1. The similarities between slower mediums and quick mediums are the final product. While they man not be immediate similarities its still a visual experience. I struggle with the word object, due to my own mental constraints. Photos would be considered images to me, but can become objects.
2. The message of a photo is immediate. with photography one cannot escape the word documentation. Everything else about a photo can change except the documentation.
3. Well having a sense of amateurism is always important. Because it means one has not peaked. But being an amateur can interfere with the final intent if the necessary skills are not available.
4. While he is watching everyone through the key holes it shows the definition of voyeurism. As well as us the viewers watching these scenes and becoming voyers as well. Except with this film and photography alike we cannot get caught, and if we do we are simply becoming more cultured.
5. N/A zoned out
6. What it is brought to public eyes. Maybe someone secretly photographed... paparazzi
7. Your work references your self because of your relationship to those in the pictures. as for how you reference current times, your work references current hipster culture.
8. Film has a permanence that isn't achieved in digital work
9. It's more immediate. You can make large amounts of work.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Pauls Questions
1. Is the author of this book being overly simplistic?
I see nothing wrong with being simplistic in the approach of the subject. He is however creating an ideal idea of art education. He speaks about teaching the students the wrong subjects and the effect is has on their own personal development as critical thinkers. The true student however will think for himself or herself. If there is a particular subject one would be interested in it would be advisable to do research whether or not instructed to. A good education is dependent on the student.
2. Is the author being overly cynical?
I believe so. He is digging into art education as this awful construct when surely he has gone through it and done fine for himself. Why? Because he thinks for himself… you can teach that.
3. Can you be cynical and paranoid and still be correct in your assertions concerning matters that are highly subjective?
Of course. There are always moments of intelligent ranting. As far as how ideas are presented though there could be better ways of working around the subject.
4. Since "group think" is not only entrenched in the art world but the real world, should it not be encouraged in art school?
No. Group thinking can be welcomed on some level of morals. As far as education is concerned each student should be pushed in the direction they are seeking and not forced to jump on the band wagon as to not make waves.
5. Does the fine arts department at Ringling College of Art and Design represent a microcosm of the Art World?
I would say it does, but not willingly. Those who are not necessarily accepted as New York artist work their way in but are not always wanted.
6. As stated in the reading "does privileging words over visual expression encourage a narrowly didactic approach to art making?"
Placing words over visual expression stifles those who do not excel at expressing themselves with writing or verbally. Art is so subjective that it truly cannot be taught.
7. Is Automatism or any other intuitive approach discouraged in contemporary art academia?
Not here. I cannot speak for other colleges but there is not a whole lot of exploration that I have seen discouraged.
8. Do you believe my work would have been better served had I not attended art college?
I don’t believe so. I think getting your work into a critical eye helped you discover your motivations, and goals.
9. Do you believe my work to be self indulgent?
All of our work is self-indulgent. Why would be spend every day doing something we didn’t enjoy.
10. If all art is self indulgent to a certain extent, should I not embrace this approach?
Why not? Have fun, and eat some chocolate metaphorically.
11. Does the "it's all about me" approach to my work alienate you the viewer?
It alienates the viewer because they are not down with your symbols. We cannot understand what your head is trying to say because we don’t speak your language. The viewer can still enjoy your work from a voyeuristic point of view, but as far as fully understanding what your throwing our way it impossible.
I see nothing wrong with being simplistic in the approach of the subject. He is however creating an ideal idea of art education. He speaks about teaching the students the wrong subjects and the effect is has on their own personal development as critical thinkers. The true student however will think for himself or herself. If there is a particular subject one would be interested in it would be advisable to do research whether or not instructed to. A good education is dependent on the student.
2. Is the author being overly cynical?
I believe so. He is digging into art education as this awful construct when surely he has gone through it and done fine for himself. Why? Because he thinks for himself… you can teach that.
3. Can you be cynical and paranoid and still be correct in your assertions concerning matters that are highly subjective?
Of course. There are always moments of intelligent ranting. As far as how ideas are presented though there could be better ways of working around the subject.
4. Since "group think" is not only entrenched in the art world but the real world, should it not be encouraged in art school?
No. Group thinking can be welcomed on some level of morals. As far as education is concerned each student should be pushed in the direction they are seeking and not forced to jump on the band wagon as to not make waves.
5. Does the fine arts department at Ringling College of Art and Design represent a microcosm of the Art World?
I would say it does, but not willingly. Those who are not necessarily accepted as New York artist work their way in but are not always wanted.
6. As stated in the reading "does privileging words over visual expression encourage a narrowly didactic approach to art making?"
Placing words over visual expression stifles those who do not excel at expressing themselves with writing or verbally. Art is so subjective that it truly cannot be taught.
7. Is Automatism or any other intuitive approach discouraged in contemporary art academia?
Not here. I cannot speak for other colleges but there is not a whole lot of exploration that I have seen discouraged.
8. Do you believe my work would have been better served had I not attended art college?
I don’t believe so. I think getting your work into a critical eye helped you discover your motivations, and goals.
9. Do you believe my work to be self indulgent?
All of our work is self-indulgent. Why would be spend every day doing something we didn’t enjoy.
10. If all art is self indulgent to a certain extent, should I not embrace this approach?
Why not? Have fun, and eat some chocolate metaphorically.
11. Does the "it's all about me" approach to my work alienate you the viewer?
It alienates the viewer because they are not down with your symbols. We cannot understand what your head is trying to say because we don’t speak your language. The viewer can still enjoy your work from a voyeuristic point of view, but as far as fully understanding what your throwing our way it impossible.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Trevor's questions
1. The idea that our world was not created by accident is very plausible, and in fact what I believe.
2. I mostly make my art in a blank state of mind. I become completely unaware of what is going on around me.
3. extraterrestrial alien art would be light. Who knows maybe our star system is their art, but I think their art would be more related to technology.
4. I think they are. My life deals a large amount with spirituality and within my life is quantum physics. They are somehow connected or they would not be able to exist together.
!. I think he stands with his ideas as fact and you stand as making things that make some sort of sense to you. You speak your own little language similar the the encoding in dna you encode in your art.
@. I'm still not 100% on what your talking about... sorry
#. Not particularly no. I think your drawings are very personal and you could really care less who sees them. I connect to the idea that they are art and how they are displayed but as far as ideas they skip past me.
$. Yes. I think we create code all the time while we make work. Our own languages are embedded into every move and mark we make. This is why I think they can match your handwriting.
2. I mostly make my art in a blank state of mind. I become completely unaware of what is going on around me.
3. extraterrestrial alien art would be light. Who knows maybe our star system is their art, but I think their art would be more related to technology.
4. I think they are. My life deals a large amount with spirituality and within my life is quantum physics. They are somehow connected or they would not be able to exist together.
!. I think he stands with his ideas as fact and you stand as making things that make some sort of sense to you. You speak your own little language similar the the encoding in dna you encode in your art.
@. I'm still not 100% on what your talking about... sorry
#. Not particularly no. I think your drawings are very personal and you could really care less who sees them. I connect to the idea that they are art and how they are displayed but as far as ideas they skip past me.
$. Yes. I think we create code all the time while we make work. Our own languages are embedded into every move and mark we make. This is why I think they can match your handwriting.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Rachel's questions
1. I would like to live long enough to see my children grow up, and If I could I want to die whitewater kayaking w/no helmet on. quick
2. I don't believe we are anywhere near computers having a consciousness nor do I think they ever will. Our mind is incredibly complex and I don't believe it can be perfectly recreated. Microchips and grey brain matter will always be different.
3. I would say he is somewhere in between. But that is he worry about things that are not worth worrying about. Machines make our lives easier, and for technology to improve will benefit us.
4. Absolutely, see previous answer.
5. I think that it aids my work to be able to use technology but without it I think my art would change a little but not much. Keeping electricity out of my work is always a fun part of it.
6. Your work is becoming very technical. I think you are fascinated by human interaction with technology and create your work around it. It's very refreshing because you are still embracing the natural with the boxes materials.
7. I think artwork dealing with technology is the big thing right now, and guessing the next big thing which will also probably be technology related will give you a jump on where the art world is headed and be directly effected by it.
8. Technology has never been a huge interest of mine. Sometimes I enjoy living blissfully unaware.
2. I don't believe we are anywhere near computers having a consciousness nor do I think they ever will. Our mind is incredibly complex and I don't believe it can be perfectly recreated. Microchips and grey brain matter will always be different.
3. I would say he is somewhere in between. But that is he worry about things that are not worth worrying about. Machines make our lives easier, and for technology to improve will benefit us.
4. Absolutely, see previous answer.
5. I think that it aids my work to be able to use technology but without it I think my art would change a little but not much. Keeping electricity out of my work is always a fun part of it.
6. Your work is becoming very technical. I think you are fascinated by human interaction with technology and create your work around it. It's very refreshing because you are still embracing the natural with the boxes materials.
7. I think artwork dealing with technology is the big thing right now, and guessing the next big thing which will also probably be technology related will give you a jump on where the art world is headed and be directly effected by it.
8. Technology has never been a huge interest of mine. Sometimes I enjoy living blissfully unaware.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Sandra's Questions
1. If a piece of mine became an Internet meme I would be upset. Art especially contemporary/conceptual art is looked at in a poor light by many people. This would just further that opinion.
2.They inform nothing and they dismantle nothing. In my opinion this piece has no substance, and nothing to destroy.
3. I would still applaud. Just because this particular event was not a success does not mean the next one wont be great, and I don’t want to discourage them from creating the next one.
4. I'm defined as many things that can be seen as negative in society. Thus is life you deal with it.
5. I try and keep my work offline of social sites. For many reasons including ridicule.
6. In my opinion time heals all unless you run for president.
7. I dont think your work would get that kind of negative attention. Stop motions are awesome
8. It tells me you are up to date on internet fads. I wasn't even sure what a meme was until you brought the article to my attention.
2.They inform nothing and they dismantle nothing. In my opinion this piece has no substance, and nothing to destroy.
3. I would still applaud. Just because this particular event was not a success does not mean the next one wont be great, and I don’t want to discourage them from creating the next one.
4. I'm defined as many things that can be seen as negative in society. Thus is life you deal with it.
5. I try and keep my work offline of social sites. For many reasons including ridicule.
6. In my opinion time heals all unless you run for president.
7. I dont think your work would get that kind of negative attention. Stop motions are awesome
8. It tells me you are up to date on internet fads. I wasn't even sure what a meme was until you brought the article to my attention.
Justine's questions
1. Of course. The line that defines them is almost purely functionally.
2. We would never stop wearing clothes but I dont see why people wouldn't consider fashion. Maybe fashion will never be viewed as art but clothes have been used in art for many many years.
3. I don't think fashion could be conceptual but items of clothing most certainly can be.
4. That would be an extra bonus. if you created a wearable sculpture and didn't wear it. On extra layer of what is added to things.
5. Because you work solely with female attire you can initially come of as feminist, but with further research you would be categorized elsewhere.
6. I don't believe they would be fashion. It is a hard distinction through because truly anything can be art, not everything can be fashion.
7. I dont believe your dresses are very fashionable. having them pinned the way to do eliminates some of their value. hangers truly are a distinguisher.
8. Absolutely different its a gender change, your position would change on the fashion aspect. Why the focus on women's clothing? and only on business and formal attire?
2. We would never stop wearing clothes but I dont see why people wouldn't consider fashion. Maybe fashion will never be viewed as art but clothes have been used in art for many many years.
3. I don't think fashion could be conceptual but items of clothing most certainly can be.
4. That would be an extra bonus. if you created a wearable sculpture and didn't wear it. On extra layer of what is added to things.
5. Because you work solely with female attire you can initially come of as feminist, but with further research you would be categorized elsewhere.
6. I don't believe they would be fashion. It is a hard distinction through because truly anything can be art, not everything can be fashion.
7. I dont believe your dresses are very fashionable. having them pinned the way to do eliminates some of their value. hangers truly are a distinguisher.
8. Absolutely different its a gender change, your position would change on the fashion aspect. Why the focus on women's clothing? and only on business and formal attire?
Arun's questions
1. Most of the effective styles are those I have stumbled upon while creating previous work and built on that.
2. The artist who does this for me is Mattias Plessing. his art is functional you see a bench its just a bench, but its construction is absolutely epic
3. Absolutely. I study people responses to my own techniques to know what is and isn't getting my point across.
4. I would say the work is more satisfying, but sometimes the finished piece is exactly what you want and its a great feeling.
5. Your work is entirely about people and things you come across. It's like you own visual journal.
6. I think it will be a jumping off point for when you can truly do what you want.
7. There is no one better to see your mistakes then you. We are all hyper critical. As long as you grow from mistakes it wil be beneficial.
2. The artist who does this for me is Mattias Plessing. his art is functional you see a bench its just a bench, but its construction is absolutely epic
3. Absolutely. I study people responses to my own techniques to know what is and isn't getting my point across.
4. I would say the work is more satisfying, but sometimes the finished piece is exactly what you want and its a great feeling.
5. Your work is entirely about people and things you come across. It's like you own visual journal.
6. I think it will be a jumping off point for when you can truly do what you want.
7. There is no one better to see your mistakes then you. We are all hyper critical. As long as you grow from mistakes it wil be beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)