Glenn Brown - Appropriation Art

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? ...

Schoolyard Art: Playing fair with the Referee

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.

Larger than Life Size ...

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.

"Waste Not"

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.

Against Interpretation

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

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.

Interpreting "Against Interpretation"

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.