Super Art Fight
Here's an awesome fundraising idea that would utilize our talents as artists! Maybe if we do this before the concert, we can sell it at the auction!
Senior Art Fight?
Super Art Fight
Here's an awesome fundraising idea that would utilize our talents as artists! Maybe if we do this before the concert, we can sell it at the auction!
Post-Pixal Art (Jeff Barnard)
For this project, I felt that I should do some drawing art instead of my traditional way of creating art. When I think of Pixel's I think of multiple shapes coming together to create something greater. For example, in my one piece, I have a shape created out of smaller shapes and at different depths in the piece. This gives it an abstract feel and makes me think of what the stars could look like up close. The other piece also deals with particular shapes in order to explore depth but were more for illustarting the step taken before the bigger piece was made. I feel these pieces accuratly capture the essence of the project.
Post-Pixel: Dennis Quinn
I have created an image to express the painful knuckle break that occurred over our winter break. The image is a combination of ideas that have been lurking in my mind since i crushed the bone.
Two healthy fists rest at the top of my image, while just below that is a strip with my eyes laced within. One eye is black and white while the other is in color. The bottom reveals my hand in the cast, and another hand open stretched out with a hair band. The idea is that while i broke one hand, i still have a good hand and that good hand along with the hair band resembles love and my feminine side.
Thomas Hirschhorn
I generally found that Thomas Hirschhorn carries a similar mentality about his work. I heard a quote from a YouTube video where Thomas said it’s the energy put in not the quality of the work. I relate to this because I find that my work is never of high quality or too much time pressed into anyone concept. That’s not to say that I do not work hard, or put many hours in, but for me it the act of doing art and being in that moment of being a creator. The end result is the manifestation from my mind out to the external world. That’s what fun. Thomas seems to be the type of artist that does do art for the people but is very much interested in the projection of self and does not involve a forceful interaction from the viewer. Another quote to better demonstrate Thomas’ views. He states, "I do not want to invite or oblige viewers to become interactive with what I do; I do not want to activate the public. I want to give of myself to such a degree that viewers confronted with the work can take part and become involved, but not as actors." This is an awesome outlook. I find too much that artist create an environment that calls for the audience to act on some manner due to content and subject.
In the 1980s he worked in Paris as a graphic artist. He was part of the group of communist graphic designers called Grapus. These artists were concerned with politics and culture, displaying impromptu creations and posters on the street mostly using the language of advertisement. He left Grapus to create the hypersaturated installations he is known for today, using common materials such as cardboard, foil, duct tape, and plastic wrap. These installations are often site specific and outside the gallery, and/or interactive.
My own work is still coming into its’ own. The mentality of Thomas reminds me of my work, rather than the work he makes. But the concepts of the installations and the possibility of public interaction is something that I am trying to incorporate into my works.
I do not know what it is that Thomas loves about duct tape, but he uses it a lot. A cool fact: Thomas received the (2000/2001) Marcel Duchamp Prize and the Joseph Beuys Prize in 2004.
Response Paper - Eric Zimmermann
Eric Zimmermann
Spring 2010
Walter Benjamin Response
After reading this essay, I was confronted with a lot of things that I had not really ever thought about, or at least not in such a lucid manner. The perception of art and how it has/is changing due to film and photography and the reproducibility, I was uncertain exactly what Benjamin was making his primary topic, because in a sense he seems to be all over the place, floating between thoughts as certain things relate to others. Universal perspective, is that even a plausible idea?
It is clear that throughout the entire essay Benjamin is addressing the modernization of our world and its effects on art, and at the same time examines film and photography. Authenticity, originality and reproduction paired with these ideas of an “aura” that is created in any piece of art whether it is a painting, photograph, or movie seems to be his focus, along with how this “aura” is projected in the work(s) of art.
The “aura” is gone. Mechanically reproduced work has made sure of this in Benjamin’s opinion. He begins to speak of mass consumption and how original artwork has never been able to have a simultaneous collective experience, and painting created a demand that cannot be fulfilled fully all at once, whereas film and photography is able to. However, he does go on further to say that film has observers but unlike people who observe art, those who view these films are absent-minded observers.
When Benjamin began spinning off into the political aspect I started to get lost. The only part I understood clearly was that in his opinion and others the loss of the “aura” could potentially be a good thing, hand in hand with the reproducibility of art in the modern world. This aura seems to be this driving force or underlying theme of this entire essay.
I found the essay interesting, and I’m sure I will continually read it now that I have already read it once, and hopefully each time it will make more sense to me and I will gain new understanding of it after reading it.
Spring 2010
Walter Benjamin Response
After reading this essay, I was confronted with a lot of things that I had not really ever thought about, or at least not in such a lucid manner. The perception of art and how it has/is changing due to film and photography and the reproducibility, I was uncertain exactly what Benjamin was making his primary topic, because in a sense he seems to be all over the place, floating between thoughts as certain things relate to others. Universal perspective, is that even a plausible idea?
It is clear that throughout the entire essay Benjamin is addressing the modernization of our world and its effects on art, and at the same time examines film and photography. Authenticity, originality and reproduction paired with these ideas of an “aura” that is created in any piece of art whether it is a painting, photograph, or movie seems to be his focus, along with how this “aura” is projected in the work(s) of art.
The “aura” is gone. Mechanically reproduced work has made sure of this in Benjamin’s opinion. He begins to speak of mass consumption and how original artwork has never been able to have a simultaneous collective experience, and painting created a demand that cannot be fulfilled fully all at once, whereas film and photography is able to. However, he does go on further to say that film has observers but unlike people who observe art, those who view these films are absent-minded observers.
When Benjamin began spinning off into the political aspect I started to get lost. The only part I understood clearly was that in his opinion and others the loss of the “aura” could potentially be a good thing, hand in hand with the reproducibility of art in the modern world. This aura seems to be this driving force or underlying theme of this entire essay.
I found the essay interesting, and I’m sure I will continually read it now that I have already read it once, and hopefully each time it will make more sense to me and I will gain new understanding of it after reading it.
Walter Benjamin-Danielle Inducci
Walter Benjamin
“The work of art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction”
In this reading, many ideas of reproduction and representation are discussed. Benjamin says, “ Aura of the original unique work of art is lost to reproducibility, but that this far, from being something to mourn opens up progressive possibilities.” I believe that most art created now is a reproduction of something seen from past artists. Artists are used as research and reference tools and help current artists who are making work come up in infinite possibilities for their own pieces. However, Benjamin states that an exact replication of a work of art lacks the element of presence in time and space and uniqueness. Which means the replication is not an exact replication ever because of the time that it is being presented and the space it is being presented in will be different from the first appearance.
“The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition…” The earliest works of art originated with rituals of magic and religion. Ritual was art’s authentic original value. As years go on the rituals and traditions change over time. For example, photography became the first actual means of reproduction. Mechanical reproduction, which strays away from the tradition of manual reproduction, became a crisis along with the rise of socialism. In photography, a negative can produce countless prints, but for one to be called the original or authentic is not probable. A helpful analogy in the reading was comparing a cameraman and a painter with a surgeon and a magician. A magician heals the sick with very little contact with the patient, while the surgeon does the opposite and positions himself inside the patient by penetrating the body. The painter and the magician both maintain a natural distance, whereas the cameraman and surgeon break in. Reproduction in the art world is often attempted but never fully achieved.
“The work of art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction”
In this reading, many ideas of reproduction and representation are discussed. Benjamin says, “ Aura of the original unique work of art is lost to reproducibility, but that this far, from being something to mourn opens up progressive possibilities.” I believe that most art created now is a reproduction of something seen from past artists. Artists are used as research and reference tools and help current artists who are making work come up in infinite possibilities for their own pieces. However, Benjamin states that an exact replication of a work of art lacks the element of presence in time and space and uniqueness. Which means the replication is not an exact replication ever because of the time that it is being presented and the space it is being presented in will be different from the first appearance.
“The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition…” The earliest works of art originated with rituals of magic and religion. Ritual was art’s authentic original value. As years go on the rituals and traditions change over time. For example, photography became the first actual means of reproduction. Mechanical reproduction, which strays away from the tradition of manual reproduction, became a crisis along with the rise of socialism. In photography, a negative can produce countless prints, but for one to be called the original or authentic is not probable. A helpful analogy in the reading was comparing a cameraman and a painter with a surgeon and a magician. A magician heals the sick with very little contact with the patient, while the surgeon does the opposite and positions himself inside the patient by penetrating the body. The painter and the magician both maintain a natural distance, whereas the cameraman and surgeon break in. Reproduction in the art world is often attempted but never fully achieved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
