When I entered the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, I was overwhelmed by the sheer size of the building. Not to mention, there was art scattered everywhere. Not just conventionally hung on the wall, but everywhere. There were sculptures and statues in every corner of the grand entrance way and on every desk or near every window. Due to the fact that we just did not have enough time to see the whole Met, we had to pick a few rooms to view. The first room we chose was in the American wing and had hundreds of portraits along the walls and in long aisles. They were portraits of men, women and children and each one was unique. Some people were smiling, others were not, and their style and expression radiated throughout the paintings. However, this room did not interest me as much as the next room we ventured in, which was the armor and arms room.
Here there were actual suits of armor, shields, swords, and guns from all ages and moments in time. My favorite collection was that of the guns. I had no idea how much detail could be put into a weapon. The triggers were often sculpted pieces of art, from models of castles, to replicas of squirrels. It was the style and practice of the time to show off your weaponry and the most decorated ones were the most prized. I could not imagine using one of those guns in battle. Seeing the pieces opened my mind to what art could be and is. Art is more than flat paintings, 3-D sculptures, music, or movies. It is also the things in our lives that artists take the time to shape and adorn with beautiful images representing a piece of history or an emotion.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Movement, Installment, Method: MFA Review
Wandering around the Washington State University Museum of Art and the Masters of Fine Art Thesis display, it was as though modern art styling gel had been smeared all throughout the partitioned room. Interesting new methods to art expression radiated captivating auras and seduced the onlooker to explore further. There were digital paintings by Heather Losey McGreachy, installation art by Lauren McCleary and Dustin Price, and video art by Tobias Walther.
Heather Losey McGreachy, inspired by a connection between the physical and digital world, demonstrated the most aesthetically pleasing pieces. Tolstoy would have trouble classifying her blended realities as art due to the fact that the clearness of her individual feeling was not there, however sincere her intentions may have been. Hume, on the other hand, could argue conversely. His standard of taste appears to be confirmed in McGreachy’s digital paintings through the overall consensus heard that her work was art. Though the viewers were not nearly the perfect critics; combined, the judgment, through good sense and comparison, elicited a general standard and opinion from which her paintings were judged.
The installation pieces were dramatically different in appearance. Lauren McCleary combined three pieces (Elephant Splat, Between Being, and Walk Wander) in a manner that jumped beyond, but also touched on, the canvas. Dustin Price’s Untitled tree of multiple white Buddha was more contained and simply represented. Both installations reminded of the inner workings of the brain. McCleary appeared to relate with an elephant which symbolized a large weight or unspoken sentiment which crowded the room, confused her being, and sent her into some sort of wandering state. Price brought nature indoors and connected it with knowledge, or possibly religion, cushioning its fall with a pure pile of pillows. These pieces hold greater importance in Aristotle’s interpretation of art. While both pieces seek to imitate an idea, the imitation has a purpose for human nature and thus man learns from interpreting unreachable ideas.
Tobias Walther experimented with one of the newest forms of art expression, that being videography. While the title of his piece (Sailor) seems out of place amongst the rolling wheat fields, tunnels and barrels he captures, an overriding sense of nausea emerges from viewing his imagery. In that sense, a sailor his viewers become. As far as representation, Dewey would argue that the mere experience, the medium included, defines the elements of the art and that is what we become focally aware of, creating the world work of art. Therefore, Walther’s art inducing sea sickness while also visually stimulating the audience is the art. While Dewey makes a great point, Sailor created no whole and was simply jumbled parts, not yet cohesive or clear.
Two years worth of work from five artists created an intriguing display, and the variety of art provoked deep reflection through underlying themes. It was a fusion of art theories connected by a common institutional background and similar world experience. One day, one of these artists may discard an old piece of art, which may end up in a pawn shop. There, the person who purchases the artwork could look upon it in disgust, but take it home as a gag gift or out of sheer impulse. Later, it might be debated on whether or not this particular piece of art belongs to that particular artist, but never the less, the method and style represented today by each artist acts only as a page in their extensive portfolio.
Heather Losey McGreachy, inspired by a connection between the physical and digital world, demonstrated the most aesthetically pleasing pieces. Tolstoy would have trouble classifying her blended realities as art due to the fact that the clearness of her individual feeling was not there, however sincere her intentions may have been. Hume, on the other hand, could argue conversely. His standard of taste appears to be confirmed in McGreachy’s digital paintings through the overall consensus heard that her work was art. Though the viewers were not nearly the perfect critics; combined, the judgment, through good sense and comparison, elicited a general standard and opinion from which her paintings were judged.
The installation pieces were dramatically different in appearance. Lauren McCleary combined three pieces (Elephant Splat, Between Being, and Walk Wander) in a manner that jumped beyond, but also touched on, the canvas. Dustin Price’s Untitled tree of multiple white Buddha was more contained and simply represented. Both installations reminded of the inner workings of the brain. McCleary appeared to relate with an elephant which symbolized a large weight or unspoken sentiment which crowded the room, confused her being, and sent her into some sort of wandering state. Price brought nature indoors and connected it with knowledge, or possibly religion, cushioning its fall with a pure pile of pillows. These pieces hold greater importance in Aristotle’s interpretation of art. While both pieces seek to imitate an idea, the imitation has a purpose for human nature and thus man learns from interpreting unreachable ideas.
Tobias Walther experimented with one of the newest forms of art expression, that being videography. While the title of his piece (Sailor) seems out of place amongst the rolling wheat fields, tunnels and barrels he captures, an overriding sense of nausea emerges from viewing his imagery. In that sense, a sailor his viewers become. As far as representation, Dewey would argue that the mere experience, the medium included, defines the elements of the art and that is what we become focally aware of, creating the world work of art. Therefore, Walther’s art inducing sea sickness while also visually stimulating the audience is the art. While Dewey makes a great point, Sailor created no whole and was simply jumbled parts, not yet cohesive or clear.
Two years worth of work from five artists created an intriguing display, and the variety of art provoked deep reflection through underlying themes. It was a fusion of art theories connected by a common institutional background and similar world experience. One day, one of these artists may discard an old piece of art, which may end up in a pawn shop. There, the person who purchases the artwork could look upon it in disgust, but take it home as a gag gift or out of sheer impulse. Later, it might be debated on whether or not this particular piece of art belongs to that particular artist, but never the less, the method and style represented today by each artist acts only as a page in their extensive portfolio.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Nietzsche v. Tolstoy
We have art so that we may not perish by the truth. ~Nietzsche
Nietzsche discusses the idea of two opposites (Apollo and the Dionysian) which when employed separately, yet used together, invoke a properly functioning society. I believe the quote above by Nietzsche clarifies the point he is trying to make regarding "principium individuationis." The point being: If we as human beings rely on the reality before us, only the Apollo or only the Dionysian (the intoxication), then we will fail to properly function. However, if we open ourselves to a combination of truth and intoxication, then we will survive and function properly. Art is one means of that intoxication.
The stronger the infection the better is the art.~Tolstoy
Tolstoy emphasizes the need for people to really get into the artwork. He thinks that if a person is to experience art, they much be completely infected by it, they must become intoxicated by it. I do not think that Tolstoy and Nietzsche were talking about completely different things, rather I think that they were talking about the same thing from different angles.
Both men are discussing the proper functioning of society and a perception of art that includes an intense intoxication. Both me feel that art is an essential element to the balance of life (the missing piece if you let it be). Nietzche is refering to an opposite, or a counter weight, whereas Tolstoy is refering to a powerful entity not used to balance, but used to teach and explain.
Nietzsche discusses the idea of two opposites (Apollo and the Dionysian) which when employed separately, yet used together, invoke a properly functioning society. I believe the quote above by Nietzsche clarifies the point he is trying to make regarding "principium individuationis." The point being: If we as human beings rely on the reality before us, only the Apollo or only the Dionysian (the intoxication), then we will fail to properly function. However, if we open ourselves to a combination of truth and intoxication, then we will survive and function properly. Art is one means of that intoxication.
The stronger the infection the better is the art.~Tolstoy
Tolstoy emphasizes the need for people to really get into the artwork. He thinks that if a person is to experience art, they much be completely infected by it, they must become intoxicated by it. I do not think that Tolstoy and Nietzsche were talking about completely different things, rather I think that they were talking about the same thing from different angles.
Both men are discussing the proper functioning of society and a perception of art that includes an intense intoxication. Both me feel that art is an essential element to the balance of life (the missing piece if you let it be). Nietzche is refering to an opposite, or a counter weight, whereas Tolstoy is refering to a powerful entity not used to balance, but used to teach and explain.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Pollock
(1) I think that Jackson Pollock is a very interesting character. I went on to YouTube and watched the video that Allison and Susan tried to show in class. He had a raspy, smokers voice and was very pointed. Everything he said was matter-of-fact. I liked how confident he was. He told the "audience" that he loves painting on large canvases, getting into the painting and around all the corners, and not painting but expressing. The last idea is what really struck me about Pollock. He said that he does not paint...he expresses himself. Every drip, every stroke, every pour he makes is never an accident. He is painting to express how he feels, who he is, and to be in touch with nature. I did not like Pollock's work before I learned a bit about him. He does not seem superficial and interested only in the money. He seems to be dedicated to perfection, ready to argue his case, and absolutely sure of his pieces (because he is not afraid to throw them away if they are bad). I now have a greater appreciation for his paintings because I have a greater appreciation for the artist.
(2) I wanted to discuss Plato's imitation theory in more depth regarding Pollock's art. Plato argued that art is imitation of imitation. The first imitation being all things, which are simply replicas of a greater idea that no man could ever present. I think that Plato would look at Pollock's art and laugh at first. However, after listening to the man and developing a sense of why he paints and to what end he aspires to arrive, I think that Plato would deem Pollock closer to the true "idea" than any other artist. I say this because Pollock paints his feelings, his emotions, and himself. He does so in a purposeful way and assures critics that his strokes and drips are not accidental but in fact meant to be every time. Because Pollock's paintings are abstract, they are simple and pure. He associates himself with nature and frees himself from the boundaries of lines and shapes, precisely why I think that Plato would respect Pollock more than other artists.
(2) I wanted to discuss Plato's imitation theory in more depth regarding Pollock's art. Plato argued that art is imitation of imitation. The first imitation being all things, which are simply replicas of a greater idea that no man could ever present. I think that Plato would look at Pollock's art and laugh at first. However, after listening to the man and developing a sense of why he paints and to what end he aspires to arrive, I think that Plato would deem Pollock closer to the true "idea" than any other artist. I say this because Pollock paints his feelings, his emotions, and himself. He does so in a purposeful way and assures critics that his strokes and drips are not accidental but in fact meant to be every time. Because Pollock's paintings are abstract, they are simple and pure. He associates himself with nature and frees himself from the boundaries of lines and shapes, precisely why I think that Plato would respect Pollock more than other artists.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Faking It!
I think the show faking it is really interesting. It is cool that a painter from the country was given the opportunity to express himself through art. He was given a chance to learn about the many aspects of art and apply them. He was also awarded the opportunity to look inside himself, to take time to read and get to know who he is. Watching him live out something he always dreamed he could accomplish inspires me.
I think the show is more real than many reality shows that I have seen. It is more creative and has a point. I like that the focus of the show is on a journey and that the people involved are real. The main character is honest about art at the very beginning and gives his opinion, but he also emphasises his desire to learn.
It is hard to say what the outcome of his journey will be because his art is different, but some art that is strange is also widely liked and accepted in the art community. I think that he has developed along the way and his final products will be quite good.
Overall, I think that the final decision made by the three judges will be 2 yes and 1 no.
I think the show is more real than many reality shows that I have seen. It is more creative and has a point. I like that the focus of the show is on a journey and that the people involved are real. The main character is honest about art at the very beginning and gives his opinion, but he also emphasises his desire to learn.
It is hard to say what the outcome of his journey will be because his art is different, but some art that is strange is also widely liked and accepted in the art community. I think that he has developed along the way and his final products will be quite good.
Overall, I think that the final decision made by the three judges will be 2 yes and 1 no.
Monday, March 2, 2009
That Old Master.....
It is not surprising to me that art is commercialized like it is in both the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and the Thomas Kinkade video. We live in a society where money rules. With increased wealth comes increased stature and prestige. Therefore, if you are an artist looking to be recognized, you have to sell yourself to the media or the wealthy.
What is surprising to me is the lengths to which people will go to make money on art. I could not believe that Kinkade had his own furniture line, as well as hundreds of paintings. I also find it a bit disturbing that Kinkade or his workers can add some paint to a print and the value increased drastically. I was also shocked to see that investors were willing to take on art as collateral for large, large loans. It was also surprising to see that the people pawning their art were powerful people or artists. It makes me wonder how much they paid for the art in the first place, as well as if they made a wise investment.
I would be interested in learning more about other countries and their commercialization practices in regard to art. I believe that I would see some similarities as well as some differences.
After reading the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and watching the Kinkade video, I am going to pay more attention to art on people's walls, in stores, and at our university. I do not think that commercializing art is necessarily a bad thing. If you are in the art business to make money, and people will buy what you are selling, then by all means keep up the good work. However, if you are in the art business to express something and do not care how much money you will make, and would rather not make money on it, then I'm sorry art has gone to the pawn shops.
I wonder what all of the philosophers would say about pawned art and mass produced art. I think Plato would laugh at the mass production of art because he already declared art was simply replication.
What is surprising to me is the lengths to which people will go to make money on art. I could not believe that Kinkade had his own furniture line, as well as hundreds of paintings. I also find it a bit disturbing that Kinkade or his workers can add some paint to a print and the value increased drastically. I was also shocked to see that investors were willing to take on art as collateral for large, large loans. It was also surprising to see that the people pawning their art were powerful people or artists. It makes me wonder how much they paid for the art in the first place, as well as if they made a wise investment.
I would be interested in learning more about other countries and their commercialization practices in regard to art. I believe that I would see some similarities as well as some differences.
After reading the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and watching the Kinkade video, I am going to pay more attention to art on people's walls, in stores, and at our university. I do not think that commercializing art is necessarily a bad thing. If you are in the art business to make money, and people will buy what you are selling, then by all means keep up the good work. However, if you are in the art business to express something and do not care how much money you will make, and would rather not make money on it, then I'm sorry art has gone to the pawn shops.
I wonder what all of the philosophers would say about pawned art and mass produced art. I think Plato would laugh at the mass production of art because he already declared art was simply replication.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A Lawyer’s Prerogative
My first impressions of Chris Jordan’s “Running the Numbers” exhibit were those of curiosity, awe and annoyance. My curiosity arose from just a glance at the photographs. They were so large, yet appeared to be nothing (excluding a few). The first print I stopped at was entitled “Plastic Bottles.” I looked at it from a distance, and then took a closer look. I was surprised to find that it was actually plastic bottles. It made me very curious as to what the rest of the prints were. The next photo I looked at was entitled “Cans Seurat,” which was very well put together. I especially liked that it was a picture, not just a blur like so many of the others. After touring the entire art exhibit it was clear to me that his purpose was to awe his viewers. He wanted people to think about what each print represented and perhaps take home a message they otherwise would not have from a bunch of statistics. My annoyance arose after contemplating his art. I was annoyed that I did not know where the statistics can from, and I was also annoyed that the statistics were not timely. However, I think his intentions behind the prints are noble. While some could take his exhibit as solely a political attack, I took it to be an awareness campaign with a twist.
I looked up what the art critics had to say about Chris Jordan’s “Running the Numbers,” and while I did not find many helpful synopses, I found out something even more interesting. I did not know that Chris Jordan was a lawyer who later became a photographer. This knowledge made his exhibit so much more believable, yet also made me question his motives. I have a great respect for lawyers and believe that they are highly educated, as well as hard working. However, I also know that lawyers are taught to perfect the art of persuasion and argumentation. It is obvious to me that Chris Jordan was trying to persuade his viewers to look at issues of crime, cup consumption, and toothpick production in a different light. He emphasized the vastness of America’s consumption and depicted it in a way that inspired a feeling of guilt, a lawyer-like tactic.
Further, after reading an interview that Chris Jordan had with Bill Moyers of PBS, I felt differently about him still. He explained many of his pieces and how he stumbled into an interest in each subject, and then he ended his interview with this quote:
"I want people to realize that they matter. Because, to me, that’s the key. When you stand back from the print you see the collective. And as you walk up close, you can see that the collective is only made up of lots and lots of individuals. There is no bad consumer over there somewhere who needs to be educated. There is no public out there who needs to change. And that’s kind of the underlying message that I’m trying to convey. It’s each one of us." – Chris Jordan
He really seems genuinely concerned about individual participation for the betterment of society through this quote, but what about his piece entitled “Ben Franklin?” Besides the basic election of our leaders, how can an individual prevent billions of dollars from being used to fight a war?
All questions aside, I do believe that Chris Jordan’s intentions were to focus on the individual, but bias and politics were not left out. His “Prison Uniforms” created an atmosphere of negativity about society, but also inspired me to consider my actions and reflect on those of my acquaintances. I also had a chance to see “Barbie Dolls,” and think this print targets issues surrounding the individual’s self perception, but also criticizes doll manufacturers for introducing the “perfect body” into a unique society. I believe that Chris Jordan’s work is truly impressive from a processing standpoint. It takes patients and skill to be able to incorporate photographs like he did. I applaud his attempt to create a powerful image out of statistics, and hope individuals will find something inspiring about at least one of his prints.
I looked up what the art critics had to say about Chris Jordan’s “Running the Numbers,” and while I did not find many helpful synopses, I found out something even more interesting. I did not know that Chris Jordan was a lawyer who later became a photographer. This knowledge made his exhibit so much more believable, yet also made me question his motives. I have a great respect for lawyers and believe that they are highly educated, as well as hard working. However, I also know that lawyers are taught to perfect the art of persuasion and argumentation. It is obvious to me that Chris Jordan was trying to persuade his viewers to look at issues of crime, cup consumption, and toothpick production in a different light. He emphasized the vastness of America’s consumption and depicted it in a way that inspired a feeling of guilt, a lawyer-like tactic.
Further, after reading an interview that Chris Jordan had with Bill Moyers of PBS, I felt differently about him still. He explained many of his pieces and how he stumbled into an interest in each subject, and then he ended his interview with this quote:
"I want people to realize that they matter. Because, to me, that’s the key. When you stand back from the print you see the collective. And as you walk up close, you can see that the collective is only made up of lots and lots of individuals. There is no bad consumer over there somewhere who needs to be educated. There is no public out there who needs to change. And that’s kind of the underlying message that I’m trying to convey. It’s each one of us." – Chris Jordan
He really seems genuinely concerned about individual participation for the betterment of society through this quote, but what about his piece entitled “Ben Franklin?” Besides the basic election of our leaders, how can an individual prevent billions of dollars from being used to fight a war?
All questions aside, I do believe that Chris Jordan’s intentions were to focus on the individual, but bias and politics were not left out. His “Prison Uniforms” created an atmosphere of negativity about society, but also inspired me to consider my actions and reflect on those of my acquaintances. I also had a chance to see “Barbie Dolls,” and think this print targets issues surrounding the individual’s self perception, but also criticizes doll manufacturers for introducing the “perfect body” into a unique society. I believe that Chris Jordan’s work is truly impressive from a processing standpoint. It takes patients and skill to be able to incorporate photographs like he did. I applaud his attempt to create a powerful image out of statistics, and hope individuals will find something inspiring about at least one of his prints.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)