Kate, Yiwen, Anita

Kate: The history behind Rothko's murals is somewhat interesting, but i didn't seem to hear an argument surrounding the topic. I think the story shows how much these abstract paintings can do to the viewer. I never would have imagined thinking of them as windows unless I stared at it for a while. I think you should focus on the viewer's actual experience, and the artist's intention, as they can end up being very different. I can just imagine diners at the four seasons thinking to themselves how lucky they were to be eating this close to a "real Rothko"! Isn't it ridiculous what ;fine art" has become?

Yiwen: Cough made us want to look more than if it were a real person, because it was unreal. However, the pointing one made us want to look away because it was uncomfortable, even though it was just a video. I think this is an interesting contradiction that shows the versatility of the medium of video art. Also, you talked about some performance art pieces, you should be careful to make it clear that you realize those aren't video art. perhaps you should refocus your essay on viewer's comfort level when viewing art, unless your current idea of attention span, time and the unreal is working out okay.

Anita: You said the language used by graffiti artists shows violence towards the city, like "bomb" and "burners", but you also said that those who make graffiti want to reclaim it? This is a little weird sounding. Why would they "attack" the city in order to put their own culture into it? This supports the negative stereotypes surrounding gangs and graffiti. Also, at the end you showed picture of suburbs, but that is not the "urban" redeveloped part where the graffiti is. Isn't graffiti on a person's home a different story from that on a city building full of elites? Lastly, one of the pictures you sowed was of graffiti on a train. How is writing on a train reclaiming the city? It's not even going to stay in the city!