This class has definitely broadened my view of what art is. The various perspectives we were exposed to in this class have instilled in me a new respect for art that may not seem beautiful or meaningful at first but may have actually been more hardly worked upon than a standard living room painting, which so many of us find beautiful. The works we studied in this class have made me look for a deeper understanding in art that does not look conventionally pretty. I've learned to appreciate art more for what it is rather than what it stands for. As Susan Montag states in her article entitled Against Interpretation, "Real art has the capacity to make us nervous". The impact of the art in the viewer and its ability to make the viewer think are what I feel the basis of the artwork's value. During this class, we criticized several art pieces and at the end of it, I can now understand that the objective of an art critic should be to show how it is what it is and that it truly is what it stands for, rather than to show what it means and seek meaning that may not even have been there or intended.
This class has opened my eyes to so many interesting things that I was not aware of beforehand. It has been very exciting to see the world of contemporary art that is out there. I learned about some amazing artists and artworks. My favorite contemporary artwork was the short film made out of logos. I also enjoyed going to Tang Museum at Skidmore College where I saw art that I never imagined before. I was never aware of how many pieces are considered artworks, and it was great to learn about all the ways that people can express themselves. I have learned a valuable lesson in that you do not have to follow traditional ways in order to make some truly great pieces. There will always be artworks out there that I will question, but now I feel like I can have a greater understanding of where people are coming from, and be more open to what my idea of art is. Overall this was a great class and I am very glad that I was able to experience something new and different!
All in all I really thought this was an interesting class. Learning about the incredible diversification of what is considered art, and even somewhat of the history and progression of art through time. Even the concept within "Schoolyard Art: Playing fair without a referee" was interesting in how art became more of a cash cow and less about appreciation. In conclusion, this was an extremely note worthy class and a cool learning experience about the world of art.
So when I was on the 20x200 website searching around for a piece of art for $20 it actually took me a while to find a work that really caught my eye. I think that the kind of art that is most appealing to me is the somewhat childhood esque. By this I mean that it is very colorful and somewhat cartoonish but is creative and grabs your attention. So the work of art I chose was Ideal Bookshelf 5 by Jane Mount. She has actually been looking at and studying bookshelves, noting that one can learn a lot about an individual from thier literature on thier bookshelves. P.S.- the title of this blog post is my best attempt at giving a creative title post to the 20x200 assignment ... haha
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Visual Art therapy is the therapeutic use of art making while establishing a relationship between a professional and a person who faces certain challenges in carrying out daily tasks. Art therapy focuses on increasing awareness of self and others, coping with symptoms, stress, and traumatic experiences. This type of therapy has been shown to enhance cognitive abilities and increase enjoyment of life in such individuals.
Art therapists are trained in human development, psychology, clinical practice, spiritual, multicultural traditions, and visual arts. They use the creation and or criticism of art as a means for healing. Art therapists work with people of all ages: individuals, couples, families, groups and communities. They are a part of mental health clinics, rehabilitation centers, medical or forensic institutions, community outreach programs, wellness centers, schools, nursing homes, corporate structures, open studios and independent practices. Their reach is widespread and their work makes a difference in battling many medical conditions. The American Art Therapy Association, Inc. (AATA) sets educational, professional, and ethical standards for its members. Some states regulate the practice of art therapy and in many states art therapists can become licensed as counselors or mental health therapists.
In the reading, Absolute Truth by Peter Plagen, he introduces the idea of comparative neglect in art today. He affirms that contemporary art is not meant for the masses and nor does it appeal to the masses. He suggests that contemporary artists do not want mass appeal but rather a single person to purchase their art for a huge remuneration. Buyers of these pieces also want a slightly weird and indecipherable piece so that they feel “ahead of the times” and intelligent. I feel that artists working to create art that will sell for a huge sum are not being true to their work. To me, art is reflection of the artist’s thoughts and a means to reach society. An artist who does not aim to touch the hearts of the masses or appeal to mainstream public is merely a technician who makes millions but not truly an artist.
The ideas presented by Plagen are supported by his work. I found that he not only explore with shape, range, dimensions and colors, his works also offers objects that are from the verifiable world. However, I was a bit disappointed by his work. For a man that harshly criticizes contemporary art, his works are not in par with his words.
In the chapter entitled, Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty, Dave Hickey focuses on the idea that in contemporary art, Beauty is a means and not an end.What he means by this is that beauty sells and makes the content of art powerful to the beholder.I would definitely agree with this as for me, I tend to pay more attention to a piece that strikes me as beautiful than one I do not find aesthetically pleasing.Works that are not “pretty”, do not strike me as appealing and I thus do not search for meaning in such works.While every viewer may not have this perspective, I do feel this way and thus agree with Hickey’s claims.
For example, the works I posted are both about domestic abuse.The photo art, ‘Domestic Abuse Awareness’ by Juan Carlos Silva (below) is definitely more impactful for me than the less “beautiful” computer art, ‘Abuse’ depicting the same subjectmatter by Sunil India (above).
If I could choose one piece of artwork to purchase off of the website 20x200 I would buy Piglet No. 2. by Sharon Montrose. This piece of artwork is inspired by the charm that animals have. I love animals, and I especially love pigs, and I find this artwork to be awesome. This photo would bring a lot of joy to most people who look at it and that is why I think it is a great piece of artwork.
When I visited the Tang Museum in Saratoga I was amazed by the art there. The exhibits were not only interesting, but they were fun as well. I was shocked by how creative the artists were. My favorite exhibit was Los Carpinteros' La Mantana Rusa. This piece of artwork was a bed in the shape of a roller coaster. It combined architecture and furniture in a very interesting way. When I first saw this exhibit I was shocked that someone came up with such a creative idea. I think this appeals to many people around my age because of how humorous and exciting it is. The artists work has evolved since the 1990's, when he originally focused on Cuban history. Now most of his work is globally and peripatetic-influenced.
The next exhibit we looked at was called Amazement Park, by Stan, Sara, and Johannes Vanderbeek. This exhibit used projection screens and other mediums. I did not like this exhibit nearly as much as the others. It was not visually appealing at all and was actually very irritating. I cannot describe what exactly made me feel uncomfortable about this exhibit but I did not look at it for very long.
The last exhibit at the Tang was by Fred Tomaselli. His exhibit was based on a series of pieces comprised of mostly pills and leaves that were covered in different layers of resign. He made all sorts of different shapes including birds and people and it was very interesting how the images looked very different close up than far away. From a distance you were not able to tell what the images were made of, but once you came closer and saw all of the details made out of mostly pills and plants, the art pieces were even more interesting. I thought the artists motivation for the artwork was especially cool. Fred Tomaselli grew up in California and was very involved in drugs. He also made surf-boards for a living. These aspects of his life greatly affected his artwork. The pieces that he makes are all made from layers of resign, which is also how surfboards are made. Overall I really liked this exhibit and thought the pieces at the Tang museum were very interesting. I would definitely recommend going to this museum to any of my friends.
Fred Tomaselli uses a variety of different things to create his art. He uses real pills, plants, paint, and even illustrations cut from books or magazines. What makes his art so interesting is that it is all layered with clear epoxy resin, meaning that there may be a layer of pills covered in epoxy, and then that layer of epoxy is painted and then covered with more epoxy so eventually layers of epoxy build up creating this art work. I think what was most appealing about Tomasell's work was how involved his work was with all of the layers and planning, it was incredible. In addition, I really enjoyed the focus of his compositions. He had birds, people, plants and crazy patterns and designs and it was really cool to see. All in all I thought this was definitely creative and almost entrancing.
Cuban based collective artists (Los Carpinteros) make sculptures, drawing and large-scale installations dealing a lot with furniture. The way that they perceive furniture is different than anyone may have in the past. When I first walked into the Tang at Skidmore and saw this exhibit I was completely at a loss for words. I had seen some interesting beds before as different shapes, which also ranged in size, being huge or absolutely tiny, but regardless in the end they were all just beds. I think this piece of work is so appealing to me because it combines basically my two favorite things in the world ... bed and roller coasters. I honestly think that if I had that this piece of art as an actual bed, I would never be bored in life, or quite possibly never leave the bedroom (because of the awesomeness of the bed). When looking at this piece of art, I actually took it a step further and said what if there were two different bed tracks intertwined with one another? That would be even better, and entertain even more friends. On a more serious note, I really enjoyed this piece of art because I had never thought of beds or furniture in any other light, but after seeing this artwork, it has me thinking about couches or any other furniture for that matter and how these could be altered and perceived differently in a create manner.
Dave Hickey made several important points in his speech on Friday October 12, 2007. Unfortunately, for most people art has become all about making a profit. It is sad that art, which used to be all about creativity and beauty, and buying pieces that you really loved, has become more about making money. Now you can but art for millions and millions of dollars, and people are simply buying the items so that some day you can turn around and sell the art for more money. Dave Hickey has called artists greedy and collectors stupid for their acts, and it is hard to disagree with this. People who are interested in art simply for making money have turned the art world into something that it should not be, and some day when "art bubbles" have collapsed, these people are the ones who are going to be hurt. The whole format of the art world has changed. Before, when artist sold enough of their work through brokers to the community it was assumed that their work would make it into museums and the artists would be recognized for their work and become public figures. This depended on the likes and dislikes of the community and it depended upon honest work. This is no longer true. There are now art dealers whose job it is to be right and make a profession out of it. They give price points and this is how artwork now becomes popular. This is sadly creating dishonesty in the art world. Hopefully sometime in the future this system will change and people will buy art because they love it and artists will receive credit because they deserve it.
Glen Brown is an English artist who focuses in appropriation art. Brown takes other images as a base and alters the images in his own ways and creates a different and extremely interesting image. He has been accused in the past of copying and plagiarizing the images. Brown is quoting in saying: "To make something up from scratch is nonsensical. Images are a language. It's impossible to make a painting that is not borrowed - even the images in your dreams refer to reality." When I look at Brown's images I think they are extremely interesting and he has a way of changing the images to make them completely his own. If he were to take the images and copy them and alter them via computer or print screen then my opinion may differ, but he is an extremely talented artist and does in fact change the art enough to call his own. The real question is to what degree does a painting of piece of work need to be changed to call one's own? ...
When did the collection of art become simply to make a profit? Why has art developed into this? How did this issue arise?
There are several reasons that art has now become more for profit than anything. More and more artists have the mentality of liking money more than art. Who would get in the art world to make money? If you really want to make money go into the business field and become an accountant. What exactly does money accomplish? You could buy a really big boat, or buy an expensive apartment in Paris, but these should not motives for artists in why they would become an artist. Another reason for the art-for-profit image is due to the decline in public funding. This decreased the power of museums and increased the demand for other ways of funding. Also when you're an artist it really is hard to get a hold of money unless you are selling yours or others' art. A problem with this is that it only takes a one greedy artist and an unknowing and presumably rich collector to create an outrageous price, and hurt the potential for other artists. Essentially this issue boils down to the motives and outlooks of artists to get into the field of art for a passion and love, and if money comes along with that then so be it, but don't let that be your sole purpose or reason for involvement.
Michael Craig-Martin is a British born artist who studied at several schools including Fordham, Academie de la Grande Chaumiere in Paris, and Yale University. Craig-Martin is mainly seen today as a conceptual and "retrospective" artist, simply taking everyday household objects, such as shoes or chairs and giving them bright, unusual, and "retro" colors. I think that Craig-Martin's work seems extremely simple, just taking everyday objects, enlarging them, and making them unusual colors. Despite this simple alteration of everyday objects, I find Craig-Martin's art extremely appealing and interesting in part due to the everyday objects that he does choose, and the rather large size of the objects as well. I think his technique keeps people coming back because it is a fun kind of art when people can walk around and see a huge pink shoe mixed in among several other off colored everyday objects.
Song Dong is a Chinese artist originally from Beijing, with his main focus being in installation art or art that the viewer would physically enter, which is also known as immersive or experiential art. One work done by Song Dong, which I find particularly enticing is "Waste Not". This piece which was on display at the Museum of Modern Art in 2009. After Song Dong's father passed away in 2002, his mother began hoarding items and became what one define as a "pack rat". This is very symbolic in the fact that it represents deprivation, attachment, and most importantly the loss of her husband. She kept everything including toothpaste tubes, bowls, birdcages, bottles, shoes and almost everything imaginable. I think this piece of art, although it is simply a collection of goods, is incredible because of the symbolism that stands behind it. This coupled with how the actual setup of this display within the Museum of Modern Art with the small Chinese shack surrounded by all of the goods is almost mesmerizing and extremely interesting.
It is interesting to find that since the earliest theory of art, Greek philosophers have argued over the value of it. Plato himself ruled that the value of art was useless, and that art is simply "imitations of imitations". Although Aristotle argued the point of arts usefulness, he could not disagree with Plato that art truly was just imitations. Although there are not many people today who would say that all art has no value, there is still much argument over the subject.
This article mentions how art is very different to every individual because of the way that a person perceives it. It is interesting to think about how many various ways a piece of artwork is perceived. Everything that happens in a persons life can have an affect on how they perceive art. Everything from your parents, to where you lived, and who your friends were can change your perceptions, as well as much smaller things in between. It would be extraordinary if we could see just exactly how each person perceives a piece of artwork. There are many honored critics who are known for the way that they interpret art, but I do not think any one person in the world is necessarily exactly right or wrong in the way that they perceive art. No two people have gone through the exact same experiences in life and this can have a major affect on what art means to them.
Michael Craig-Martin is an Irish Catholic contemporary conceptual artist who lived in London as a baby. His family moved to Washington D.C. when he was around 4 years old and then he later studied art in Columbia, and then Paris. Craig-Martin practices readymade techniques, where he creates art pieces that are images of objects that are not normally considered art. He often paints images of shoes, sunglasses, light bulbs, and other everyday objects. It is interesting to see that the way he paints these images and the colors that he uses makes the objects seem much more interesting then they would normally appear. He uses bright colors that catch your eye, and often paints the objects very large which makes them seem much more impressive. Although there is debate by some as to whether or not his paintings are really art, I disagree. I think that his paintings are imaginative and interesting. It's impressive that he adds so much creativity to everyday objects. One thing that I find disappointing about the artists work is that most of it is destroyed after the exhibits are over. He usually paints his art on the walls, and then it is all stripped off when exhibits are done. It's a shame that something that took so much time to complete is just thrown away.
I thought that this essay was actually really interesting in that it looked at how the first forms of art in the Lascaux caves and even in the times of Plato and Aristotle, where art was seen as more mimistic (just an imitation of ojects) than any actally meaning. This is interesting and being rather straight forward; true. A painting of a bed serves no purpose because you can't sleep in a painted bed, and its just an imitation of real objects. The argument here is that there is actually a thing such as the content of a work of art. Meaning, when someone looks at art or more specifically a painting of an object that they see more than just an object. What does this object mean? What is the artist trying to display? Why did the artist paint this in the manner that they did?
This essentially boils down to interpretation. This means art is completely dependent upon how one interprets it. It can still be seen as mimistic, or it can have a deeper meaning. Take an example with a story, and depending on how one interprets a story that is presented to them can completely alter the meaning or interpretation of a story and how its percieved by others. This essentially means that interpretation is not an absolute value, but rather completely changes and depends upon the individual percieving it. Interpretation today is mostly opinionated and reactionary. Meaning people are only acceptant of things they like. If someone dislikes certain colors than they may instantly reject a piece of art containing those colors without even considering the meaning of the piece.
All in all I thought this was an interesting essay, it really makes you think about all the different ways in which people percieve art, and how completely different interpretations and views of art can be. Also depending on certain aspects of a person including, culture, likes, dislikes, and even values may influence a person's perception and interpretation of art, and this is truly why no two people have the same outlook on one piece of art.
While most of the work done by Bruce Nauman did not appeal to me initially, this piece sparked my interest in his work. The neon light display is eye-catching and meaningful. One of his first works, the neon piece was displayed in a grocery store window and was inspired by a beer sign. Even tho the sign does not necessarily look like art, it was placed in a public venue and made a statement pertaining to art. That, in itself I think makes the work artistic. I would also agree with the statement made as true artists should pursue truth in their pieces, Art, like anything else, has purpose and I do think that it's purpose is not solely aesthetic splendor but giving meaning to the world and ordinary things that are a part of it.
I think that this piece of art entitled "Booker T. Washington Ladder" done by Martin Puryear is one of the most interesting pieces of art I have ever seen. What makes this piece so appealing is its so called artificial perspective, making the ladder appear to go into space faster and more so than it actually does. The actual ladder is about 36 feet long but in its appearance to the eye seems as though it is much taller than that. The reasoning for the name of the ladder being the "Booker T. Washington ladder" is due to the the gradual route and upward progress that blacks undertook in the 19th century which Booker T. Washington strongly encouraged, and is symbolically reflected with the ladder.
Jeff Koons is an "artist" who essentially makes larger versions of certain objects, including balloon animals and other enlarged animals. For this reason, Jeff Koons is seen as a somewhat polarizing "artist" in the respect that some view his work as incredible while others don't consider him an artist at all. Some view him as an entrepreneur of art, who simply has a factory where all of the work is done for him. He develops the ideas and then rest of the "true" artists bring these ideas to life. Is simply developing these ideas enough to be considered an artist? If you yourself cannot create your vision, does that deem you incapable of being an artist? In my opinion, I believe so. In my eyes Jeff Koons is not an artist, but rather a creative business man, or an entrepreneur if you will. He comes up with interesting and creative ideas that are considered art, however he cannot bring them to life and I feel for an artist that is the biggest challenge to accomplish. Anyone can develop great ideas for art, but it takes a true artist with talent to bring their ideas to life. One work that is definitely a piece of art is entitled "Puppy", but again he was not responsible for physically creating this piece, and therefor I do not consider him the artist of this piece.
This painting by Picasso, called Garcon a la Pipe, was recently the most expensive piece of artwork sold at an auction. This changed when The Walking Man, by Alberto Giacometti, sold for a tenth of a million dollars more, at $104.3 million. So what makes The Walking Man just as impressive, if not more impressive, than Picasso's famous Garcon a la Pipe? It is difficult for me to see the beauty in The Walking Man. It does not seem like a piece of artwork that deserves such an enormous sum of money. It is interesting, but not so much that it seems reasonable to spend $104.3 million. Looking at Picasso's Garcon a la Pipe, it is much easier to see why this artwork sold at such a high price. Picasso is one of the most famous artists in the world, and this painting is not only beautiful but is also historic. It is clear to see that not your everyday person would have been able to paint this. The painting is interesting but also visually pleasing. In my opinion, this reaction is not as easy to find in The Walking Man, and it will be interesting to learn about different pieces of contemporary art and how so many people find so much beauty in them.
This 6 foot high sculpture by Alberto Giacometti sold for a record amount of $104.3 million at an auction in London. This work seems more like science to me, than art. I don't see how this is any different from the real human skeletons that are preserved at the Bodies Exhibit in NYC. Is it fair for such works to be sold at such a high price, especially in the kind of economic condition the world is in? As innovative and inspiring as Alberto Giacometti's work is, I find it hard to understand how someone could justify spending this large a sum on such artwork when even a small portion of this money could help much nobler causes... that survivors of the Haiti earthquake perhaps? As important as art is to our society, I am not sure what to think of think of this kind of auction.
Upon first glance, this painting by Josef Albers comes off as anything but art. In High School, I took a class called World Culture/World Literature and in this class, we had a text book entitled, Art of the Western World. During this course, we often used this text to scrutinize and study the art work of each time period as we studied the history of Europe.I was truly fascinated by the paintings and other artwork until contemporary works, when I became disappointed upon first glances.The minimalist, dada, and other contemporary artworks looked nothing like art to me.It was only after studying the meaning behind each movement that the works began to look like things I would be proud to frame on my wall.If I were to look at this painting before I took that class, all I would have seen would have been a big, ugly brown square and I would not help but be annoyed by the fact that the squares are not drawn in precise center of each other.
The simplicity of the painting can be a huge turn off to those seeking grandeur in art. But, is simplicity not a form of beauty?As it turns out, the work is actually an example of the Geometric Abstraction movement of art history, of which Josef Albers was a large influence.Albers painted a series of works under the name, Homage to the Square. In actuality, the painting is not merely a random collection of stalked squares but rather Albers’ ode to color.He was focused on exploring the different effects of color.Thus, each of the paintings in this collection looked like a stalk of squares, but the color pattern differed from one work to the next.The line graphics caused by the squares further demonstrated the dramatic geometric effect he intended to convey.The canvases displayed precision, succinct forms, and creative use of space, color and line. Are not these all aspects of art?Once the painting is looked at carefully, one can find all the elements of art embedded in it.His work was not only part of a large movement but also a platform of knowledge with regards to several important facets of art.His work not only taught his contemporaries but inspired later artists due to the advanced abstract qualities that he presented.
While the painting looks so simple, it is actually mind boggling once it is scrutinized.The superimposed squares are not merely stacked but rather painted in a manner that draws the eye in and out of the work repeatedly, almost to a hypnotizing effect.The colors are meticulously calculated such that each square seems to be altering in size to the observer’s eye.The hues of other squares are fascinating once you stare at the work for a period of time and it is amazing how his keen calculation of color and line leads the observer to see the spatial relationships to other squares as in constant alteration.
The contemporary art piece that I chose to look at was a piece done by John Olsen in 1987. The title of the piece is “Mundoo”. The reason that I chose this piece of art was because for me it stuck out as somewhat different than the rest of his pieces. I think one of the main reasons for this was because their was far less of a variation of color
All of his pieces of art are extremely appealing to the eye and are incredible with their layout and design. As I look at a majority of his other pieces of art I can actually vaugely see what he is attempting to portray in a somewhat abstract sense, for instance with his piece entitled “Startled Emus” from 1928:
However, when I look at his work with “Mundoo” I have absolutely no idea what he is attempting to portray or any sort of emotion, vision, or communication of what he has displayed. I really do enjoy this piece of art, I think that I simply find it somewhat confusing in the respect that I have absolutely no idea what is going on within the painting. If I were to initially guess what this painting were portraying without any background information I would guess that it was a simply design of curved lines with various widths that the artist just simply started with and just kind of went with resulting in “Mundoo”.
After researching about John Olsen, I found that he is infact an Australian artist who really started getting involved into the nature aspect within his paintings throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. This was mainly accomplished by his travels all across Australia and included but was not limited to lanscapes, plants, birds and animals. After further research I found that John Olsen painted the lanscape of “Mundoo Island” which is a location in Australia. Given this information and further analysis of the painting I think that this information definitely brings light to the painting. Looking at this painting now I can kind of make out some muddy or merky waters and rivers with several tributaries which make up for a landscape picture which was absolutely unclear to me before.
In conclusion I think that having some information about certain works of art is not necisarily imperitive but hepful nontheless. I think with such information as where the artist was from and what their interests are and small facts such as these can definitely make for a better understanding of these works of art. A better understanding can also lead to a greater appreciation for the artist, their work, and what they are trying to display or communicate through their masterpiece.
