at it differently.
Sara: Your presentation got cut off, so I'm not so sure the purpose of the comparisons at the end, but it seemed like it was going to be very interesting. I liked the idea of the three types of women, do you know the origin of this classification scheme? Like, is it commonly known, or did you come up with it, or was it from your research? Were you saying that feminist art uses the image of the holy mother to show that there's more types of women?
Jazzmin: I liked how you began, with a very strong sounding thesis. However, you didn't seem to prove it, and i don't see the relation to Basquiat. I thought you were going to show that graffiti art can show one what the expectation of an individual in a specific society were, but instead you starting talking about how Basquiat was really great. Also, you thesis sounded great, but maybe more for an anthropology or sociology paper than art history.
Phyllis: I love Oldenburg, I was going to do a comparison with his floor cake and something else for our last paper. I think its interesting that his art can be so large scale yet still allow people to walk right by it, like the clothespin. Maybe you could talk about public art and how if a piece is in a museum (floor cake) versus in a public corner (clothespin) people look at it differently.
Sara: Your presentation got cut off, so I'm not so sure the purpose of the comparisons at the end, but it seemed like it was going to be very interesting. I liked the idea of the three types of women, do you know the origin of this classification scheme? Like, is it commonly known, or did you come up with it, or was it from your research? Were you saying that feminist art uses the image of the holy mother to show that there's more types of women?
Presentations for April 28
Timaj:
How is it that you differentiate between the "real" and the "perceived"? What we know is what we perceive, that is as real as we can get... there are, after all, different arrays of color (ultraviolet etc) that humans cannot see, which are just as real as the spectrum that humans can see. The comparison with the camera would be interesting to dissect, since cameras were thought to somewhat "replace" artists because of the camera's ability to instantly replicate a scene, and yet that haystack painting that took several distances into account, and which didn't look very real at all, was supposed to be imitating a camera? That's almost paradoxical...
Brittany:
About the painting of the 'dream seconds before waking up', you would tell us that the tigers looked like the bee, and that the gun represented a bee sting, and that the multi-joined elephant represented desire... but all of that was present in the painting anyway. There was still a pomegranate with a bee around it, there was still a woman in a position that would probably suggest desire, and these things are all much clearer a symbol than the symbols themselves. So then what is the point of the symbols? What relevance does the title actually have to some more complicated reality of surrealist art? Does the arbitrariness of the symbols' presence merely demonstrate how loose connections in our brain can manifest in an instant? Does this focus on arbitrariness take away from any meaning the piece might otherwise have?
Jazzmin:
I had always believed that, in closer knit underground communities anyway, graffitti art was a marker of the artist's presence, rather than serving the artist as a way to express their opinion under the veil of anonymity. Take Basquiat for example, he had a style that was unmistakably his own. As for commissioned pieces, is the artist still anonymous? If it's legal, then the artist can paint in broad daylight... actually I think I remember you saying that some artists didn't like doing commissioned pieces. Speaking about legality of pieces, does the artist really care if their piece gets painted over, if they know they don't have a legal right to paint in that spot? Does the temporary existence of such large, striking murals actually affect the art in a positive way (other than to serve as a thrill to the artist)?
How is it that you differentiate between the "real" and the "perceived"? What we know is what we perceive, that is as real as we can get... there are, after all, different arrays of color (ultraviolet etc) that humans cannot see, which are just as real as the spectrum that humans can see. The comparison with the camera would be interesting to dissect, since cameras were thought to somewhat "replace" artists because of the camera's ability to instantly replicate a scene, and yet that haystack painting that took several distances into account, and which didn't look very real at all, was supposed to be imitating a camera? That's almost paradoxical...
Brittany:
About the painting of the 'dream seconds before waking up', you would tell us that the tigers looked like the bee, and that the gun represented a bee sting, and that the multi-joined elephant represented desire... but all of that was present in the painting anyway. There was still a pomegranate with a bee around it, there was still a woman in a position that would probably suggest desire, and these things are all much clearer a symbol than the symbols themselves. So then what is the point of the symbols? What relevance does the title actually have to some more complicated reality of surrealist art? Does the arbitrariness of the symbols' presence merely demonstrate how loose connections in our brain can manifest in an instant? Does this focus on arbitrariness take away from any meaning the piece might otherwise have?
Jazzmin:
I had always believed that, in closer knit underground communities anyway, graffitti art was a marker of the artist's presence, rather than serving the artist as a way to express their opinion under the veil of anonymity. Take Basquiat for example, he had a style that was unmistakably his own. As for commissioned pieces, is the artist still anonymous? If it's legal, then the artist can paint in broad daylight... actually I think I remember you saying that some artists didn't like doing commissioned pieces. Speaking about legality of pieces, does the artist really care if their piece gets painted over, if they know they don't have a legal right to paint in that spot? Does the temporary existence of such large, striking murals actually affect the art in a positive way (other than to serve as a thrill to the artist)?
1.) Timaj- Very interesting and presented well. I enjoyed the thorough explanations as to why Renaissance art was revolutionary, as it was very detailed and focused. However, the thesis was a bit broad, perhaps narrow it down? In regards to the elaboration on Monet, that was perfect, as it gave me a better understanding of your topic.
2.) The Dali presentation was entertaining and is a great research topic. I would highlight why Dali's purpose for his paintings are really ambiguous. The connection made during the presentation of Dali painting what he saw in his dreams was really good, perhaps elaborate more on this?
3.) I loved the Feminism in Chicano Art, it was very informative and organized. Overall I expect the research paper to very interesting! The history of the movement was explained very well and the presentation of specific cases such as Madre Metiza supported the thesis perfectly. LOVED IT!
2.) The Dali presentation was entertaining and is a great research topic. I would highlight why Dali's purpose for his paintings are really ambiguous. The connection made during the presentation of Dali painting what he saw in his dreams was really good, perhaps elaborate more on this?
3.) I loved the Feminism in Chicano Art, it was very informative and organized. Overall I expect the research paper to very interesting! The history of the movement was explained very well and the presentation of specific cases such as Madre Metiza supported the thesis perfectly. LOVED IT!
2nd round of presentation
Timaj: Monet’s Sunrise is one of my favorite paintings. Your discussion of impressionism and the techniques related is really interesting. Your mentioned that impressionist artists tried to paint the “air that surrounds”. I am curious about what exactly is the air that surrounds?
Brittany: I like your analysis of the surrealist paintings and what each figure symbolized. I didn’t quite understand how Sigmund Freud’s ideas are related to these paintings though. How is the “expression of the subconscious” related to the “dreams”? What exactly is the “lengthy narrative” involved in dreaming?
Jazzmin: Your presentation was very well structured. I liked how you gave a definition of grafitti art, talked about its variety and gave a history on it. The theme of the need for rebellion while having the fear of being condemned is very interesting.
Phyllis: Oldenburg and Van Bruggen’s sculptures are really fascinating. I’ve seen the bow and arrow sculpture from the Bay bridge for many times now but I never knew that it was a sculpture by Oldenburg. I am interested to find out, other than the scale, why did the artist chose these specific objects like lipstick, light switches, clothespin, shuttlecock and etc?
Sara: The various painting you showed of the mother figure of the mixed race population. The detailed comparison between Our Lady and Virgin Mary was really interesting too. Maybe you would like to explain the significance of each of the changed symbol too. I like how the feminist artist’s defend herself against the accusation towards her work also.
Brittany: I like your analysis of the surrealist paintings and what each figure symbolized. I didn’t quite understand how Sigmund Freud’s ideas are related to these paintings though. How is the “expression of the subconscious” related to the “dreams”? What exactly is the “lengthy narrative” involved in dreaming?
Jazzmin: Your presentation was very well structured. I liked how you gave a definition of grafitti art, talked about its variety and gave a history on it. The theme of the need for rebellion while having the fear of being condemned is very interesting.
Phyllis: Oldenburg and Van Bruggen’s sculptures are really fascinating. I’ve seen the bow and arrow sculpture from the Bay bridge for many times now but I never knew that it was a sculpture by Oldenburg. I am interested to find out, other than the scale, why did the artist chose these specific objects like lipstick, light switches, clothespin, shuttlecock and etc?
Sara: The various painting you showed of the mother figure of the mixed race population. The detailed comparison between Our Lady and Virgin Mary was really interesting too. Maybe you would like to explain the significance of each of the changed symbol too. I like how the feminist artist’s defend herself against the accusation towards her work also.
Presentation 4.28
1. I love Impressionism personally. Your analysis of the color use and the impressionism's painting techniques was really good. There is so much to talk about Impressionism, comparing it with Realism. However, why are you comparing painters before Impressionism? How did Impressionism influence the art after it? I didn't really get what is your thesis for the paper.
2. I think there is a lot of meanings and motivations behind Surrealist. I suggest that you might want to explain more about Freud's philosophy on “subconsciousness”. How did it inspire surrealism? You talked about symbols a lot, which were very interesting.
3, Graffiti takes on a political approach. The connection between the society awareness and graffiti is very interesting. There are so many different types of graffiti because the culture difference. Is graffiti powerful enough of to achieve what it is trying to achieve? You have a lot of information there about graffiti. I think your paper will be a really good.
4.This series of art work is very interesting, and I like how you connect them with our normal perspective toward the same objects. You said a lot of different things about each piece, if you could make them all come together, that would be really nice. Another question, why did you choose all the large scale ones?
5. I don't really know anything about Chicano art. I've only seen it I don't really understand why they would portrait the virgin that way. What is the piece trying to tell the viewers? Just the gender bias?
2. I think there is a lot of meanings and motivations behind Surrealist. I suggest that you might want to explain more about Freud's philosophy on “subconsciousness”. How did it inspire surrealism? You talked about symbols a lot, which were very interesting.
3, Graffiti takes on a political approach. The connection between the society awareness and graffiti is very interesting. There are so many different types of graffiti because the culture difference. Is graffiti powerful enough of to achieve what it is trying to achieve? You have a lot of information there about graffiti. I think your paper will be a really good.
4.This series of art work is very interesting, and I like how you connect them with our normal perspective toward the same objects. You said a lot of different things about each piece, if you could make them all come together, that would be really nice. Another question, why did you choose all the large scale ones?
5. I don't really know anything about Chicano art. I've only seen it I don't really understand why they would portrait the virgin that way. What is the piece trying to tell the viewers? Just the gender bias?
Presentations 4.28.09
Timaj: When writing a research paper on Impressionism, the sky is the limit. There are so many different angles and topics you have to choose from. I liked the examples you showed in class, and you were very informing about the characteristics of Impressionist art. However, I think I missed what your idea was, the argument that is specific to your paper. Impressionism is definitely different from other eras of art, so what kind of claim have you made about this contrast? Try to make a thesis that isn't something already commonly accepted in the art world. Something that is unique or takes a different angle possibly. Good job!
Brittany: I think Dali has some incredibly interesting work. You are definitely touching on a connection that we haven’t covered thus far in our class, and that is the relationship between psychology and art. In addition I think you talked about science and his art as well. Your presentation offered some really good interpretations of Dali’s art from other scholars and/or artists, but for your paper I would say to try and make a claim about these interpretations, or make your own conclusions/interpretations. It would be interesting to see what you see in his work, if you agree with existing literature, etc.
Jazzmin: I really like your topic on graffiti art. Although there is ancient history on it, I think it is definitely something that relates more to our generation in terms of popularity and understanding. I liked how you have decided to look at specific case studies. Your presentation was very informing. However, I was a little lost on the thesis. You said it was something about subculture dialog and making something transparent? For your paper, I would say definitely make sure to explain how these cases support your thesis. Also, just curious (doesn’t need to be in your paper), but the case studies you showed artists with completely different styles of art. For example Jean Michele Basquiat’s child-like graffiti compared to the elaborate murals and/or feminist movement. Do you see a similarities between all types of graffiti like this?
Phyllis: Whimsical art like the pieces you are researching is so fun and unique. I was in San Francisco on Tuesday night and to my surprise I ran into the bow and arrow on the Embarcadero. You showed a lot of examples of this kind of art in your presentation, but the only thing I missed was some more explanation of your thesis and focus on the metamorphic characteristics of the art as well as political issues if there are any. I think you definitely have a lot to work with, and it will be really interesting to research and learn about what kinds of interpretations have come out of existing literature or even what the average observer takes away after viewing/coming in contact with this type of art.
Sara: Your presentation was very informative, and I think the topic you are dealing with is very interesting and motivational. You made a good point to emphasize the qualities of the art from the artists perspective rather than the usual viewer/critic perspective. In terms of your paper and feminism in Chicano art, it is definitely a broad topic, so I am interested to see how you will narrow it down to a specific thesis and decide which of the many topics you will choose to cover in your research paper. You showed a lot of examples of feminism in Chicano art that cover a broad timeline, but for the limits of our paper, you might be able to deliver a very strong argument by studying just two or three specific case studies/artists/pieces to present your argument. Over all you have a lot of information available on this issue and it’s a very inspiring topic.
Brittany: I think Dali has some incredibly interesting work. You are definitely touching on a connection that we haven’t covered thus far in our class, and that is the relationship between psychology and art. In addition I think you talked about science and his art as well. Your presentation offered some really good interpretations of Dali’s art from other scholars and/or artists, but for your paper I would say to try and make a claim about these interpretations, or make your own conclusions/interpretations. It would be interesting to see what you see in his work, if you agree with existing literature, etc.
Jazzmin: I really like your topic on graffiti art. Although there is ancient history on it, I think it is definitely something that relates more to our generation in terms of popularity and understanding. I liked how you have decided to look at specific case studies. Your presentation was very informing. However, I was a little lost on the thesis. You said it was something about subculture dialog and making something transparent? For your paper, I would say definitely make sure to explain how these cases support your thesis. Also, just curious (doesn’t need to be in your paper), but the case studies you showed artists with completely different styles of art. For example Jean Michele Basquiat’s child-like graffiti compared to the elaborate murals and/or feminist movement. Do you see a similarities between all types of graffiti like this?
Phyllis: Whimsical art like the pieces you are researching is so fun and unique. I was in San Francisco on Tuesday night and to my surprise I ran into the bow and arrow on the Embarcadero. You showed a lot of examples of this kind of art in your presentation, but the only thing I missed was some more explanation of your thesis and focus on the metamorphic characteristics of the art as well as political issues if there are any. I think you definitely have a lot to work with, and it will be really interesting to research and learn about what kinds of interpretations have come out of existing literature or even what the average observer takes away after viewing/coming in contact with this type of art.
Sara: Your presentation was very informative, and I think the topic you are dealing with is very interesting and motivational. You made a good point to emphasize the qualities of the art from the artists perspective rather than the usual viewer/critic perspective. In terms of your paper and feminism in Chicano art, it is definitely a broad topic, so I am interested to see how you will narrow it down to a specific thesis and decide which of the many topics you will choose to cover in your research paper. You showed a lot of examples of feminism in Chicano art that cover a broad timeline, but for the limits of our paper, you might be able to deliver a very strong argument by studying just two or three specific case studies/artists/pieces to present your argument. Over all you have a lot of information available on this issue and it’s a very inspiring topic.
Presentations 4/28/09
Timaj: The topic and coverage was interesting but I wasn't sure what your thesis was. There were also a lot of interpretations given which needed to be supported in some way.
Brittany: Same here. There were many many interpretations of Dali's paintings, and the things which appear in them. Where do these interpretations come from? Why was he painting an elephant from a foreign culture? Etc.?
Jazzmin: Your thesis was solid (but needed to be followed up more), and so were your choice of case studies. Two things stuck out as odd: 1) you called Basquiat the "first black artist" a number of times. Clearly, he was not the first black artist. What did you mean, exactly? 2) Be careful throwing the term "genius" (again, in reference to Basquiat) around.
Phyllis: Great topic, interesting material. What's your thesis?
Sarah: While I followed your presentation there were a number of words/phrases that I don't know. You may want to explain what some of these non-english terms mean.
Brittany: Same here. There were many many interpretations of Dali's paintings, and the things which appear in them. Where do these interpretations come from? Why was he painting an elephant from a foreign culture? Etc.?
Jazzmin: Your thesis was solid (but needed to be followed up more), and so were your choice of case studies. Two things stuck out as odd: 1) you called Basquiat the "first black artist" a number of times. Clearly, he was not the first black artist. What did you mean, exactly? 2) Be careful throwing the term "genius" (again, in reference to Basquiat) around.
Phyllis: Great topic, interesting material. What's your thesis?
Sarah: While I followed your presentation there were a number of words/phrases that I don't know. You may want to explain what some of these non-english terms mean.
4/28 Recap: Impressionism to Graffiti Art
Timaj: I have always been a fan of Impressionist art; it embodies a combination of poetry and painting that is very evocative and I really enjoy viewing. You provide a very thorough analysis of this particular art movement and briefly discussed the techniques used to produce the respective artworks. Also, you truly bring a focus to your research by analyzing Monet’s work in particular and contrasting Impressionist pieces with works from before this period. As a minor suggestion, try to contrast Monet’s work to other Impressionist artists and inform the reader why he is one of the most noted painters of this time.
Brittany: There is much to address about Salvador Dali’s work; Surrealism is such a spectacle that an entire semester course could be devoted to this single artistic period. But you’re off to a great start! Your interpretation of the two paintings, "One Second Before Awakening from a Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate" and “The Persistence of Memory” (which I believe are the two paintings you’re focusing on), is very informative and concise. However, in order to tighten your thesis, I would encourage you to analyze a single recurring theme in Dali’s paintings, such as clocks which allude to the perception of time.
Phyllis: I had no idea who had produced the sculpture of the bow and arrow at the Embarcadero until you told me. You made some great points about Oldenburg, including his monumental sculptures and the humorous undertone they each carry. I agree with Karen in that you should contrast (or associate) Oldenburg’s pieces as being site-specific.
Jazzmin: I grew up in an inner-city neighborhood in San Diego, and admit I hold deep appreciation for graffiti art. More than an artistic production, I feel graffiti narrates the experiences of the Chicano(a)/Latino(a) population and serve as informal history books to our heritage and lifestyle which tries to defy consumerist and individualistic American values. Graffiti art is a celebration of identity and of resistance to a monoculture, and deserves equal admiration to any painting exhibited at the Guggenheim. I applaud your careful research and sincere appreciation of this movement. You provide a valid comparison between modern urban graffiti art to that of the Bedouin culture. Great presentation!
Brittany: There is much to address about Salvador Dali’s work; Surrealism is such a spectacle that an entire semester course could be devoted to this single artistic period. But you’re off to a great start! Your interpretation of the two paintings, "One Second Before Awakening from a Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate" and “The Persistence of Memory” (which I believe are the two paintings you’re focusing on), is very informative and concise. However, in order to tighten your thesis, I would encourage you to analyze a single recurring theme in Dali’s paintings, such as clocks which allude to the perception of time.
Phyllis: I had no idea who had produced the sculpture of the bow and arrow at the Embarcadero until you told me. You made some great points about Oldenburg, including his monumental sculptures and the humorous undertone they each carry. I agree with Karen in that you should contrast (or associate) Oldenburg’s pieces as being site-specific.
Jazzmin: I grew up in an inner-city neighborhood in San Diego, and admit I hold deep appreciation for graffiti art. More than an artistic production, I feel graffiti narrates the experiences of the Chicano(a)/Latino(a) population and serve as informal history books to our heritage and lifestyle which tries to defy consumerist and individualistic American values. Graffiti art is a celebration of identity and of resistance to a monoculture, and deserves equal admiration to any painting exhibited at the Guggenheim. I applaud your careful research and sincere appreciation of this movement. You provide a valid comparison between modern urban graffiti art to that of the Bedouin culture. Great presentation!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Presentations: April 28
1. Britney: I liked learning about the soft watches because I have seen that piece before, but didn't know much about it. You had good information in your presentation, I liked it. Maybe for something you can also explore why surrealists engage in this symbolic process. Very good.
2. Jazzmin: I really liked your presentation, very interesting! With a lot of information, I really liked the two views of graffiti you presented and also about Bedowin's graffiti and idea of social identity. I think it would be interesting to explore about what we were talking about at the end of class, about the difference of murals and graffiti, maybe having to do with one being a rebellious act and the other more formal.
3. Phyllis: I found all the pieces you presented very interesting, I think my favorite was about the clothespin. I enjoyed learning about all these pieces. I think, though, that you should try to make your thesis more apparent when talking about the pieces, it seemed a bit lost about what the thesis was after awhile, but very good presentation.
4. Sara: I liked learning about Feminism in Chicano art. I liked how you used "Our Lady" to show your points by the comparison, there is a lot of things going on between the two different piece. Very good analysis. I think you have a lot of information to write about.
2. Jazzmin: I really liked your presentation, very interesting! With a lot of information, I really liked the two views of graffiti you presented and also about Bedowin's graffiti and idea of social identity. I think it would be interesting to explore about what we were talking about at the end of class, about the difference of murals and graffiti, maybe having to do with one being a rebellious act and the other more formal.
3. Phyllis: I found all the pieces you presented very interesting, I think my favorite was about the clothespin. I enjoyed learning about all these pieces. I think, though, that you should try to make your thesis more apparent when talking about the pieces, it seemed a bit lost about what the thesis was after awhile, but very good presentation.
4. Sara: I liked learning about Feminism in Chicano art. I liked how you used "Our Lady" to show your points by the comparison, there is a lot of things going on between the two different piece. Very good analysis. I think you have a lot of information to write about.
feedback 2
Tumaj- i really like that you are doing impressionist art. i think to strengthen your argument you need to be more specific than just how impressionist art was revolutionary because every movement can be considered revolutionary in some form or another
Brittany - Your discussion of Dali was interesting, but it could be stronger if you tie in more aspects other than the symbolism of the paintings.
Jasmin - I really liked your discussion of Graffiti art. i think the making an argument about the preservation of culture you touched on could make for a good paper.
Phyllis - you want to focus on the metamorphic qualities of shuttlecocks. this sounds like an interesting idea.
Sarah - i really enjoyed your discussion on chicano feminism. the Virgin Mary seems to be your thesis which i would agree with. Also comparing two of the virgin mary's might make for an interesting paper.
Presentations
Tamaj: I like your take on impressionism. I would try to formulate a more distinct thesis, especially one that incorporates the motives/ inspirations of the artists of the paintings you selected. With impressionism, you are able to research the historical backgrounds of those paintings and see the influence they had on art in later times. Try to speak a bit louder during presentations.
Brittany: I really enjoyed your connection between Freud and Dali. I think you have a lot of information to expand upon and the paintings are certainly complex and presumably loaded with meaning and inspiration from a variety of sources. I would research the reactions to his works and what exactly he intended the viewer to think, wonder, and experience by viewing and contemplating his work, or if he was just merely painting his own dreams without an intent.
Jasmin: Your presentation on graffiti art was captivating. I was unaware about the definite distinction between the two kinds of graffiti art. The commissioned painting of the woman in one of the first slides was unbelievably beautiful. I had a notion of graffiti in my mind as ugly or just merely large letters, yet that mural broadened my horizons. Perhaps this may add to your argument in some way in that many people can have their opinions altered regarding graffiti once they realize the beauty in it, especially through commissioned pieces.
Phyllis: I really enjoyed your presentation. The unique pieces are very interesting I think. I would be curious what the intent of the creator was, because the sculptures are bit trippy. They make the viewer aware of their own size, and make them question their relationship to everyday objects from the perspective of an ant, essentially.
Karen: Your presentation on feminism in Chicano art was interesting. I liked how you were able to contrast the images of the virgin Mary. What I wonder about your topic is whether or not male artists exist in this field. What do men think of such feminist pieces? Are they accepted? Is there revolt for defacing a sacred image? Are the female artists religious?
Brittany: I really enjoyed your connection between Freud and Dali. I think you have a lot of information to expand upon and the paintings are certainly complex and presumably loaded with meaning and inspiration from a variety of sources. I would research the reactions to his works and what exactly he intended the viewer to think, wonder, and experience by viewing and contemplating his work, or if he was just merely painting his own dreams without an intent.
Jasmin: Your presentation on graffiti art was captivating. I was unaware about the definite distinction between the two kinds of graffiti art. The commissioned painting of the woman in one of the first slides was unbelievably beautiful. I had a notion of graffiti in my mind as ugly or just merely large letters, yet that mural broadened my horizons. Perhaps this may add to your argument in some way in that many people can have their opinions altered regarding graffiti once they realize the beauty in it, especially through commissioned pieces.
Phyllis: I really enjoyed your presentation. The unique pieces are very interesting I think. I would be curious what the intent of the creator was, because the sculptures are bit trippy. They make the viewer aware of their own size, and make them question their relationship to everyday objects from the perspective of an ant, essentially.
Karen: Your presentation on feminism in Chicano art was interesting. I liked how you were able to contrast the images of the virgin Mary. What I wonder about your topic is whether or not male artists exist in this field. What do men think of such feminist pieces? Are they accepted? Is there revolt for defacing a sacred image? Are the female artists religious?
Presentations for April 28
Phyllis: I think you picked a really interesting topic. I think you mentioned that your thesis is along the lines of how Oldenbury uses arrangement and sizes to change the interpretations of the art. From your research, do you think that the public that has access to his art works fully understands the purpose of his art works? Some of the art works shown in class do have a very comical element to them, do these have and underlying meaning or were they only created for pure aesthetic purposes?
Sara: Your researched must have been very interesting, because you seemed very into the topics of your presentations. I understand that this was the Feminist Chicano Art, but where there a lot of male supports for the movement at the time? who were the main audience of the works created by these different female artists. How did the general population react to Alma Lopez'a "Our Lady"?
Sara: Your researched must have been very interesting, because you seemed very into the topics of your presentations. I understand that this was the Feminist Chicano Art, but where there a lot of male supports for the movement at the time? who were the main audience of the works created by these different female artists. How did the general population react to Alma Lopez'a "Our Lady"?
Presentations 4/28
Timaj - I like that you are talking about Impressionism as a movement, but are still focusing in on specific works and artists. It was brought up how some people say that Impressionism was made possible because of photography. This is a really interesting angle and I think you could definitely do a lot with the idea if you wanted to explore it more.
Brittany - I'm glad you're doing Dali! I really like him and think his stuff is really thought-provoking and has a lot of depth. I wasn't too clear with what your thesis is though. You brought up a lot of interesting information on Dali as a person, his fascination with Freud, the symbolism, etc. I just think you need to narrow down your scope and define your argument a little better.
Jazzmin - I really like your subject and the way you presented it -looking at 3 case studies drawing from different angles of graffiti, its history and its future direction. However, I was a little confused on how the last one, Basquiat, related to the idea of community graffiti and graffiti as dialogue, since it seems like you focused more on his individual life and works, and a little less on how he fit into the whole movement and community.
Sara - I'm sad you had to cut your presentation short - it seemed like you had so so much to say on your subject and all the works you chose. It's very clear that you care a lot about the subject. I like that you gave some history on Chicano females while still using key art pieces. My only suggestion would be to narrow down your focus and make the flow of your argument more linear. (You were also rushed through your presentation so I'm sure it would have been more clear if you could have taken your time)
Brittany - I'm glad you're doing Dali! I really like him and think his stuff is really thought-provoking and has a lot of depth. I wasn't too clear with what your thesis is though. You brought up a lot of interesting information on Dali as a person, his fascination with Freud, the symbolism, etc. I just think you need to narrow down your scope and define your argument a little better.
Jazzmin - I really like your subject and the way you presented it -looking at 3 case studies drawing from different angles of graffiti, its history and its future direction. However, I was a little confused on how the last one, Basquiat, related to the idea of community graffiti and graffiti as dialogue, since it seems like you focused more on his individual life and works, and a little less on how he fit into the whole movement and community.
Sara - I'm sad you had to cut your presentation short - it seemed like you had so so much to say on your subject and all the works you chose. It's very clear that you care a lot about the subject. I like that you gave some history on Chicano females while still using key art pieces. My only suggestion would be to narrow down your focus and make the flow of your argument more linear. (You were also rushed through your presentation so I'm sure it would have been more clear if you could have taken your time)
presentations from 4/28
Tamaj – I really liked your presentation and I believe you have taken on the big challenge since there is so much to say about impressionism and Monet. I definitely like the artwork you have selected and the distinction you are making between impressionism and what was being painted before this movement. I would definitely incorporate how photography may have influenced Monet or Impressionism.
Brittany – There is a ton to speak about Salvador Dali and Surrealism. You should attempt to narrow your focus to perhaps why you have chosen this artwork. I would definitely bring in the discussion about Freud and dream interpretation, but I wouldn’t go beyond this because I think it may ultimately clutter what you have to say about the art.
Jazzmin – I really enjoyed your discussion on graffiti art, more specifically your discussion comparing and contrasting LA Graffiti with other forms of graffiti. I suggest you bring up the distinction between graffiti and murals, maybe by focusing on commissioned artworks versus non-commissioned artworks.
Phyllis – I felt like you have a lot to say about the sculptures. This art is definitely something different than from what we’ve been studying in class. I guess my only suggestion is to really narrow down your thesis or focus. I would bring up this notion of utility vs. aesthetics when examining the sculptures.
Sara – Your presentation was great. You have a ton to say about the second muralist movement and you should definitely contrast how this movement differs from Mexican Muralism. My only suggestion is to narrow down your thesis, you have so many artworks you can incorporate in your discussion that it makes it difficult to choose one over the other.
Brittany – There is a ton to speak about Salvador Dali and Surrealism. You should attempt to narrow your focus to perhaps why you have chosen this artwork. I would definitely bring in the discussion about Freud and dream interpretation, but I wouldn’t go beyond this because I think it may ultimately clutter what you have to say about the art.
Jazzmin – I really enjoyed your discussion on graffiti art, more specifically your discussion comparing and contrasting LA Graffiti with other forms of graffiti. I suggest you bring up the distinction between graffiti and murals, maybe by focusing on commissioned artworks versus non-commissioned artworks.
Phyllis – I felt like you have a lot to say about the sculptures. This art is definitely something different than from what we’ve been studying in class. I guess my only suggestion is to really narrow down your thesis or focus. I would bring up this notion of utility vs. aesthetics when examining the sculptures.
Sara – Your presentation was great. You have a ton to say about the second muralist movement and you should definitely contrast how this movement differs from Mexican Muralism. My only suggestion is to narrow down your thesis, you have so many artworks you can incorporate in your discussion that it makes it difficult to choose one over the other.
Presentations 4/28
Timaj: I enjoyed learning about impressionism, and how the artists aimed to "paint the air" around all of the objects that conventional artists try to portray. You showed very clearly how the non-impressionist artists would paint scenes in a very posed way, whereas impressionists used a more "candid" approach. Perhaps you could go into why they decided to change their method of painting so drastically.
Brittany: Dali is one of my favorite artists, so it was nice to learn about his works. I thought it was really interesting how he basically draws his dreams and incorporates Freud's theories as well. It struck me during your presentation that the interpretation of Dali's paintings is essentially just as vague or subjective as Freud's (or anyone's, really) ability to interpret dreams.
Jazmin: The graffiti art you showed us was awesome! I especially liked learning about the recent women's movement in graffiti. I thought those were the best works :) It was also very interesting to learn that graffiti started off as far back as in ancient Greece! I thought that a good point was the whole effect of it being illegal, how that appeals to some artists, and community members' view of it as opposed to commissioned art.
Phyllis: I liked the humor behind Claes Oldenburg and Coosie Van Bruggen's work, and I've always wondered what that huge arrow in SF was. I really liked your thesis, and thought that you gave great examples for how they change the function and view of simple objects. It would be interesting to know why they chose certain objects for each landmark (the arrow for SF, the clothespin in Philadephia)--is there a specific reason they chose those objects? It's almost like site-specific art.
Sara: Your topic was something I had no prior knowledge of, so it was very nice to learn something completely new! I actually really liked Alma Lopez's controversial "Our Lady"; I thought it was humorous and empowering for women in some way. And for all the historical negativity toward La Malinche spearheaded by men, I liked the idea of women today taking a stand in favor of her. Maybe you could go further into why feminists today chose her to focus on, rather than other women. I mean, she's not alive anymore, so why is it important for them to do this?
Brittany: Dali is one of my favorite artists, so it was nice to learn about his works. I thought it was really interesting how he basically draws his dreams and incorporates Freud's theories as well. It struck me during your presentation that the interpretation of Dali's paintings is essentially just as vague or subjective as Freud's (or anyone's, really) ability to interpret dreams.
Jazmin: The graffiti art you showed us was awesome! I especially liked learning about the recent women's movement in graffiti. I thought those were the best works :) It was also very interesting to learn that graffiti started off as far back as in ancient Greece! I thought that a good point was the whole effect of it being illegal, how that appeals to some artists, and community members' view of it as opposed to commissioned art.
Phyllis: I liked the humor behind Claes Oldenburg and Coosie Van Bruggen's work, and I've always wondered what that huge arrow in SF was. I really liked your thesis, and thought that you gave great examples for how they change the function and view of simple objects. It would be interesting to know why they chose certain objects for each landmark (the arrow for SF, the clothespin in Philadephia)--is there a specific reason they chose those objects? It's almost like site-specific art.
Sara: Your topic was something I had no prior knowledge of, so it was very nice to learn something completely new! I actually really liked Alma Lopez's controversial "Our Lady"; I thought it was humorous and empowering for women in some way. And for all the historical negativity toward La Malinche spearheaded by men, I liked the idea of women today taking a stand in favor of her. Maybe you could go further into why feminists today chose her to focus on, rather than other women. I mean, she's not alive anymore, so why is it important for them to do this?
April 28 Presentations
Tamaj: I really like your subject of impressionism and I really like learning about how these artists painted scenes according to their emotions and by using unique brush techniques. You gave a good analyzation of each of the paintings and how they displayed impressionist works. So your thesis is to show how the impressionist depicted real life scenes in a different way. I think you have a good focus but maybe elaborate a little more on the impressionist era like what provoked them to paint with emotion. Otherwise good presentation!
Britney: You gave a good brief history on the Salvador Dali and the surrealist movement. I thought it was very interesting how Salvador used ideas from Sigmund Freud to express subconsciousness through his art work. This is a very interesting aspect of the art pieces. You stated a lot of fact from different sources and it showed that you did a lot of good research but try to state one coherent idea and then use your sources to back up your claim.
Jazzmin: I really liked your presentation! You were very engaging and graffiti art is such an interesting subject. I've always been fond of it and I really enjoyed learning about the different kinds of graffiti art and all the history behind it beginning from Greek times. I liked that you focused on specific cases and people therefore there wasn't a lot of information scattered everywhere. You were very enthusiastic and overall you had a really good presentation and a very good thesis.
Phyllis: I really enjoyed the art sculptures you showed by Claes Oldenburg and Coosie Van Bruggen. Their pieces were very entertaining and definitely humorous. I also liked how depending on where you viewed the sculpture, it looked differently. You did a very thorough discussion on each of his works and what they represented. So are you focusing on the metamorphic quality of his work? I wasn't exactly sure what your thesis was, but overall you did a good presentation.
Sara: The second muralist movement was very interesting. You have a good focus and a good analyzation of each of the different paintings that you showed. It's interesting how all these paintings show women being vulnerable and embarrassed and how this relates to the views of that time. I think you have a lot of good information to work with!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Presentations from 4.28
Timaj: Why do you think the impressionists were trying to differ from photographs?
Jazzmin: I really enjoyed your presentation and your argument. However, I'm wondering if you think that all graffiti artist gang members are rebelling against American ways--maybe they're just fighting against each other.
Phyllis: Most people probably don't know what Oldenberg's artwork means. What do you think Oldenberg wants the public to think of his artwork?
Sara: Do you think that Alma's paintings should have been accepted in the museum or do you think that they were inappropriate?
Jazzmin: I really enjoyed your presentation and your argument. However, I'm wondering if you think that all graffiti artist gang members are rebelling against American ways--maybe they're just fighting against each other.
Phyllis: Most people probably don't know what Oldenberg's artwork means. What do you think Oldenberg wants the public to think of his artwork?
Sara: Do you think that Alma's paintings should have been accepted in the museum or do you think that they were inappropriate?
Presentations from 4.23
Alfredo: I like how you pointed out how the paintings show the inferiority of the Mexicans inside of such an important government building. I also like the analysis of small parts of the painting and definitely think that this will allow for a great research paper.
Audrey:I liked your idea of materiality devaluing art. However, in your presentation you didn't explain it much and I think it will make a very interesting paper to expand on both sides of the argument.
Michelle: I thought the sculptures you showed were cool and I wanted to know more about them. In your paper you should talk more about how superflat and anime relate. It would be interesting to talk about the anime tv shows too.
Kevin: I like your topic, I almost chose kinetic sculptures for mine. I think it would be interesting to compare the different types you discussed in your presentation.
Amanda: You said that Flavin wanted his art to just be light without any meaning behind it, but people constantly tried to interpret it. Do you think he wanted to see what people would say about it?
Audrey:I liked your idea of materiality devaluing art. However, in your presentation you didn't explain it much and I think it will make a very interesting paper to expand on both sides of the argument.
Michelle: I thought the sculptures you showed were cool and I wanted to know more about them. In your paper you should talk more about how superflat and anime relate. It would be interesting to talk about the anime tv shows too.
Kevin: I like your topic, I almost chose kinetic sculptures for mine. I think it would be interesting to compare the different types you discussed in your presentation.
Amanda: You said that Flavin wanted his art to just be light without any meaning behind it, but people constantly tried to interpret it. Do you think he wanted to see what people would say about it?
presentations 2
1) the first presentation was good but i think more needs to be said about impressionism and more artists should be in the paper. I think it should be more then just a comparison of impressionists from other art forms, but also impressionists from each other and what they were trying to accomplish. I thought the comparison to photography was very interesting and a good point to make.
2) Starting a presentation with a brief history on the artist is always a good idea to me, and thus i thought the dali presentation was good. Once again, i think a stronger connection should be made between both other surrealists and then other forms of art work that was occurring during the same time. I thought the relation to freud and dreams was interesting as well, and i was not aware of that. I know that Dali does other forms of work other then painting and i think those should be discussed to create a strong surrealist argument concerning dali.
3) the graffiti presentation was amazing. Perfect. I liked that it started with a thesis and then used three diverse movements and a brief history in order to prove that thesis. I liked the work that was shown and the points that were made, and i expect that the paper will be very well organized and structured based on the presentation. I also liked how the actual term graffiti was defined with multiple definitions showing the different perspectives.
4) I liked the oldenburg presentation but i felt like somehting was missing. It just needs to be more argumentative i think. the thesis said how his works added to new associations and interpretations but those need to be defined more explicitly and proven with more discussion on his work. I liked the talk on soft sculpture though and the idea that the skill of the artist is taken out as the gravity makes its impact.
5) I thought this presentation was very good and important. It described different variations of teh virgin mary through a feminist and gay rights activist perspective in which i ahd never thought about. It described an artwork that i did not think of as art for some reason, and i never stopped to take notice of the virgin mary as artwork. I think a lot of important points were made about the connection between the authority of religion and the rights of females in the artwork.
2) Starting a presentation with a brief history on the artist is always a good idea to me, and thus i thought the dali presentation was good. Once again, i think a stronger connection should be made between both other surrealists and then other forms of art work that was occurring during the same time. I thought the relation to freud and dreams was interesting as well, and i was not aware of that. I know that Dali does other forms of work other then painting and i think those should be discussed to create a strong surrealist argument concerning dali.
3) the graffiti presentation was amazing. Perfect. I liked that it started with a thesis and then used three diverse movements and a brief history in order to prove that thesis. I liked the work that was shown and the points that were made, and i expect that the paper will be very well organized and structured based on the presentation. I also liked how the actual term graffiti was defined with multiple definitions showing the different perspectives.
4) I liked the oldenburg presentation but i felt like somehting was missing. It just needs to be more argumentative i think. the thesis said how his works added to new associations and interpretations but those need to be defined more explicitly and proven with more discussion on his work. I liked the talk on soft sculpture though and the idea that the skill of the artist is taken out as the gravity makes its impact.
5) I thought this presentation was very good and important. It described different variations of teh virgin mary through a feminist and gay rights activist perspective in which i ahd never thought about. It described an artwork that i did not think of as art for some reason, and i never stopped to take notice of the virgin mary as artwork. I think a lot of important points were made about the connection between the authority of religion and the rights of females in the artwork.
Presentation post #1
Audrey; I enjoyed the refreshing view of classical art, and it was interesting for you to note that classical greek sculptures were not made for the sake of art. I always thought that they took pride in their sculptures, since ancient Greece's claim to fame was their dedication to knowledge and perfection... it did not occur to me that such ambition was likely seperate from their "need for art".
Michelle; I wasn't sure what you were trying to say during your presentation... all I got from it was that there are a lot of anime addicts, and something about a consumer fetish or whatever its called. Is it this consumerism that ensures the continual production of anime? Does this habit of consumerism take away from the meaning or quality of the art?
Amanda; I thought it was funny that Flavin’s homages to people were actually subtle criticisms :)
Alfredo; I was a little confuse why you would begin your presentation by using the word "muralism"… I felt almost certain that you would use that word to describe some sort of feature that only murals have, perhaps a detracting qualiity. Allow me to explain. Murals have the tendency to portray some historical moment, and in the particular case of Diego Rivera's colonizacion de Mexico, it is a moment that the artist didn't actually witness or live through; and yet, you spoke of him as associating himself with the aztecs, spoke of how the mural was accepted, regardless of how gruesome the mural was. So perhaps this tendency to accept the art for its historical significance can be attributed to a so called "muralism."
Michelle; I wasn't sure what you were trying to say during your presentation... all I got from it was that there are a lot of anime addicts, and something about a consumer fetish or whatever its called. Is it this consumerism that ensures the continual production of anime? Does this habit of consumerism take away from the meaning or quality of the art?
Amanda; I thought it was funny that Flavin’s homages to people were actually subtle criticisms :)
Alfredo; I was a little confuse why you would begin your presentation by using the word "muralism"… I felt almost certain that you would use that word to describe some sort of feature that only murals have, perhaps a detracting qualiity. Allow me to explain. Murals have the tendency to portray some historical moment, and in the particular case of Diego Rivera's colonizacion de Mexico, it is a moment that the artist didn't actually witness or live through; and yet, you spoke of him as associating himself with the aztecs, spoke of how the mural was accepted, regardless of how gruesome the mural was. So perhaps this tendency to accept the art for its historical significance can be attributed to a so called "muralism."
Presentations #1
1.) Diego Rivera- I thought that the presentation was very thorough and well-thought out, however the thesis was a little ambiguous. There is most definitely great potential for a research paper on the mural located in Palacio Nacional, however the thesis should be on something detailed and focused.
2.) The Vistuality/materiality presentation was very interesting however a solid thesis must be created. There was alot of material covered, i.e. Warhol. However, I am not sure as to how this piece will incorporate with the visuality and materiality of jade and Renaissance art. Also, I personally think that it would interesting to mention why particular artists use jade with impurities.
3.) Super Flat Art-extremely intriguing and I personally would want to read this research paper. The parallel and associations of one artists impact on consumers worldwide was fascinating.
2.) The Vistuality/materiality presentation was very interesting however a solid thesis must be created. There was alot of material covered, i.e. Warhol. However, I am not sure as to how this piece will incorporate with the visuality and materiality of jade and Renaissance art. Also, I personally think that it would interesting to mention why particular artists use jade with impurities.
3.) Super Flat Art-extremely intriguing and I personally would want to read this research paper. The parallel and associations of one artists impact on consumers worldwide was fascinating.
feedback
Alfredo- i like that he gave a brief history of the murals. It is a very interesting topic and once he narrows down what he want to talk about i think it will be a very interesting paper
Audrey- there were lots of ideas, but i think you really need to focus in on one or two pieces of artwork and analyze them. Also make sure your argument is not something we already believe to be true, but i think the whole visuality vs materiality will be interesting once an argument is in place.
Michelle - very good and clear proposal. There is a lot of research to work with. From what she researched already, it should be a very interesting paper. Also i would just pick one or two artworks and just analyze those.
Kevin - did a good job explaining the relationship between machine and man. Once he narrows down the topic it will be a very good paper
Amanda- talked about dan flavin. not quite sure the direction she is going with the paper, but the artwork was very interesting.
first presentations
1) i thought Alfredo's presentation was the perfect style of presenting. He gave a brief history, showed the exact artwork he was discussing, and laid bared the problems and critiques he was trying to develop and understand. The class was able to add to the discussion as well as be very interested. Plus, i thought the artwork at hand was very interesting.
2) I thought the presentation on the comparison of the visuality and materiality of artwork needs more coinciding examples. I think, during similar times periods people were using both topics, and thus rather then comparing the two topics through different eras, i think there should be more of a focus on either the past or the present. I think trying to encompass the time period from early greek to renaissance to andy warhol is a bit much.
3)The Takashi Murakami presentation was very interesting. I think it is a good look at cultural aspects of japanese art as well as the presence and critique of one particular artist. Again, the brief history of both japanese culture and the artist are helpful, and a look at the artists repertoire was also helpful. It is a comprehensive look at the artist as well as the social implications of the art, and i think the thesis is developing nicely.
4) The machine art was interesting but confusing. My main questions are what is the main thesis, the thought of machines making art, machines as art, or art as machines. I think the topic is interesting but the thesis needs a little more work to create an argument.
5) I thought the Dan Flavin presentation was interesting but a stronger point needs to be made as to why Flavin is unique and adds new "light" to the art world. What does Dan Falvin do that is so important and how does he contribute to the museum space. Otherwise, all the photos and artworks were very cool, and the presentation went smoothly.
2) I thought the presentation on the comparison of the visuality and materiality of artwork needs more coinciding examples. I think, during similar times periods people were using both topics, and thus rather then comparing the two topics through different eras, i think there should be more of a focus on either the past or the present. I think trying to encompass the time period from early greek to renaissance to andy warhol is a bit much.
3)The Takashi Murakami presentation was very interesting. I think it is a good look at cultural aspects of japanese art as well as the presence and critique of one particular artist. Again, the brief history of both japanese culture and the artist are helpful, and a look at the artists repertoire was also helpful. It is a comprehensive look at the artist as well as the social implications of the art, and i think the thesis is developing nicely.
4) The machine art was interesting but confusing. My main questions are what is the main thesis, the thought of machines making art, machines as art, or art as machines. I think the topic is interesting but the thesis needs a little more work to create an argument.
5) I thought the Dan Flavin presentation was interesting but a stronger point needs to be made as to why Flavin is unique and adds new "light" to the art world. What does Dan Falvin do that is so important and how does he contribute to the museum space. Otherwise, all the photos and artworks were very cool, and the presentation went smoothly.
Alfredo, Audrey, Michelle, Kevin
Alfredo: I think your topic can be very interesting and rewarding if you go about it the right way. rather than focus on the historical aspects too much, I think you should try to find a way to relate it more to the class. Your title was "Mexican Muralism" but I feel that is misleading if you only talk about Rivera's work. I think it might be fun to look at other murals, both those that might have inspired his and those inspired by his, and look at the similarities and differences.
Audrey: I think you should narrow your topic a bit. Trying to include renaissance, jade, and warhol is pretty ambitious! I think your research will be very important to deciding which direction you go. Whatever claim you make has to be backed up by some evidence written by someone else... no matter how interesting or compelling your argument alone may be. Perhaps the tension of quality vs. quantity hints at the same thing as visuality/ materiality? Visuality seems like it can include materiality... like perhaps a fake jade carving doesn't have as much value to us not just because it's fake, but because it's a low quality fake. Also, doesn't it seem like the most expensive stones would be saved for the most skilled craftsmen?
Michelle: Your topic definately sounds fun to research. Is 'superflat' art named for it's appearance, that the art literally lacks depth, or for the shallowness of it's meaning? (Or both?) Also, are there other artists that do it besides the one you showed us in class. lastly, I'm wondering if the sculptures you showed us are relevent, are they considered 'superflat' too, or are they just by the same artist/ group of anime geeks?
Kevin: You stole the main thing I thought would add a twist to your paper already, the idea of animals making art and if that was art. Whether you should focus on who is the artist or bring up some thesis based on the man/machine thing I am not sure. I think who is the artist is more related to the class, like if the machine makes art is it really art? Is the physical qualityof it being paint on paper enough to call it "art"? This is short because I already helped you out a bunch =P
Audrey: I think you should narrow your topic a bit. Trying to include renaissance, jade, and warhol is pretty ambitious! I think your research will be very important to deciding which direction you go. Whatever claim you make has to be backed up by some evidence written by someone else... no matter how interesting or compelling your argument alone may be. Perhaps the tension of quality vs. quantity hints at the same thing as visuality/ materiality? Visuality seems like it can include materiality... like perhaps a fake jade carving doesn't have as much value to us not just because it's fake, but because it's a low quality fake. Also, doesn't it seem like the most expensive stones would be saved for the most skilled craftsmen?
Michelle: Your topic definately sounds fun to research. Is 'superflat' art named for it's appearance, that the art literally lacks depth, or for the shallowness of it's meaning? (Or both?) Also, are there other artists that do it besides the one you showed us in class. lastly, I'm wondering if the sculptures you showed us are relevent, are they considered 'superflat' too, or are they just by the same artist/ group of anime geeks?
Kevin: You stole the main thing I thought would add a twist to your paper already, the idea of animals making art and if that was art. Whether you should focus on who is the artist or bring up some thesis based on the man/machine thing I am not sure. I think who is the artist is more related to the class, like if the machine makes art is it really art? Is the physical qualityof it being paint on paper enough to call it "art"? This is short because I already helped you out a bunch =P
Presentations 4.23.09
Alfredo: I think you chose a really interesting and unique topic. Diego Rivera's work is amazing, and murals are a fascinating topic to look at with their extroardinary size and depth of content. Your presentation was very thorough and you covered a lot of great points about the relationship between the art and its location, including issues of politics. One thing I wonder is how he chose the content of his pieces. More specifically, why did he only do most of his works on the ancient tribes and colonizers? Or has he painted artwork with other stories behind them other than the native/colonizer conflict?
Audrey: I think Jade art is really beautiful and have potential for a really interesting research proposal. When I went to the Stanford Art Museum they had all different forms and colors of ancient jade scultpures made by indigenous people. You could probably find some more information on their website about it. In terms of your paper and presentation, I wasn't sure how you wanted to include Andy Warhol's work into your thesis, but I would suggest narrowing your topic to focus on just the jade art and possibly the renaissance paintings. Keeping it simple yet insightful is probably the best idea for conveying a clear analysis. Keep up with the research on the material vs. visual aspects of value in artwork like these and I think you will have a really interesting paper!
Michelle: First off, WOW! I think your paper topic definitely has the hook to draw your readers in. Your presentation was really thorough, and you covered all the important background aspects of superflat art: the historical context, motivation behind the design, the connection to relevant social/political issues, etc. The one thing I would say about narrowing your focus would be to keep the ideas of consumerism, anime, trends, and culture in terms of the art itself. There is definitely a lot to say about these issues in Japan even without the presence of art, and its easy to get caught up on general topics rather than narrowing it down. I really enjoyed your topic so definitely keep focusing on Takara's sculpting and your research paper is going to be super fun and interesting to read!
Kevin: I think you brought up a genre of art that isn't commonly recognized, and it would be cool to see what people think of this style of art. The sky is the limit with machine art, which you revealed to us with the vast array of examples, many that are completely different in style and function. It would be interesting to see who all these different artists are that all have a common interest in machinery as art. There is definitely a lot of potential for a research paper, but make sure you figure out one question you want to ask and talk about to narrow down your thesis. Maybe you could look at a one or even a few artists or pieces of machine art and analyze and/or compare them to make your argument more specific and cohesive.
Amanda: One of the most interesting things that you touched upon was how Flavin doesn't really have any meaning behind his pieces. I think this is so funny because even so, people think they can always pull information and underlying meanings out from everything whether it be art, books, movies, etc. It would be interesting to write a paper that researches the context of art that supposedly has no meaning, and to look at what existing literature has said about Flavin's works. I think you there are a lot of different angles you could take in you research. There are so many questions for an artist who is so different (in a good way) from most artists we have studied. Is there a connection between any of his works? similarities or differences? What is his though process in creating and/or planning his artwork? You definitely have a lot of things you can talk about for an interesting paper!
Audrey: I think Jade art is really beautiful and have potential for a really interesting research proposal. When I went to the Stanford Art Museum they had all different forms and colors of ancient jade scultpures made by indigenous people. You could probably find some more information on their website about it. In terms of your paper and presentation, I wasn't sure how you wanted to include Andy Warhol's work into your thesis, but I would suggest narrowing your topic to focus on just the jade art and possibly the renaissance paintings. Keeping it simple yet insightful is probably the best idea for conveying a clear analysis. Keep up with the research on the material vs. visual aspects of value in artwork like these and I think you will have a really interesting paper!
Michelle: First off, WOW! I think your paper topic definitely has the hook to draw your readers in. Your presentation was really thorough, and you covered all the important background aspects of superflat art: the historical context, motivation behind the design, the connection to relevant social/political issues, etc. The one thing I would say about narrowing your focus would be to keep the ideas of consumerism, anime, trends, and culture in terms of the art itself. There is definitely a lot to say about these issues in Japan even without the presence of art, and its easy to get caught up on general topics rather than narrowing it down. I really enjoyed your topic so definitely keep focusing on Takara's sculpting and your research paper is going to be super fun and interesting to read!
Kevin: I think you brought up a genre of art that isn't commonly recognized, and it would be cool to see what people think of this style of art. The sky is the limit with machine art, which you revealed to us with the vast array of examples, many that are completely different in style and function. It would be interesting to see who all these different artists are that all have a common interest in machinery as art. There is definitely a lot of potential for a research paper, but make sure you figure out one question you want to ask and talk about to narrow down your thesis. Maybe you could look at a one or even a few artists or pieces of machine art and analyze and/or compare them to make your argument more specific and cohesive.
Amanda: One of the most interesting things that you touched upon was how Flavin doesn't really have any meaning behind his pieces. I think this is so funny because even so, people think they can always pull information and underlying meanings out from everything whether it be art, books, movies, etc. It would be interesting to write a paper that researches the context of art that supposedly has no meaning, and to look at what existing literature has said about Flavin's works. I think you there are a lot of different angles you could take in you research. There are so many questions for an artist who is so different (in a good way) from most artists we have studied. Is there a connection between any of his works? similarities or differences? What is his though process in creating and/or planning his artwork? You definitely have a lot of things you can talk about for an interesting paper!
Presentation 4.23
Alfredo: Your presentation was so organized and well presented. You gave a lot of historical informations, and they elaborated with your topic really well. One suggestion is that you might want to consider the relationship between the Rivera and his viewers, what kind of message is he trying to send out? Other than that, I really think you would have a very sound argument for your paper.
Michelle: I really like your topic. It is very interesting. I personally like Asian contemporary art a lot. Just a few questions regarding to "super flat." How does this particular type of art works influence the later art works (ex. sculptures)? Is the aesthetic value here focused on works of no meaning? Also, i think the connection between the clothing style and window display were really cool.
Kevin: I like how you are not going too far/ deep into who IS the artist. I think you should explain more about the tension between human and machine. The concept of machine is the art is really cool.
Amanda: Discuss more about the personal ecstasy, why religious is related? because of the color? Also, I think your discussion about the use of museum space is very interesting, you might want to talk about about it. Lastly, maybe you might want to discussion the relationship between his art works and fashion, how they work together, and do they help each other in a sense?
Michelle: I really like your topic. It is very interesting. I personally like Asian contemporary art a lot. Just a few questions regarding to "super flat." How does this particular type of art works influence the later art works (ex. sculptures)? Is the aesthetic value here focused on works of no meaning? Also, i think the connection between the clothing style and window display were really cool.
Kevin: I like how you are not going too far/ deep into who IS the artist. I think you should explain more about the tension between human and machine. The concept of machine is the art is really cool.
Amanda: Discuss more about the personal ecstasy, why religious is related? because of the color? Also, I think your discussion about the use of museum space is very interesting, you might want to talk about about it. Lastly, maybe you might want to discussion the relationship between his art works and fashion, how they work together, and do they help each other in a sense?
4/23 Recap: Rivera to Flavin
Alfredo: Your presentation was clear and very informative. There is much history associated with the Rivera mural you’re analyzing in your paper, and you provided a concise summary in your presentation. Indeed, the mural is so grand that one can even write a thesis about it. I would only suggest that you further address in your paper the organization of the piece; indicate that the panels generally follow a chronological order from top to bottom. Also, since Rivera was a main contributor to the 1st Mexican muralist movement, briefly associate La Colonización o La Llegada de Hernán Cortes a Veracruz to other pieces of his, and note how his work set precedent for the 2nd muralist movement in the post-Cold War era. Other than that, awesome insight!
Audrey: We could dedicate an entire course to contrasting materiality with visuality, but you managed to address them very nicely in your research paper. However, because each theme is so extensive and respective to each work of art, I would highly suggest you concentrate on the materiality vs. visuality of only jade art, for example. This would really consolidate your paper to more manageable thesis. But jade art is a true beauty, I saw an exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in San Diego back when I was in high school, and it was fascinating.
Michelle: The narrative behind the Hiropon sculptures was very interesting. I like the approach you take regarding modern Japanese art surrounding a hyper-consumerist social structure which seeks endless reinvention. To make your paper stronger, I would encourage you to focus on modern art. Unless you’re seeking to compare and contrast Ukiyo-e art with Superflat art, I suggest basing your research on a single category, whether Superflat art or not.
Kevin: With, the promulgation of minimalist and performance art, machines may just well be the next method of producing innovative art. Though some of your examples were completely bizarre and eerie, you truly expand our definition of art and its purpose. This category of art is rarely addressed in Art courses, certainly not to the extent of Renaissance and Baroque paintings, but you make a valid point: all is art when the artist intends it to be. The only comment I have for your presentation is to clean up your thesis and try focusing on two or three artists preferably from the same time period.
Amanda: I am glad you focused your research on Flavin, his work is very radical and completely challenges institutionalized perceptions of aesthetics and meaning within artworks. What is most puzzling is that he himself is unsure of the meaning behind his pieces! Will it be that art, of whatever form, lose deeper meaning? Has Flavin written anything to explain how his productions relate to one another, or is it merely a hobby? I really encourage you to provide a critique of his work.
Audrey: We could dedicate an entire course to contrasting materiality with visuality, but you managed to address them very nicely in your research paper. However, because each theme is so extensive and respective to each work of art, I would highly suggest you concentrate on the materiality vs. visuality of only jade art, for example. This would really consolidate your paper to more manageable thesis. But jade art is a true beauty, I saw an exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in San Diego back when I was in high school, and it was fascinating.
Michelle: The narrative behind the Hiropon sculptures was very interesting. I like the approach you take regarding modern Japanese art surrounding a hyper-consumerist social structure which seeks endless reinvention. To make your paper stronger, I would encourage you to focus on modern art. Unless you’re seeking to compare and contrast Ukiyo-e art with Superflat art, I suggest basing your research on a single category, whether Superflat art or not.
Kevin: With, the promulgation of minimalist and performance art, machines may just well be the next method of producing innovative art. Though some of your examples were completely bizarre and eerie, you truly expand our definition of art and its purpose. This category of art is rarely addressed in Art courses, certainly not to the extent of Renaissance and Baroque paintings, but you make a valid point: all is art when the artist intends it to be. The only comment I have for your presentation is to clean up your thesis and try focusing on two or three artists preferably from the same time period.
Amanda: I am glad you focused your research on Flavin, his work is very radical and completely challenges institutionalized perceptions of aesthetics and meaning within artworks. What is most puzzling is that he himself is unsure of the meaning behind his pieces! Will it be that art, of whatever form, lose deeper meaning? Has Flavin written anything to explain how his productions relate to one another, or is it merely a hobby? I really encourage you to provide a critique of his work.
Monday, April 27, 2009
1st round of presentation
Alfredo: I found your presentation really informative as I have no previous knowledge about Mexican Muralism at all. The background history you talked about is very detailed and really helped in understanding the painting you chose. The point you made about the location of the work was the most interesting point to me and I think it would be great if you further talk about the significance of this venue in your paper.
Audrey: I really liked how you contrasted renaissance paintings with jade art. I am also find your argument, about how different people use visuality and materiality differently in valuing artwork, really convincing. Maybe other than looking at Warhol’s works, you would also like to consider materiality in renaissance sculptures.
Michelle: I found your presentation on Superflat really intriguing. Murakami’s works that combined nihonga and anime art looked really cool, the LV bag designs were especially cute. I think about the point you made about Japanese youth dressing up on that particular street, you might want to consider the culture of cosplay. Also, just a side note, is the artist Murakami somehow related to the famous novelist Murakami?
Kevin: Those machines you showed were really cool looking, though that tinguely alter you showed was slightly freakish with the skulls and all that. What was the purpose and message of that work? What does the fact that it moves change about the work?
Amanda: I loved the works of Dan Flavin that you showed, especially the ones building structures out of fluorescent lamp, not just combining them on walls. You mentioned that a lot of Flavin’s works are untitled. Is there a particular reason why he does not want to name them?
Audrey: I really liked how you contrasted renaissance paintings with jade art. I am also find your argument, about how different people use visuality and materiality differently in valuing artwork, really convincing. Maybe other than looking at Warhol’s works, you would also like to consider materiality in renaissance sculptures.
Michelle: I found your presentation on Superflat really intriguing. Murakami’s works that combined nihonga and anime art looked really cool, the LV bag designs were especially cute. I think about the point you made about Japanese youth dressing up on that particular street, you might want to consider the culture of cosplay. Also, just a side note, is the artist Murakami somehow related to the famous novelist Murakami?
Kevin: Those machines you showed were really cool looking, though that tinguely alter you showed was slightly freakish with the skulls and all that. What was the purpose and message of that work? What does the fact that it moves change about the work?
Amanda: I loved the works of Dan Flavin that you showed, especially the ones building structures out of fluorescent lamp, not just combining them on walls. You mentioned that a lot of Flavin’s works are untitled. Is there a particular reason why he does not want to name them?
Presentations for 4/23
Alfredo: as noted in class you have a lot of material to work with, I think i difficult part for you will be trying to narrow down to a few greater subjects and themes. From your presentation, I got the sense that you will be writing about the politics and history of Mexico and how that has influence Mexican muralism. So I think it would be a good idea to include well summarized historical facts in your essay for those who may only have a slight understanding of the history of Mexico.
Audrey: I understand that you will be writing about visuality and materiality. In your presentation you talked about arts from ancient Greece, paintings from the time period of Renaissance art, and art made from jade. I was wondering if you will be questioning why there is this greater importance in visuality versus materiality and vise verse in these different art works? Do you think maybe cultural differences has anything to do with it?
Michelle: I think that this is a really interesting topic. I'm not into anime myself but some of my friends are. From your presentation, I got the sense that you will be writing about how Japan's lost of identity lead to superflat art and tying it in with consumerism. I was wondering how big is this superflat business? Is it popular with majority of the Japanese population, or only the younger generation?
Kevin: your topic reminded me of those spin-tops I used to play with, where there is a marker replaced for the tip of the spin-top. In my opinion, I think that the person who created the machine would be considered the artists even though the machine is creating the art. The person creating the machine must of had some kind of vision of what types/kinds 0f art works would be created by the machine. I think the element of uncertainty of what art can be created by the machine helps defines the type of art created.
Amanda: I find a similarity between your topic and Michelle's topic. Both topics kind of touch on art work that may not have any deeper meaning than just the aesthetics. You bring up an important question about how art should be viewed. In my opinion, it should depend on the viewers itself. I think that individual interpretations are important for appreciating the art work.
Audrey: I understand that you will be writing about visuality and materiality. In your presentation you talked about arts from ancient Greece, paintings from the time period of Renaissance art, and art made from jade. I was wondering if you will be questioning why there is this greater importance in visuality versus materiality and vise verse in these different art works? Do you think maybe cultural differences has anything to do with it?
Michelle: I think that this is a really interesting topic. I'm not into anime myself but some of my friends are. From your presentation, I got the sense that you will be writing about how Japan's lost of identity lead to superflat art and tying it in with consumerism. I was wondering how big is this superflat business? Is it popular with majority of the Japanese population, or only the younger generation?
Kevin: your topic reminded me of those spin-tops I used to play with, where there is a marker replaced for the tip of the spin-top. In my opinion, I think that the person who created the machine would be considered the artists even though the machine is creating the art. The person creating the machine must of had some kind of vision of what types/kinds 0f art works would be created by the machine. I think the element of uncertainty of what art can be created by the machine helps defines the type of art created.
Amanda: I find a similarity between your topic and Michelle's topic. Both topics kind of touch on art work that may not have any deeper meaning than just the aesthetics. You bring up an important question about how art should be viewed. In my opinion, it should depend on the viewers itself. I think that individual interpretations are important for appreciating the art work.
Presentations: April 23
1. Alfredo: You had a lot of information about your topic, it was organized well. You did a very good job explaining the mural. I think you have a lot of information that you can use for your paper, but I think you have to maybe narrow your topic more and be careful to not to lose your thesis with all the information, because there is a lot about this topic.
2. Audrey: I like your focus: Renaissance paintings and Chinese Jade sculptures. And I really like the visuality vs. materialism topic. You have a lot of things to work with and a lot of information relating to this. I think you will have a very good paper.
3. Michelle: I like your topic a lot. You talk about how obsession with consumerism and original art (hion-ga, hiropon, etc...) with two types of art, models and superflat. Maybe one more thing you can look at is how everything is related to the two different arts, and the difference these different types of arts have in relation to those topics.
4. Kevin: You have a good progression from the terror of machines being separated from humans to mutual imput. This is a very interesting topic, and I liked the piece of the malfunctioning pager the best. Maybe you can try to talk about these machines in terms of "what is art" as well. That could be interesting way to look at these art pieces.
5. Amanda: You have a good thesis that gives you a lot of things to work with when writing your paper. I really liked that quote "it is what it is, and it ain't nothin' else." This seems like a very difficult topic to write about, very challenging, but I think it's worth it in the end.
2. Audrey: I like your focus: Renaissance paintings and Chinese Jade sculptures. And I really like the visuality vs. materialism topic. You have a lot of things to work with and a lot of information relating to this. I think you will have a very good paper.
3. Michelle: I like your topic a lot. You talk about how obsession with consumerism and original art (hion-ga, hiropon, etc...) with two types of art, models and superflat. Maybe one more thing you can look at is how everything is related to the two different arts, and the difference these different types of arts have in relation to those topics.
4. Kevin: You have a good progression from the terror of machines being separated from humans to mutual imput. This is a very interesting topic, and I liked the piece of the malfunctioning pager the best. Maybe you can try to talk about these machines in terms of "what is art" as well. That could be interesting way to look at these art pieces.
5. Amanda: You have a good thesis that gives you a lot of things to work with when writing your paper. I really liked that quote "it is what it is, and it ain't nothin' else." This seems like a very difficult topic to write about, very challenging, but I think it's worth it in the end.
April 23, 2009 Presentations
Audrey: You brought up a good comparison between materiality vs value and between aesthetic beauty and cultural recognition. I think you have a lot to say and in comparing your concept of materiality with Warhol's artwork I honestly believe you'll have a very interesting research paper.
Michelle: I really enjoyed your discussion of Superflat art. I especially enjoyed your discussion of Western influence on Japanese art. I think this is a powerful claim and one that will allow for a solid compare/contrast to take place. You also did a great job leading up to the discussion by first discussing Japan's effort to isolate itself from other nations and Western influences.
Kevin: You did a great job challenging our concept of what is art. You present multiple perspectives from aesthetic beauty to utility to value. I think you definitely have a lot to speak about, but the problem may be what exactly you want to focus on. I also enjoyed how strange and yet attractive the art you chose to present was.
Amanda: I really enjoyed your presentation on Dan Flavin and his art. I especially enjoyed the quote where Flavin states his art is what it is. Although we did discuss his art already, I think you are also challenging our concept of art by attempting to figure out what Flavin meant by his art.
Michelle: I really enjoyed your discussion of Superflat art. I especially enjoyed your discussion of Western influence on Japanese art. I think this is a powerful claim and one that will allow for a solid compare/contrast to take place. You also did a great job leading up to the discussion by first discussing Japan's effort to isolate itself from other nations and Western influences.
Kevin: You did a great job challenging our concept of what is art. You present multiple perspectives from aesthetic beauty to utility to value. I think you definitely have a lot to speak about, but the problem may be what exactly you want to focus on. I also enjoyed how strange and yet attractive the art you chose to present was.
Amanda: I really enjoyed your presentation on Dan Flavin and his art. I especially enjoyed the quote where Flavin states his art is what it is. Although we did discuss his art already, I think you are also challenging our concept of art by attempting to figure out what Flavin meant by his art.
April 23 Presentations
Alfredo: I found your presentation to be very engaging. It's amazing how much history there is behind every detail of the mural. You did a very good of explaining the history and the intentions behind the the creation of the mural. I think it's interesting your discussion of the palace being a public space. You definitely have a lot to talk about, but try to narrow your discussion into one coherent thesis.
Audrey: You had a very interesting thesis on visuality vs. materiality. I like that you compared two extremes: Renaissance paintings and Chinese Jade sculptures. The information you presented on Chinese Jade sculptures like the article that mainly talks about the jade stone, is really great for you essay. I think you should find more sources to back up your claims on Renaissance paintings. You definitely have a good focus!
Kevin: The different machines you showed in class were very amusing. I think your discussion on these machines also plays on the fact of "what is art?". Can these machines be called art? And I think your focus was a lot on wether the presence of people make these machines art. You have a lot of great ideas and a good focus, but try to make the your thoughts flow a little more smoothly.
Amanda: It was funny that LV took the idea of neon lights because they thought it was innovative just as they did with Takashi Murakami's art. It demonstrates perfectly how the art world mixes into the economic world. It seems like Dan Flavin does not mean to have a purpose in any of his neon pieces and it just something that he thinks looks cool. I hope I'm not getting your idea wrong. This definitely shows that sometimes art needs no context and people are always needing to find a reason and way to categorize everything. I like your thesis and you have a lot to work with.
4/23 Presentations
Alfredo: You gave a very thorough and interesting history of your piece, as well as many good ideas surrounding people's view of it. I thought that it was kind of ironic that so many depictions of the indigenous people being dominated and tortured wer portrayed in a government building. I'm curious as to what the government officials think of it. Are they ashamed that their previous leaders were unable to prevent such tragedies? Or is it a daily reminder of what they came from? What is the significance of this?
Audrey: I enjoyed hearing about the jade art at the Asian Art Museum in SF, and I'm definitely going to check it out in the near future! I think that your topic, visuality v materiality, was a little bit confusing for me, probably because it is a hard concept to explain and kind of broad as well. You used many examples to try and explain this, but in your paper, I think it would be best to focus on just a couple of examples, rather than touching on many, to better further your argument.
Michelle: The topic of superflat Japanese art was fascinating. Also, I had no idea that the LV bags used this artwork from Japan, so that was cool! You talked a lot about Japanese anime/manga culture and the Harajuku girls, which is great, but I didn't so much understand the connection between that and the superflat art. Was it the idea of consumerism that connects the two? If so, and if consumerism is your main argument, you should make the consumerism (or lack thereof) of the Ido art you showed in the beginning more explicit.
Kevin: I thought the beeper/pen piece you described was really interesting and funny. I think you're headed in a good direction with the idea of human contact and control over these mechanical, robotic works. Perhaps you could go deeper into how these pieces were received, because I remember you saying something about questioning the value of them and whether or not they should be considered "art."
Amanda: You showed a lot of pieces by Dan Flavin, which was great cause I think his work is fascinating, but what's more fascinating is the fact that he insists there isn't a deeper meaning behind them. You should really go into this more. It'll probably be hard to find any other direct quotes from Flavin because artists are ambiguous like that, but maybe you could find something from critics or people close to him and connect the dots to find some possible motive.
Audrey: I enjoyed hearing about the jade art at the Asian Art Museum in SF, and I'm definitely going to check it out in the near future! I think that your topic, visuality v materiality, was a little bit confusing for me, probably because it is a hard concept to explain and kind of broad as well. You used many examples to try and explain this, but in your paper, I think it would be best to focus on just a couple of examples, rather than touching on many, to better further your argument.
Michelle: The topic of superflat Japanese art was fascinating. Also, I had no idea that the LV bags used this artwork from Japan, so that was cool! You talked a lot about Japanese anime/manga culture and the Harajuku girls, which is great, but I didn't so much understand the connection between that and the superflat art. Was it the idea of consumerism that connects the two? If so, and if consumerism is your main argument, you should make the consumerism (or lack thereof) of the Ido art you showed in the beginning more explicit.
Kevin: I thought the beeper/pen piece you described was really interesting and funny. I think you're headed in a good direction with the idea of human contact and control over these mechanical, robotic works. Perhaps you could go deeper into how these pieces were received, because I remember you saying something about questioning the value of them and whether or not they should be considered "art."
Amanda: You showed a lot of pieces by Dan Flavin, which was great cause I think his work is fascinating, but what's more fascinating is the fact that he insists there isn't a deeper meaning behind them. You should really go into this more. It'll probably be hard to find any other direct quotes from Flavin because artists are ambiguous like that, but maybe you could find something from critics or people close to him and connect the dots to find some possible motive.
First Presentations
Alfrado:
I liked your ideas about how the public space in which the mural exists changes or adds to the meaning of the work. You made great points on the mural's relevance to historical events and how that impacts how the mural is viewed and interpretted.
I wonder how much of the history of the nation was actually included and depicted: Was anything censored or left out?
You spoke smoothly and you were very engaging.
Audrey: I think you should further discuss the specific paintings from the renaissance and their characteristics of how they depict and represent materiality. I really like your discussion about the jade pieces. It was unique and interesting. I would focus more of your efforts here.
Michelle: Your subject is wildly interesting and I think you have lots of room to expand. I particularily enjoyed how you were able to relate this style of art work to current fads and trends in Japan, and how this gives the work more or less meaning.
I enjoyed the connection to consumerism and how that is represented in this style of work
Kevin: I think you should explore the topic of human input further. It is especially interesting to look at who is this artist and the controversy behind such types of art as the pens that draw when a pager goes off, etc. I would explore how critics reacted to these types of pieces and how they were accepted. What kinds of places display this work? For example, the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose.
Amanda: Discuss more in depth the meaning and inspiration behind Dan Flavin's work. I know he says there is none intended, but explore how others feel the work impacts them and the world of art. Do people argue that his work is insignificant, because there was little effort, or according to him, inspiration behind the series of works? How does he feel about his work being utilized by such companies as LV?
I liked your ideas about how the public space in which the mural exists changes or adds to the meaning of the work. You made great points on the mural's relevance to historical events and how that impacts how the mural is viewed and interpretted.
I wonder how much of the history of the nation was actually included and depicted: Was anything censored or left out?
You spoke smoothly and you were very engaging.
Audrey: I think you should further discuss the specific paintings from the renaissance and their characteristics of how they depict and represent materiality. I really like your discussion about the jade pieces. It was unique and interesting. I would focus more of your efforts here.
Michelle: Your subject is wildly interesting and I think you have lots of room to expand. I particularily enjoyed how you were able to relate this style of art work to current fads and trends in Japan, and how this gives the work more or less meaning.
I enjoyed the connection to consumerism and how that is represented in this style of work
Kevin: I think you should explore the topic of human input further. It is especially interesting to look at who is this artist and the controversy behind such types of art as the pens that draw when a pager goes off, etc. I would explore how critics reacted to these types of pieces and how they were accepted. What kinds of places display this work? For example, the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose.
Amanda: Discuss more in depth the meaning and inspiration behind Dan Flavin's work. I know he says there is none intended, but explore how others feel the work impacts them and the world of art. Do people argue that his work is insignificant, because there was little effort, or according to him, inspiration behind the series of works? How does he feel about his work being utilized by such companies as LV?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Cat in The Hat
The museum defends itself with the rights of private property, but it is supposedly a public institution, so in essence they lie under the same veil as Shapolsky et. al. I would provide this as a legitimately conclusive analysis, except that this is already obvious, since Haacke provided us with another art piece that makes the connection already. So, my question is, should i write anything in my blog post or does nobody care anymore???
Question 4: I'm not exactly sure what makes Haacke's piece art... all I could infer is that, as opposed to photo journalism, Haacke's piece questions implicitly "how proprietorial interests affect the cultural space as well [as explicitly documenting the ownership and control of urban space]" (171). So then it is this implicit meaning (a method which the museum wanted him to imploy to begin with since they thought it had been lacking in it and hence why they did not permit it) that makes Real Estate Pieces art. My question is, is there such a thing as meaningless art, if in that case the meaning would manifest itself as the initial purpose in creating a meaningless art piece, thus instilling the art piece with meaning and making it art?
Question 4: I'm not exactly sure what makes Haacke's piece art... all I could infer is that, as opposed to photo journalism, Haacke's piece questions implicitly "how proprietorial interests affect the cultural space as well [as explicitly documenting the ownership and control of urban space]" (171). So then it is this implicit meaning (a method which the museum wanted him to imploy to begin with since they thought it had been lacking in it and hence why they did not permit it) that makes Real Estate Pieces art. My question is, is there such a thing as meaningless art, if in that case the meaning would manifest itself as the initial purpose in creating a meaningless art piece, thus instilling the art piece with meaning and making it art?
Justifying Hans Haacke as Art
Question !: On page 161, I liked the phrase "cultural process of meaning production." The use of the word "cultural" seems to imply that more than one person gets to create the meaning. However, people of a common culture are lumped together in that culture. So instead of the art piece having a meaning for each viewer, it has a "cultural[ly]" determined...predetermined... (fixed?) meaning. I thought the author was saying that the artists explore how ant art piece can have different meanings in different circumstances, but he seems to have condensed it down to different cultures instead. Is my understanding correct? What doe this phrase really imply?
Question @: In the last paragraph, the author concludes by saying that Haacke's work makes you aware that "economic and social conflicts are not, in reality, "alien" to the museum's harmonious space" (last page). This made me think of Andrea Fraser's Museum highlights and how she was pointing out the "economic and social conflicts" behind the museum. I wonder if whichever came first in the timeline influenced the other, and what other artists critiqued the capitalism of the museum? Also, If Haacke's work had been allowed, would it have raised an uproar? Is it only significant because it wasn't liked at first? Would it have said anything about the museum's impurity when it comes to the classes?
Question @: In the last paragraph, the author concludes by saying that Haacke's work makes you aware that "economic and social conflicts are not, in reality, "alien" to the museum's harmonious space" (last page). This made me think of Andrea Fraser's Museum highlights and how she was pointing out the "economic and social conflicts" behind the museum. I wonder if whichever came first in the timeline influenced the other, and what other artists critiqued the capitalism of the museum? Also, If Haacke's work had been allowed, would it have raised an uproar? Is it only significant because it wasn't liked at first? Would it have said anything about the museum's impurity when it comes to the classes?
Haacke
Question 1: Haacke’s works question the role of politics in art. On pg 166, the author described a MoMA visitors’ poll where the spectators have to actively take part to vote on whether “the fact that Governor Rockefeller…in November?” I kind of wonder if the museum-goers really participated in the vote and what kind of thoughts they had when deciding if to vote in this poll. Other than that, how does this piece of work interrogates “art insitution’s supposed purity and purportedly a mere background for equally pure art objects”? Why would the poll qualify as an “art object” in the first place?
Question 2: On pg 177, the author talked about Haacke’s Shapolsky real-estate piece which revealed a “web of obscured family ties and dummy corporations that veil the identities of principal property owners”. I feel like this is not so much an artwork as an investigation report. Is this really something an artist, instead of a reporter would do? Is there any aesthetic value attached to this “artwork”?
Question 2: On pg 177, the author talked about Haacke’s Shapolsky real-estate piece which revealed a “web of obscured family ties and dummy corporations that veil the identities of principal property owners”. I feel like this is not so much an artwork as an investigation report. Is this really something an artist, instead of a reporter would do? Is there any aesthetic value attached to this “artwork”?
Haacke
In the reading Haacke said that "the concept of change has been the ideological basis of my work" referring to the real-estate pieces. After reading about the pieces and functions of the titles, I thought that his works are pretty interesting such that the pieces are continually changing "as of" the starting date of the pieces. The Guggenheim museum rejected these real-estate pieces. In the reading, the author writes that these pieces "interrogated the museum as such a primary mediating agency, foregrounding how it determines and limits the reading of artists texts." In the past readings we have also read about critiques of the instituation. I wonder if Haacke had any idea before hand about how the museum might react to his addional pieces to his collection for his exhibition. Because the cancellation did actually make his real-estate pieces more popular.
This reading confuses me of how this article is still talking about comtemporary art because it goes on talking about landlords and property values. Why is there is interesting in property and relation to art and economics?
This reading confuses me of how this article is still talking about comtemporary art because it goes on talking about landlords and property values. Why is there is interesting in property and relation to art and economics?
Haacke
Q1: Why did Guggenheim decide to accept Haacke's art after turned him down 15 years ago? Was it because the way people view art change over time? Would the viewers view this piece differently than they way they would do in 1985? If he had written some sort of explanations back then, maybe more people would accept this art work?
Question 2: I wonder that could Haacke's work consider to be site specific if it were shown outside in the public space in the city? Would it have a more powerful effect on the viewers?
Question 2: I wonder that could Haacke's work consider to be site specific if it were shown outside in the public space in the city? Would it have a more powerful effect on the viewers?
Property vs. Gallery Values
1. In her analysis of the Haacke’s real-estate pieces, Deutsche argues that these may very well be “early political works” in that they “investigate the changing functions of art in relation to the contingencies of history” (161). Could we then argue that Chris Burden’s Shoot is also an example of early political work?
2. Deutsche addresses that the Shapolsky piece raises awareness to the contrasts
“between the pristine museum interior and the deteriorating tenement facades, between the social status of the viewers’ space in a luxury enclave of Manhattan and that of the impoverished minority ghettos pictured—also threatened to erode the aura of isolation constructed around the museum and to dismantle its pretensions to represent universal interests” (171).
And these contrasts fueled greater curiosity about the work when the Haacke show was cancelled. What message or underlining theme did the museum feel was inappropriate for the exhibition? Does the institution want to continue to uphold its inaccessibility to underprivileged populations? In addition to Earthworks, what efforts are being conducted to deconstruct the privilege of museum galleries to make or break an artwork?
2. Deutsche addresses that the Shapolsky piece raises awareness to the contrasts
“between the pristine museum interior and the deteriorating tenement facades, between the social status of the viewers’ space in a luxury enclave of Manhattan and that of the impoverished minority ghettos pictured—also threatened to erode the aura of isolation constructed around the museum and to dismantle its pretensions to represent universal interests” (171).
And these contrasts fueled greater curiosity about the work when the Haacke show was cancelled. What message or underlining theme did the museum feel was inappropriate for the exhibition? Does the institution want to continue to uphold its inaccessibility to underprivileged populations? In addition to Earthworks, what efforts are being conducted to deconstruct the privilege of museum galleries to make or break an artwork?
Haacke
In the reading Haacke said that "the concept of change has been the ideological basis of my work" referring to the real-estate pieces. After reading about the pieces and functions of the titles, I thought that his works are pretty interesting such that the pieces are continually changing "as of" the starting date of the pieces. The Guggenheim museum rejected these real-estate pieces. In the reading, the author writes that these pieces "interrogated the museum as such a primary mediating agency, foregrounding how it determines and limits the reading of artists texts." In the past readings we have also read about critiques of the instituation. I wonder if Haacke had any idea before hand about how the museum might react to his addional pieces to his collection for his exhibition. Because the cancellation did actually make his real-estate pieces more popular.
This reading confuses me of how this article is still talking about comtemporary art because it goes on talking about landlords and property values. Why is there is interesting in property and relation to art and economics?
This reading confuses me of how this article is still talking about comtemporary art because it goes on talking about landlords and property values. Why is there is interesting in property and relation to art and economics?
Property Values
1.) My first question revolves around the concept of a museums purpose. Deutsche states, "Haccke's work is positioned, on account of its specificity, as "political" in contrast to the "indirect" art authorized by museological discourse and constituted, by virtue of the comparison, as "neutral"." This quote states that an art piece is intended to be neutral, however controversial art pieces such as Debord's, The Naked City. It is a product of this controversy that art works such as the Naked City, that allows a transparency of current political/socio-economic issues to be observed. If a museum is censored, then where can an artist fully express his/her opinion?
2.) The Guggenheim stated that Haacke's piece would, "threaten to erode the aura of isolation constructed around the museum and to dismantle its pretensions to represent universal interests." This quotes arises the question as to what art is appropriate to be displayed in a museum? Are artists only accepted into a museum based upon their skill or ability not to offend the wrong public?
2.) The Guggenheim stated that Haacke's piece would, "threaten to erode the aura of isolation constructed around the museum and to dismantle its pretensions to represent universal interests." This quotes arises the question as to what art is appropriate to be displayed in a museum? Are artists only accepted into a museum based upon their skill or ability not to offend the wrong public?
Property Values
Question 1: Museums turned away Haacke's art and then later accepted it, was there any specific reason why they rejected it? Or is this just the common case that happens to all artists, that their art isn't accepted until much later, or is there a specific reason why? Also, discussing cancellation would be helpful as well.
Question 2: Could we go over this concept more? "From Messer's obfuscating explanations of what constitutes unacceptable specificity- naming individuals only and, simultaneously, and nongeneralized reference to a social situation- it is only reasonable to conclude that the ral-estate pieces in fact contained two kinds of specificity that the museum found objectionable: first the detailed identification of the activities of a landlord whose right to operate out pof public biew had to be protected and second, the implicit designation of a broader framework for this system in a historically specific structre of property relations" (621).
Question 2: Could we go over this concept more? "From Messer's obfuscating explanations of what constitutes unacceptable specificity- naming individuals only and, simultaneously, and nongeneralized reference to a social situation- it is only reasonable to conclude that the ral-estate pieces in fact contained two kinds of specificity that the museum found objectionable: first the detailed identification of the activities of a landlord whose right to operate out pof public biew had to be protected and second, the implicit designation of a broader framework for this system in a historically specific structre of property relations" (621).
Monday, April 13, 2009
Property Values
Q1: Guggenheim initially turned away Haacke's art and then 15 years later accepted it. What were the reasons for the museum turning him down? Did they n0t think people would like it? Did they not think people would accept is as art? Why did the museum then accept his art 15 years later?
Q2: Would the Guggenheim Museum have been more accepting the first time Haacke submitted his real estate art if he would have explained his idea and meaning behind his artwork instead of just leaving it up to the viewers? Would they have understood the way they did in 1985 if he would have provided a written explanation to accompany the artwork?
Q2: Would the Guggenheim Museum have been more accepting the first time Haacke submitted his real estate art if he would have explained his idea and meaning behind his artwork instead of just leaving it up to the viewers? Would they have understood the way they did in 1985 if he would have provided a written explanation to accompany the artwork?
Hans Haacke
Q1: We've studied past eras in which artists mocked museums within a museum, which gave me the impression that the museum committee that selects what should or should not be shown is open to different types of art. This is why I was surprised to read about Guggenheim's denial of Hans Haacke's real estate pieces, due to their "specificity" or the "naming of specific individuals" (179), as Messer defined it. The museum itself is supposed to be pure and neutral, but isn't the goal of the art to have a message, whether it be social, political or anything else the artists portrays? Why is a concept like Situationism okay, but not the message that Hans Haacke is trying to expose?
Q2: Duchamp was famed for his mantra of "if I say it's art, it's art," and his Fountain piece, while denounced at first, became the symbol for this mantra and the inspiration for many artists. If Hans Haacke says his real-estate pieces are art, why were they not regarded as so? Isn't it hypocritical for museums (and the people in charge of them) to glorify Duchamp and his followers, yet deny Hans Haacke's work?
Q2: Duchamp was famed for his mantra of "if I say it's art, it's art," and his Fountain piece, while denounced at first, became the symbol for this mantra and the inspiration for many artists. If Hans Haacke says his real-estate pieces are art, why were they not regarded as so? Isn't it hypocritical for museums (and the people in charge of them) to glorify Duchamp and his followers, yet deny Hans Haacke's work?
Haacke
Question 1: It is understood by me that art historians or art critics have somewhat of a difficult time deciding from what period or art movement a given artwork is from. Furthermore, I believe art historians and critics look at who is making these artworks and then decide it must be from a specific period or movement. Why would Hans Haacke’s artwork be denied exhibition? I understood from the reading that Haacke usually titled his art with dates such as Real-Time Social System, as of May 1, 1971. I see this title with the date as a way to contextualize artworks, in a way already helping art historians and critics determine when it was created, but can this also limit the discretion that art historians and critics have in terms of assigning artworks to certain periods or movements?
Question 2: Haacke’s artwork may be considered political by many, especially those that Haacke attacked through art. I think what lies as the foundation for denying Haacke’s artwork from public exhibition is not the art itself, but the unforeseen consequences of what Haacke attempts to convey. Is this right? Should artist be denied exhibition because of political art? Additionally, should artist not be permitted from performing their art because they attack a certain group of individuals? What would the board that denied Haacke have said about Burden’s Shoot?
Question 2: Haacke’s artwork may be considered political by many, especially those that Haacke attacked through art. I think what lies as the foundation for denying Haacke’s artwork from public exhibition is not the art itself, but the unforeseen consequences of what Haacke attempts to convey. Is this right? Should artist be denied exhibition because of political art? Additionally, should artist not be permitted from performing their art because they attack a certain group of individuals? What would the board that denied Haacke have said about Burden’s Shoot?
Haacke
Q1: The cancellation of Haacke's Guggenheim show, like Duchamp's Fountain, raises the familliar questions of what counts as art, and who gets to make that decision. But beyond Duchamp's situation, Haacke's Shapolsky piece also raises other important social - and not just artistic - questions. One major art-related questions, however, is: are real estate investigations within the domain of art?
Q2: The next biggest question that occured to me while reading the article relates to the Guggenheim itself. What was their real motivation behind the cancellation? Was it a concern about litigation? Was it the ballot box? Where they concerned about protecting themselves from exposure?
Q2: The next biggest question that occured to me while reading the article relates to the Guggenheim itself. What was their real motivation behind the cancellation? Was it a concern about litigation? Was it the ballot box? Where they concerned about protecting themselves from exposure?
Hans Haacke
Question 1: We've said time and time again in class and through our readings that art should challenge the way we see the world, and how we interpret society and systems around us. I think this article is a great way to end the semester... Haacke's works are the epitome of art that challenges its viewers to rethink our world. My question is -is it still considered art? (pg 169 - unalloyed by either expressionistic sentiments or traditional aesthetic arrangements) His works explicitly point out discrepencies in society, there is no interpretation or guesswork - Haacke's message is clearly conveyed.
Question 2: What would the effect be if Haacke's works were shown out in the city or in a museum outside of, and independent from these power relationships? How is this site-specificity different from the kind what we discussed earlier in the year?
Question 2: What would the effect be if Haacke's works were shown out in the city or in a museum outside of, and independent from these power relationships? How is this site-specificity different from the kind what we discussed earlier in the year?
Hans Haacke
Q1. The Guggenheim decided not to show Haackes installation because it was too "political" and "alien to artistic purposes" but then why will museums show art pieces like Duchamp's Fountain which is a ready made and is nothing special? Isn't art supposed to be thought provoking?
Q2. Rosalind Deutsche says that "great art" has "found shelter within the museum, where it can be united with other aesthetic objects defined as products of unique artistic subjects" (170). Haackes artwork, i believe, is quite unique; it challenges the position of the museum and raises political issues. So what makes an piece of art unique? Why isn't Haackes work considered "unique" or great?
Propery Values
Question 1: The article discusses that the museum is supposed to be "a neutral area cleansed of social and political concerns. The museum's white walls, signifier of the art institution's supposed purity" (615). Yet, I find it troubling that other paintings, photographs, or other displays in a museum are able to depict and convey a political or social commentary. However, the poll regarding Rockefeller that Haacke placed in the MoMa just seems to explicitly raises such concerns and questions to its participants and audience members be not allowed? To me this poll and other pieces of art are essentially performing the same task and that art is subjective. The artist can incorporate a commentary in any form of art for the viewers to pick up on and eventually consider what the artist is trying to convey. So, how are these two scenarios different? And why would other works that may n0t be free of social and political commentaries be allowed just because they are not stated explicitly?
Question 2: Haacke's response to Messer's statement regarding potential legal suits that could come as a result of his proposed exhibit . It seems that Messer objects to the fact that Haacke's exhibit would be too provocative and demand too much attention, which the museum did not want, especially legally. Yet, many pieces of art are made to be provocative. Isn't art supposed to create a discussion and stimulate the audience's thought processes? Haacke created a new form of art and demonstrated news moods of thought surrounding what defines art . Art is often created to test boundaries. The museum claimed Haacke's work possessed "ulterior motives," but don't many artists' creations? Can't art be intended to have ulterior motives and provoke the audience to further consider the piece after viewing it? Artists often create work to impact the audience and make a statement about society to society, especially about capitalism. How is Haacke's case different? Why is he ulterior motive discriminated against?
Question 2: Haacke's response to Messer's statement regarding potential legal suits that could come as a result of his proposed exhibit . It seems that Messer objects to the fact that Haacke's exhibit would be too provocative and demand too much attention, which the museum did not want, especially legally. Yet, many pieces of art are made to be provocative. Isn't art supposed to create a discussion and stimulate the audience's thought processes? Haacke created a new form of art and demonstrated news moods of thought surrounding what defines art . Art is often created to test boundaries. The museum claimed Haacke's work possessed "ulterior motives," but don't many artists' creations? Can't art be intended to have ulterior motives and provoke the audience to further consider the piece after viewing it? Artists often create work to impact the audience and make a statement about society to society, especially about capitalism. How is Haacke's case different? Why is he ulterior motive discriminated against?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Phrase these statements into a question for me
I like how Krauss dumbs things down. She compares LeWitt's defenders to some guy who sucks stones. Then they are stone suckers. Not only that, but they all suck the same stones, turn and turn about. But its not the act of sucking stones that Krauss is critical about; it is that she is not satisfied with their solution to sucking stones. Krauss is a stone sucker too, but instead of jumping to conclusions so she could get to the sucking, she waited a little until she could figure out the best method, to suck all the stones with.
On a similar metaphorical note, I like how she crumples Progress in Art down to just "progression." Progress connotates an advancement of intellect or of method, which Gablik readily associates with the so called progression marked by art's historical course in perspective. However, a progression is simply a movement towards something, whether that something be the advancement of intellect or not. So yes there is movement in the history of art, and on this level Krauss aggrees with Gablik, but Gablik has apparently sucked her stones a little early, and Krauss doesn't aggree with that.
On a similar metaphorical note, I like how she crumples Progress in Art down to just "progression." Progress connotates an advancement of intellect or of method, which Gablik readily associates with the so called progression marked by art's historical course in perspective. However, a progression is simply a movement towards something, whether that something be the advancement of intellect or not. So yes there is movement in the history of art, and on this level Krauss aggrees with Gablik, but Gablik has apparently sucked her stones a little early, and Krauss doesn't aggree with that.
In the reading the author asks the question of what could be the possible representation of Lewitt's art work. And the answer given was that they are representation of the Mind. I thought this was weird when I read it, because to me, all art work is generated by the human mind. The art work must have been something the artist has thought of before producing. The thinking process when producing the art object to me represents the working of the "Mind." My thought about what Lewitt's art might represent is his interest in geometry and mathematics. My questions is, how is it fair to say that Lewitt's art is the "illustration of Mind" when most of his art is just repetition, or structures built from a single building block? How is this an illustration of the mind, why isn't a painting considered an illustration of mind?
On page 696 writes "Visual reality no longer has a privileged status with relation to the work of art, no longer forms the text which art is to illustrate. Now it is logic the constitutes the "text"; and the space onto which the art is now to open, the model it is to "picture" and by which it is to be tested is Mind." For some reason, this reminded my experiences doing experimental research for my psychology class, where I had to look at different abstract object in a limited amount of time and decide what I see, and the relation to the previous object. In my opinoin, the art created by Lewitt, tests his own mind more than the observers of the art. I wonder, if it was Lewitt's goal to created this testing of the mind of his viewers? Besides completing the cube, what else are we suppose to get from this type of arts?
On page 696 writes "Visual reality no longer has a privileged status with relation to the work of art, no longer forms the text which art is to illustrate. Now it is logic the constitutes the "text"; and the space onto which the art is now to open, the model it is to "picture" and by which it is to be tested is Mind." For some reason, this reminded my experiences doing experimental research for my psychology class, where I had to look at different abstract object in a limited amount of time and decide what I see, and the relation to the previous object. In my opinoin, the art created by Lewitt, tests his own mind more than the observers of the art. I wonder, if it was Lewitt's goal to created this testing of the mind of his viewers? Besides completing the cube, what else are we suppose to get from this type of arts?
LeWitt in Progress
Q1: Krauss talks about how art has progressed through time, from art prior to the discovery of systematic perspective, to the Renaissance, and then to modernism. She claims that "the modern period...cognitively outdistances the Renaissance by withdrawing this power of coordination from the real world entirely" (248). Many others would argue that the Renaissance was the peak of high art due to the many famous and glorified paintings from this era. Why would Krauss think that something like LeWitt's pieces are superior to these paintings? How does demonstrating the "independence of all deductive or logical systems from the process of observation" make it better? It seems like a lot more skill and talent goes into those Renaissance paintings than LeWitt's work.
Q2: LeWitt's work (and much of the work from that era) is supposed to be against rationality and logic, but it seems to me like there is still a very blatant use of these things. For example, the use of so many squares and cubes in something like "Floor Piece #4" on the first page reminds me of math and reasoning, maybe even something I'd see in a math textbook. There is a uniform shape and the large square is divided into many equal smaller squares in a mathematical fashion. So, how can he claim to be free from rationality and logic, when it seems like those very concepts were the basis for creating his work?
Q2: LeWitt's work (and much of the work from that era) is supposed to be against rationality and logic, but it seems to me like there is still a very blatant use of these things. For example, the use of so many squares and cubes in something like "Floor Piece #4" on the first page reminds me of math and reasoning, maybe even something I'd see in a math textbook. There is a uniform shape and the large square is divided into many equal smaller squares in a mathematical fashion. So, how can he claim to be free from rationality and logic, when it seems like those very concepts were the basis for creating his work?
Reading this article sucked. (stones)
Actually, I found this reading more engaging than the usual, mostly because it didn't try to introduce the next best method of categorization...
Krauss seems to be criticizing critics for doing exactly what she does. In particular, the excerpt "for these writers...it is obvious that the form [cognitive moment] takes is a kind of centering of thought-the discovery of a root principle, an axiom by which all the variables of a given system might be accounted for" seems to remind me particularly of Krauss's other writing. *cough* an expanded sculptural field? *cough* Krauss later argues that Lewitt's art doesn't provide that central viewpoint, but she also says that it doesn't represent human cognition. Isn't it possible that Lewitt's art shows that human cognition isn't that logical? Krauss's incorporation of the sucking stones excerpts seem to hint that while one can have a "logical system" for doing something, the fundamental action itself can still be absurd. like sucking stones.
Lewitt's incomplete open cubes progressively get closer to a complete cube, but the finished cube is omitted from the series. Why didn't he allow the "logical progression" to culminate , why leave it unfinished?
Krauss seems to be criticizing critics for doing exactly what she does. In particular, the excerpt "for these writers...it is obvious that the form [cognitive moment] takes is a kind of centering of thought-the discovery of a root principle, an axiom by which all the variables of a given system might be accounted for" seems to remind me particularly of Krauss's other writing. *cough* an expanded sculptural field? *cough* Krauss later argues that Lewitt's art doesn't provide that central viewpoint, but she also says that it doesn't represent human cognition. Isn't it possible that Lewitt's art shows that human cognition isn't that logical? Krauss's incorporation of the sucking stones excerpts seem to hint that while one can have a "logical system" for doing something, the fundamental action itself can still be absurd. like sucking stones.
Lewitt's incomplete open cubes progressively get closer to a complete cube, but the finished cube is omitted from the series. Why didn't he allow the "logical progression" to culminate , why leave it unfinished?
Absolute Abstraction
Krauss makes reference to Suzi Galik’s Progress in Art where she defines three distinct artistic periods: “visual representation prior to the discovery of systematic perspective, the second, beginning with the Renaissance, defined by the mastery of perspective, and the third, that of modernism, heralded by the onset of abstraction” (248). Therefore, what might come after abstraction? Are mathematical patterns and cognitive coordination that final stage of art or might Krauss suggest artistic periods as cyclical, perhaps that they’ll return to Renaissance works?
The most confounding claim made by Krauss is the following: “There is, in Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes, as they say, a method in this madness. For what we find is the “system” of compulsion, of the obsessional’s unwavering ritual, with its precision, its neatness, its finicky exactitude, covering over an abyss of irrationality” (254). Earlier in her article, Krauss alludes abstraction to a childlike practice, simple but covertly complex. Is it not, therefore, meant to be appreciated for exclusively for its simplicity and not forcibly reduced to a “logical” process of observation?
The most confounding claim made by Krauss is the following: “There is, in Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes, as they say, a method in this madness. For what we find is the “system” of compulsion, of the obsessional’s unwavering ritual, with its precision, its neatness, its finicky exactitude, covering over an abyss of irrationality” (254). Earlier in her article, Krauss alludes abstraction to a childlike practice, simple but covertly complex. Is it not, therefore, meant to be appreciated for exclusively for its simplicity and not forcibly reduced to a “logical” process of observation?
LeWitt in Progress
1. Like I'd mentioned in class the other day, it seems like both conceptual art and minimalism take art to its very basic form. However, conceptual art seems to concentrate more around things away to the basic ideas, while minimalism focuses on basic elements and materials, and the ideas behind them. Is this the difference between them? They are kind of the same to me.
2. Rosalind Krauss talks about Suzi Gablik's three categories of art: visual representation, mastery of perspective, and abstraction. According to Gablik, abstraction is the most complex and yet the most complete development part in art. However, I don't think that abstract art is more advanced or more intellectual than visual representation art. They are different from each other in terms of technique. I don't know if it is accurate to put art into three categories, even in a hierarchy sense with human relation.
2. Rosalind Krauss talks about Suzi Gablik's three categories of art: visual representation, mastery of perspective, and abstraction. According to Gablik, abstraction is the most complex and yet the most complete development part in art. However, I don't think that abstract art is more advanced or more intellectual than visual representation art. They are different from each other in terms of technique. I don't know if it is accurate to put art into three categories, even in a hierarchy sense with human relation.
LeWitt in Progress
Question 1: My greatest problem with this article is the narration of how to suck on stones. At first, I thought that this story was there to illustrate mathematics and logic in LeWitt’s abstractions. But Krauss cut up the story into little bits and inserted them after one or two paragraphs of the main essay, making things really confusing. What is the purpose of doing that and what does the order of sucking on stones mean to this essay? In the story, there is also a lot of description on the narrator’s thought process, such as “…I contented myself ingloriously with the first solution that was a solution, to this problem.” (254) Is the inclusion of these specific thought process significant?
Question 2: On page 246, Krauss described the Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes (1974) and claimed that “For almost no writer who deals with LeWitt is there any question that these geometric emblems are illustration of Mind, the demonstration of rationalism itself.” However, what I want to know is why is the completion of incomplete open cubes a demonstration of rationalism? In the first place, to keep visualizing all 122 figures in the work as cubes just shows a compulsive obsession with cubes and isn’t that irrational?
Question 2: On page 246, Krauss described the Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes (1974) and claimed that “For almost no writer who deals with LeWitt is there any question that these geometric emblems are illustration of Mind, the demonstration of rationalism itself.” However, what I want to know is why is the completion of incomplete open cubes a demonstration of rationalism? In the first place, to keep visualizing all 122 figures in the work as cubes just shows a compulsive obsession with cubes and isn’t that irrational?
lewitt in progress
Q1: lewitt's work and conceptual art in general is supposed to be entirely focused on the mind, the idea behind the work. however, there still seems to be an inherent dependency on visual stimuli being presented in works of conceptual art. it seems to have equal weight and focus on the idea and thought process that the viewer needs to take in order to complete or interpret the work.
Q2: conceptual art and minimalism both are reducing art to its basic elements. conceptual art seems to be more centered around stripping things away to the basic ideas, while minimalism involves focusing on basic elements and materials (and the ideas behind those man-made industrial materials). is that their only difference?
Q2: conceptual art and minimalism both are reducing art to its basic elements. conceptual art seems to be more centered around stripping things away to the basic ideas, while minimalism involves focusing on basic elements and materials (and the ideas behind those man-made industrial materials). is that their only difference?
Monday, April 6, 2009
LeWitt in Progress
Question 1: "Abstract art is no longer tested by the faithfulness by which it transcribes appearances; it is now to be tested by its transparency to a different model. Visual reality no longer has a privileged status with relation to the work of art, no longer forms the test which the art is to illustrate. Now it is logic that constitutes the 'text'; and the space onto which the art is now open, the model it is to 'picture' and by which it is to be tested is Mind" (251). Art is interpreted and tested in many ways and now we bring in something more than just the visual quality of the piece. I wonder how we know if an art tests the Mind enough, how we know the quality of the piece?
Question 2: If we could go over the purpose of the stones and grey coat story in class, that would really be appreciated. I was a bit confused with this.
Question 2: If we could go over the purpose of the stones and grey coat story in class, that would really be appreciated. I was a bit confused with this.
LeWitt in Progress
1) The reading identifies an idea that LeWitt's work represents pure intelligibility as his goal, but it is later described as design without reason or as design spinning out of control, and even contradictory in a sense. How can it be seen as intelligible as a goal if it has no purpose or is conflicting in itself?
2) The stone-in-the-pocket analogy seems like a good argument in the bulk of the reading, but then all of the sudden Kuspit decides that he "might perhaps achieve [his] purpose without increasing the number of pockets...or reducing the number of stones" (254). Somewhere in his stone argument, Kuspit must be contradicting LeWitt's Variation of Incomplete Open Cubes if he completely changes his perspecitve, right? What is the significance of this changing analysis of stones and pockets? What is the final conclusion that parallels LeWitt's artwork?
2) The stone-in-the-pocket analogy seems like a good argument in the bulk of the reading, but then all of the sudden Kuspit decides that he "might perhaps achieve [his] purpose without increasing the number of pockets...or reducing the number of stones" (254). Somewhere in his stone argument, Kuspit must be contradicting LeWitt's Variation of Incomplete Open Cubes if he completely changes his perspecitve, right? What is the significance of this changing analysis of stones and pockets? What is the final conclusion that parallels LeWitt's artwork?
Lewitt in Progress
1.) According to Lewitt, "it is logic that constitutes the "text"; and the space onto which the art is now to open, the model it is to "picture" and by which it is to be tested by the Mind." To test the mind is something that is not universal as many people have different capacities of thought; however, Krauss states that Lewitt's art is "too simple". My questions surrounds the fact as to whom gets to decide whether a conceptual art piece is "too simple" or "just right"? This form of art cannot be judged based upon the architecture of the art but of the idea.
2.) Lewitt once stated "the idea becomes a Machine that makes the art". This idea is the general foundation of conceptual art, as it conjures the art and is the purpose of the art. Rather than focusing on the visible emotions of a painting or the like, Lewitt provides art pieces that force the mind to conjure the purpose of the piece, however Lewitt also provides instructions as to why the piece was created. Is contemporary art supposed to be a completely subjective activity, in which the audience is left to mentally configure the purpose of the piece? Or is Lewitt providing mental direction of the audiences' interpretation of his art (when providing the written directions)?
2.) Lewitt once stated "the idea becomes a Machine that makes the art". This idea is the general foundation of conceptual art, as it conjures the art and is the purpose of the art. Rather than focusing on the visible emotions of a painting or the like, Lewitt provides art pieces that force the mind to conjure the purpose of the piece, however Lewitt also provides instructions as to why the piece was created. Is contemporary art supposed to be a completely subjective activity, in which the audience is left to mentally configure the purpose of the piece? Or is Lewitt providing mental direction of the audiences' interpretation of his art (when providing the written directions)?
LeWitt in Progress
On page 254 Krauss quotes LeWitt saying that when he does a wall drawing he accompanies it with an explanation but the "idea is always unstated." My first question is:
What is the difference between the explanation and the idea? Isn't his explanation a description of his idea?
My second question is:
If there is a difference that I'm not seeing, than why doesn't he state the idea alond with or instead of the explanation?
What is the difference between the explanation and the idea? Isn't his explanation a description of his idea?
My second question is:
If there is a difference that I'm not seeing, than why doesn't he state the idea alond with or instead of the explanation?
Toward Postmodernism, Away from LeWitt as Mind.
Rosalind Krauss makes a good case for reevaluating the meaning of Sol LeWitt's work. She takes on the accepted interpretation as well as three individuals in particular. Bold. What's funny is that her chapter could be summarized (less eloquently, of course) by saying: LeWitt isn't representing rational thought, he's just doing the same dumb think over and over. This is the kind of response one might expect from a layperson. Bravo to her. Frankly I found the writing and concepts clear, and the points salient. I really have to dig for questions with this one.
Q1: Can't the case be made that LeWitt's repetitious figures represent something more naturalistic? Floor Piece #4, for example, is reminiscent of cells, or a beehive. Natural order.
Q2: Do the concpets of rationality and Mind not include repitition, or the spelling out of axiomatic notions? Those same axioms were arrived at through repititous experiements and/or mathematical fussing. It was probably even compulsive, obsessional and, as she says, finicky. She's being a bit black and white, isn't she?
Q1: Can't the case be made that LeWitt's repetitious figures represent something more naturalistic? Floor Piece #4, for example, is reminiscent of cells, or a beehive. Natural order.
Q2: Do the concpets of rationality and Mind not include repitition, or the spelling out of axiomatic notions? Those same axioms were arrived at through repititous experiements and/or mathematical fussing. It was probably even compulsive, obsessional and, as she says, finicky. She's being a bit black and white, isn't she?
Rosalind Krauss: LeWitt In Progress
Rosalind Krauss talks about how Suzi Gablik relates the history of art to the human development. Gablik breaks art into three categories: visual representation, mastery of perspective, and abstraction. She says that abstraction is the most complex and most complete development in art, but I wonder if art can be reasoned in this way to say that visual representation is less intellectual than abstract art. I don't think abstract art is a more complex progression rather that it is different in technique and opposes the art era before them. All art cannot be easily put into these three categories and conform to this "human development" idea.
In the beginning of Krauss' article, she seems to relate LeWitt's art to math and how his 122 Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes seem to represent "the illustration of Mind [and] the demonstration of rationalism itself". But later she says that it cannot be related to an algebraic expression because it does not summarize with the first couple of terms, rather it is "composed of a string of almost identical details, connected by 'and'. She also says that the work "counters 'the look of thought,' particularly if thought is understood as classical expression of logic.'" Is she saying that if logic follows algebraic expression and LeWitt's work does not reflect an expression, then it does not illustrate the rationalization of the mind? How come I still see the work as a series? It has a pattern yet it is random in the fact that you don't know what the next variation is going to be, but an idea that it will look like a cube.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)