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.
Monday, April 27, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)