Mark Wetter
April 24, 2009
U H 440: Domain of the Arts
Review #2: Museum of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibit
Finding Significance in the Abstract
Artists have the freedom of choosing to express aesthetic qualities or meaning in their art. The Chris Jordan exhibit was an obvious display of social messages criticizing our overconsumption and material needs. Most of his work was lacking aesthetically. However I found it satisfying since it fulfilled my desire to understand and extract meaning from the art. On the other hand, the thesis exhibit presented artwork that was the opposite. I was rarely able to conclude the purpose or inspiration for producing the art and it was difficult to connect the title with the artwork. Despite being so abstract and obscure, I thought that the artists were creative and I left the museum feeling like I was aesthetically satisfied.
For the sake of transcribing my thoughts of the MFA exhibit into this review, I had to push aside my normal tendency to view art primarily through aesthetic appeal. This was obviously difficult since the meaning is not easily communicated like a Chris Jordan. Attempting to discover the source for the artwork sadly detracted from my overall appreciation of the exhibit. Instead of finding insight in the art, I walked away from most pieces feeling disappointed because I had no idea what I had just observed. Nonetheless, I would still consider it art since my negative experience is still an experience. John Dewey emphasized the importance of the viewer experience. Abstract art produces an experience like any other style of art, just through different means. I would, however, oppose the film exposition titled “Sailor” by Tobias Walther, since it does not produce a pure aesthetical experience. It is “adultered” by appealing to more than one sense.
I particularly enjoyed the digitalized work by Heather Losey McGeachy. I didn’t fully comprehend the essence of any of her works, but they were appealing aesthetically. I was thoroughly confused by her “Thirsty River” and “Riverside” productions. Despite having titles indicating water, there was no blue. I think that the abstractness of her work was expressed by using colors that normally do not apply to the image being portrayed. Both “Thirsty River” and “Riverside” had bright yellow and orange colors. Perhaps she was intending to pigment it abstractly to represent the turbulence of a river, or maybe it could be hinting at the reflective property of water. Possibly these images represent a sunset or sunrise reflecting against the surface of the water.
My favorite piece of art would be “Untitled”, the tree with white Buddha leaves instead of normal leaves. The abstract characteristics were the white leaves, the Buddha image on the leaves, and the pillows surround the base of the tree. This tree represents the link between Buddhism and the natural world. The pillows protect the Buddha leaves from falling to the ground, representing fragility. Trees go through seasonal changes, which could be interpreted as the fluctuations that Buddhism has and will experience. Even though my own interpretation could be wrong, I was happy that I found a piece that was aesthetically appealing and interpretable.
Despite the aesthetical appreciation I had for the abstract exhibition, there is an enormous clarity issue. Tolstoy would probably argue that the exhibition lacked “clearness with which the feeling is transmitted” (Sam’s handout). Sincerity and individuality of emotion is definitely visible, but the variation in interpretation makes the exhibition subject to criticism by Tolstoy’s philosophy. As Kevin pointed out, I also felt like a child trying to see images in the 3D abstract pictures. Even though it is fun and appealing to see such unusual images, it becomes frustrating if you can’t see what the author intended.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
SPIDEY
Which of the following artists/fictional protagonists lends him/herself to a Freudian/Foucaultian analysis and why? Choose one for a brief Foucaultian/Freudian analysis.
Spiderman would sort of fit the Freudian analysis because he has sort of a dual lifestyle. He is not like a crazy person who is imagining his super hero second life, so Freud would be able to analyze such a person. Peter Parker is living this bland, mundane life which has been marked by tragic deaths of his close relatives. Although he is not daydreaming his Spiderman role, it is similar to a fantasy that liberates him from his boring daily routine. As Spiderman, he is in control and fulfills his desire to fight crime. Freud thought that dreams reflected the desires that one could not fulfill in a person's reality. This is why I said that Spiderman "sort of" fits the Freudian analysis. Peter Parker fulfilled his fantasy.
Spiderman would probably also lend himself to Foucaultian analysis, however, not so much in the artistic realm. Peter Parker creates this character, Spiderman, who deviates from traditional standards. He wears a costume, shoots webs from his wrists, and has superhuman strength. Spiderman challenges the role of a police officer and invents a new way to fight crime. He challenges norms of our time like the Las Meninas portrait challenged normal artistic standards in the past.
Spiderman would sort of fit the Freudian analysis because he has sort of a dual lifestyle. He is not like a crazy person who is imagining his super hero second life, so Freud would be able to analyze such a person. Peter Parker is living this bland, mundane life which has been marked by tragic deaths of his close relatives. Although he is not daydreaming his Spiderman role, it is similar to a fantasy that liberates him from his boring daily routine. As Spiderman, he is in control and fulfills his desire to fight crime. Freud thought that dreams reflected the desires that one could not fulfill in a person's reality. This is why I said that Spiderman "sort of" fits the Freudian analysis. Peter Parker fulfilled his fantasy.
Spiderman would probably also lend himself to Foucaultian analysis, however, not so much in the artistic realm. Peter Parker creates this character, Spiderman, who deviates from traditional standards. He wears a costume, shoots webs from his wrists, and has superhuman strength. Spiderman challenges the role of a police officer and invents a new way to fight crime. He challenges norms of our time like the Las Meninas portrait challenged normal artistic standards in the past.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Heidi Chronicles
Discuss The Heidi Chronicles
- from whichever angle you please.
You may consider the art/gender issue we have discussed
which Heidi is concerned with, e.g. in connection
with the above two artworks. Briefly put: does gender determine art?
Any notes on the WSU performance?
When I was reading the Heidi Chronicles, I thought that it progressively got more and more depressing as her life unfolded. My impression was that the last scene was not positive, but negative. However, I really liked the positive atmosphere that the WSU cast produced in the last scene. It fit really well and didn’t make me feel depressed leaving the play. The reason I thought that it was a negative ending is because Heidi basically felt that she made the wrong decisions in her life. The whole feminist movement is liberating for women since it frees them from their typical gender role and gives them a choice to pick a different life. Obviously, this freedom is necessary for the equality between genders, however, this freedom of choice also has a risk. Now that a woman can choose, she can make the wrong choice. Generally, in the nuclear family, the woman stays home and raises the children. The female role is standard across all families. With the freedom of choice, the mother can decide to pursue her career or a hobby and sacrifice her responsibilities as a mother. In Heidi’s situation, I thought that she wasn’t happy because she didn’t turn out the way she wanted to be. So in the last scene, my first impression was that she would be very sad and depressed. The WSU production portrayed Heidi as possibly finding peace or satisfaction and ultimately, finding happiness.
I feel that gender does not influence the quality of art since both genders are equally capable. Gender does influence how art is portrayed. In the Judith Beheading Holofernes painting, the woman is portrayed as a robust figure with a man-like dominance. This sort of visual variation between men and women paintings is sometimes distinguishable, but it is more difficult in other forms of art, such as composition of music. Regardless of who is performing the music, it is almost impossible to determine if a man or woman composed the piece. This is actually important since it validates women as artists after they were deprived of this role for so many years. If one cannot distinguish the gender, this proves that men and women are equally gifted in producing equally qualified works.
- from whichever angle you please.
You may consider the art/gender issue we have discussed
which Heidi is concerned with, e.g. in connection
with the above two artworks. Briefly put: does gender determine art?
Any notes on the WSU performance?
When I was reading the Heidi Chronicles, I thought that it progressively got more and more depressing as her life unfolded. My impression was that the last scene was not positive, but negative. However, I really liked the positive atmosphere that the WSU cast produced in the last scene. It fit really well and didn’t make me feel depressed leaving the play. The reason I thought that it was a negative ending is because Heidi basically felt that she made the wrong decisions in her life. The whole feminist movement is liberating for women since it frees them from their typical gender role and gives them a choice to pick a different life. Obviously, this freedom is necessary for the equality between genders, however, this freedom of choice also has a risk. Now that a woman can choose, she can make the wrong choice. Generally, in the nuclear family, the woman stays home and raises the children. The female role is standard across all families. With the freedom of choice, the mother can decide to pursue her career or a hobby and sacrifice her responsibilities as a mother. In Heidi’s situation, I thought that she wasn’t happy because she didn’t turn out the way she wanted to be. So in the last scene, my first impression was that she would be very sad and depressed. The WSU production portrayed Heidi as possibly finding peace or satisfaction and ultimately, finding happiness.
I feel that gender does not influence the quality of art since both genders are equally capable. Gender does influence how art is portrayed. In the Judith Beheading Holofernes painting, the woman is portrayed as a robust figure with a man-like dominance. This sort of visual variation between men and women paintings is sometimes distinguishable, but it is more difficult in other forms of art, such as composition of music. Regardless of who is performing the music, it is almost impossible to determine if a man or woman composed the piece. This is actually important since it validates women as artists after they were deprived of this role for so many years. If one cannot distinguish the gender, this proves that men and women are equally gifted in producing equally qualified works.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Pollock
Pollock’s work is very interesting and I found that I actually liked it. To me, I thought that it was very aesthetically appealing. I like his work after his “transformation” from traditional, recognizable patterns to his more successful pieces, which have no apparent pattern. I thought that the Pollock that Teri Horton found is beautiful because it has so many colors that evoke an emotional response. I think it is cruel that the art world would reject her piece despite forensic proof, but then again, authenticity is the difference between a worthless fake and millions of dollars. I understand why the art community would hesitate to recognize it as authentic. On the other hand, Teri Horton is asking for way too much money. It isn’t one of Pollock’s great works. I believe that it very well could have been a piece that Pollock decided was not up to his standards and decided to discard it. I think it is authentic, but since it is one of his mess up’s, it probably shouldn’t be worth as much as his other works. Teri Horton should not have set a price on it, but focus on making the art community accept it.
I would classify Pollock’s work as art because I think that it has enough qualities of what we know as art. Personally, I view art on a broad spectrum, including many things that normally would not be considered art. So based on the mere fact that Pollock is producing original works from scratch, I would say that the product is art, regardless of my response. It just so happens I find the clashing colors and the chaotic nature of his paintings appealing.
John Dewey would probably view Pollock’s work as art because he classifies art as having a pure aesthetical experience. When you look at a Pollock, it is hard to say you don’t have an experience, since from what I hear, you either like it or you don’t. A bad experience is still an experience, and as far as its purity, a painting is not “adultered”. The medium of a painting is the paint on the canvas. There is no influence of the other senses. The image is conveyed solely through the eyes, unlike film where there both the eyes and ears are stimulated. I can’t say if Dewey would like Pollock’s work, but based on his philosophy, he would consider his work art.
I would classify Pollock’s work as art because I think that it has enough qualities of what we know as art. Personally, I view art on a broad spectrum, including many things that normally would not be considered art. So based on the mere fact that Pollock is producing original works from scratch, I would say that the product is art, regardless of my response. It just so happens I find the clashing colors and the chaotic nature of his paintings appealing.
John Dewey would probably view Pollock’s work as art because he classifies art as having a pure aesthetical experience. When you look at a Pollock, it is hard to say you don’t have an experience, since from what I hear, you either like it or you don’t. A bad experience is still an experience, and as far as its purity, a painting is not “adultered”. The medium of a painting is the paint on the canvas. There is no influence of the other senses. The image is conveyed solely through the eyes, unlike film where there both the eyes and ears are stimulated. I can’t say if Dewey would like Pollock’s work, but based on his philosophy, he would consider his work art.
Monday, March 9, 2009
FAKING IT
Discuss the part of Faking It? that we watched - and provide a prediction: Will Paul manage to fool the experts? ..."fool"!? Why would he be a fake?
I find it hard to see Paul as faking it since he does have a month to prepare for his big test. Faking it would be if he had no preparation and attempted to fool the professionals with what he knows from the past. One month of preparation means that he is no longer faking anything, because now he is experienced. During that month, it basically took over his life and we watched a transformation from an ordinary painter to an artist who could actually sell his works for money. After all of that preparation, it isn’t correct to consider him a fake or trying to fake it anymore.
This situation reminds of actors and actresses who become their character that they are portraying. If they are just acting the part, it is easy to say they are fake, but some actors and actresses research and prepare for their role and actually see themselves as another person in order to be more real. This sort of acting isn’t fake because of the effort and commitment to transformation. Paul is committed and is determined to not just fool the experts, but to become an artist. He transforms his lifestyle for the entire month to become an authentic artist.
However, if he isn’t a fake for doing this experiment, is he a fake if he returns to his original life and severs all ties with this particular experience. If he no longer retains anything after that month, he would be a fake, but I personally think he will keep producing art because it seems like this experience was intense enough to leave a mark for a long time. As far as fooling the experts, I don’t think that he will because as far as what I have seen, his art doesn’t seem complex or difficult to produce. I could be wrong though, since artist have gotten away with a dot on a blank canvas. Paul could hook the experts because of his incorporation of his childhood disability into his art. I would say that if he can produce something that can stimulate sympathy, the experts will be more inclined to consider his work.
I find it hard to see Paul as faking it since he does have a month to prepare for his big test. Faking it would be if he had no preparation and attempted to fool the professionals with what he knows from the past. One month of preparation means that he is no longer faking anything, because now he is experienced. During that month, it basically took over his life and we watched a transformation from an ordinary painter to an artist who could actually sell his works for money. After all of that preparation, it isn’t correct to consider him a fake or trying to fake it anymore.
This situation reminds of actors and actresses who become their character that they are portraying. If they are just acting the part, it is easy to say they are fake, but some actors and actresses research and prepare for their role and actually see themselves as another person in order to be more real. This sort of acting isn’t fake because of the effort and commitment to transformation. Paul is committed and is determined to not just fool the experts, but to become an artist. He transforms his lifestyle for the entire month to become an authentic artist.
However, if he isn’t a fake for doing this experiment, is he a fake if he returns to his original life and severs all ties with this particular experience. If he no longer retains anything after that month, he would be a fake, but I personally think he will keep producing art because it seems like this experience was intense enough to leave a mark for a long time. As far as fooling the experts, I don’t think that he will because as far as what I have seen, his art doesn’t seem complex or difficult to produce. I could be wrong though, since artist have gotten away with a dot on a blank canvas. Paul could hook the experts because of his incorporation of his childhood disability into his art. I would say that if he can produce something that can stimulate sympathy, the experts will be more inclined to consider his work.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Kinkade
Read the article: "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and discuss it's emphasis of the commercial aspect of art in relation to the Kinkade-video.
I don’t believe that the Kinkade “paintings” have the same sort of value as other established artists because of the large scale marketing of Kinkade’s product line. There is a certain value that is never changing, or at least difficult to change, for a one-of-a-kind artwork. Because of the rarity of a one-of-a-kind, it is not influenced by the supply and demand effects within the economy, simply because there is no supply. There is only one. Kinkade is clever to use the explosive popularity of his works now before the market changes and he can no longer sell his products at such a ridiculous price. I don’t understand how his artworks that come off an assembly line can be sold at such a high price. Maybe I need to see for myself before I judge, but it doesn’t seem fair for other original paintings that are mass produced on a press to sell at Wallmart for $30. Relating back to the article, Kinkade’s paintings would be worth little because once everyone gets the Kinkade paintings that they want, there will be little demand for his products, which will most likely cause the prices to plummet. The price of his works is artificially inflated for the time being. Who knows how long it will last, and it could consistently retain popularity. However, I don’t see any security in buying a Kinkade because of the marketing involved. The value can change at any moment. I see Kinkade like a pop singer who usually only lasts a few years before another boy band comes in and replaces him. Also, since it isn’t a one-of-a-kind production, why would someone buy your particular Kinkade painting if they can purchase a new, autographed Kinkade at the many, and growing, Kinkade galleries throughout the world.
I don’t believe that the Kinkade “paintings” have the same sort of value as other established artists because of the large scale marketing of Kinkade’s product line. There is a certain value that is never changing, or at least difficult to change, for a one-of-a-kind artwork. Because of the rarity of a one-of-a-kind, it is not influenced by the supply and demand effects within the economy, simply because there is no supply. There is only one. Kinkade is clever to use the explosive popularity of his works now before the market changes and he can no longer sell his products at such a ridiculous price. I don’t understand how his artworks that come off an assembly line can be sold at such a high price. Maybe I need to see for myself before I judge, but it doesn’t seem fair for other original paintings that are mass produced on a press to sell at Wallmart for $30. Relating back to the article, Kinkade’s paintings would be worth little because once everyone gets the Kinkade paintings that they want, there will be little demand for his products, which will most likely cause the prices to plummet. The price of his works is artificially inflated for the time being. Who knows how long it will last, and it could consistently retain popularity. However, I don’t see any security in buying a Kinkade because of the marketing involved. The value can change at any moment. I see Kinkade like a pop singer who usually only lasts a few years before another boy band comes in and replaces him. Also, since it isn’t a one-of-a-kind production, why would someone buy your particular Kinkade painting if they can purchase a new, autographed Kinkade at the many, and growing, Kinkade galleries throughout the world.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Chris Jordan: But Is It Art?
It was difficult to look at the works of Chris Jordan at face value and to view it simply as art. The obscure messages that each portrayed was not identifiable at times and I had to read the caption in order to comprehend what I was looking at. It became a challenge/competition to guess what the message was in each work before reading the caption. After seeing the museum, much of Jordan’s work looked repetitive and seemed like brainless compilations of mass amounts of certain products. However, despite how convinced I am that I would never own a work by Chris Jordan, there is a significant amount of art value that cannot be avoided. His works fit some of the many definitions that art has had throughout time.
The most beautiful piece that I found in the museum was the “Toothpicks”. Looking at it from a purely aesthetical perspective, it dealt with nature and was very stimulating. Richard Conniff would probably say that my interest in the nature aspect of this picture is due to my genetic heritage. To refresh what “Toothpicks” is, it is initially a prairie that is completely flat with no trees. There are very impressive weather patterns in the picture as well, which make the sky clash with the calm, smooth, sea of grass. After looking at it closer, you see that the grass is actually millions of toothpicks lined up to represent, again, our mass consumption of trees. I was really impressed since Jordan emphasized our tree consumption twice in the picture. First, there are no trees present, making it seem like a barren landscape with no shelter. Second, the grass is made of toothpicks, the product of trees and the reason why the picture is of a prairie. Depending how you interpret the picture, “Toothpicks” was very aesthetically pleasant and the double emphasis on tree consumption made it more influential. However, I was a little baffled after reading the caption. Apparently, Jordan opposes junk mail, which I have no interest in, especially since I already recycle much of my paper. Jordan was probably trying to emphasize mindless consumption of trees for useless production of junk mail, but all his other works are on such a grander scale. I thought he would have protested all paper consumption in order to impress viewers with a much larger picture and statistic. His focus on junk mail was odd, but after remembering what makes up the bulk of my own mail, it makes sense since, despite how much paper Americans waste, junk mail really serves no purpose and most of the time, people don’t even open their junk mail. Initially, I thought that Jordan’s pictures were not time worthy and in a matter of a few years would be completely outdate, but I decided I did not have to view his pictures statistically. Even if Americans recycle more and decrease consumption in the future, his works will always be a reminder of an era when his social message was justified and influential.
At first glance I was not impressed by the museum. Chris Jordan just seems too predictable and, with the exception of his first work protesting consumption, very unoriginal. Then I realized that I never viewed junk mail as a waste or saw guns as such a threat. His purpose is to raise awareness of the underbelly of America. I would consider his pictures primarily as a social movement, but I would also consider them art because some of the pictures were aesthetically stimulating. Also, the standard for art today also seems to be very low. If a dot on a canvas is art, Chris Jordan has definitely accomplished much more.
It was difficult to look at the works of Chris Jordan at face value and to view it simply as art. The obscure messages that each portrayed was not identifiable at times and I had to read the caption in order to comprehend what I was looking at. It became a challenge/competition to guess what the message was in each work before reading the caption. After seeing the museum, much of Jordan’s work looked repetitive and seemed like brainless compilations of mass amounts of certain products. However, despite how convinced I am that I would never own a work by Chris Jordan, there is a significant amount of art value that cannot be avoided. His works fit some of the many definitions that art has had throughout time.
The most beautiful piece that I found in the museum was the “Toothpicks”. Looking at it from a purely aesthetical perspective, it dealt with nature and was very stimulating. Richard Conniff would probably say that my interest in the nature aspect of this picture is due to my genetic heritage. To refresh what “Toothpicks” is, it is initially a prairie that is completely flat with no trees. There are very impressive weather patterns in the picture as well, which make the sky clash with the calm, smooth, sea of grass. After looking at it closer, you see that the grass is actually millions of toothpicks lined up to represent, again, our mass consumption of trees. I was really impressed since Jordan emphasized our tree consumption twice in the picture. First, there are no trees present, making it seem like a barren landscape with no shelter. Second, the grass is made of toothpicks, the product of trees and the reason why the picture is of a prairie. Depending how you interpret the picture, “Toothpicks” was very aesthetically pleasant and the double emphasis on tree consumption made it more influential. However, I was a little baffled after reading the caption. Apparently, Jordan opposes junk mail, which I have no interest in, especially since I already recycle much of my paper. Jordan was probably trying to emphasize mindless consumption of trees for useless production of junk mail, but all his other works are on such a grander scale. I thought he would have protested all paper consumption in order to impress viewers with a much larger picture and statistic. His focus on junk mail was odd, but after remembering what makes up the bulk of my own mail, it makes sense since, despite how much paper Americans waste, junk mail really serves no purpose and most of the time, people don’t even open their junk mail. Initially, I thought that Jordan’s pictures were not time worthy and in a matter of a few years would be completely outdate, but I decided I did not have to view his pictures statistically. Even if Americans recycle more and decrease consumption in the future, his works will always be a reminder of an era when his social message was justified and influential.
At first glance I was not impressed by the museum. Chris Jordan just seems too predictable and, with the exception of his first work protesting consumption, very unoriginal. Then I realized that I never viewed junk mail as a waste or saw guns as such a threat. His purpose is to raise awareness of the underbelly of America. I would consider his pictures primarily as a social movement, but I would also consider them art because some of the pictures were aesthetically stimulating. Also, the standard for art today also seems to be very low. If a dot on a canvas is art, Chris Jordan has definitely accomplished much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)