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.