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.