Week 8

            This week’s guest lecturer showed a lot of interesting and unusual work that together make up the media of craft. Anya Kivarkis said that one of the things she was most interested in regarding craft is artist’s different methods of production. She talked about three different forms of production; handmade reproductions, reproductions, and production lines. Of these three I found handmade reproductions to be the most interesting. I especially liked Myra Mimlitsch- Gray and how she transformed a teapot. In this piece she changed the use of an antique teapot from something people would normally put on display and look at to something that people would actually use. She did this by putting the teapot in a box and then cutting out holes for the spout and openings. I found this very interesting because a teapot is something that is normally utilitarian rather than visual but by making the teapot “uglier” in a sense it makes people more inclined to use it for its intended purpose. Another piece that Anya showed us that I found interesting was Rachel Whiteread’s “House”. Whiteread filled an abandoned building with concrete and then when it set she tore down the outside of the house. What was left was a cast of the negative space of the house. The thing I found the most interesting about this piece was the reaction the neighborhood had to it. They thought that the cast had a ghostly and eerie feel to it and were so disturbed by it that they wanted her to take it down. I found it intriguing that such a simple act regarding such an everyday object such as a house could have such a strong impact on the people who viewed it.

            This week’s multimedia looks at John Feodorov. An installation of his that stood out to me when looking at his website was the installation titled “Ambiguity”. In this piece Feodorov created a giant teddy bear purely out of stuffing with no exterior shell. He then placed de-stuffed smaller teddy bears below the giant one with fragments of stuffing scattered around. The first feeling I got when looking at the piece was kind of a morbid sad feeling from all of the deflated teddy bears. Feodorov said in a little excerpt that he thought the large teddy bear was some sort of spirit or god or ruler that was made from the flattened bears. I don’t really know what he is trying to say but maybe that when people believe or invest so much in a higher power or ruler then they can give themselves up for that higher being. Another thing I found interesting when looking through Feodorov’s work was a quote that was in one of his interviews. He says, “… I think people are creative, people need to be creative, whether it’s making art or making babies. There’s that creative impulse and people find creativity in different ways. Some people’s manifestations get called art.” I completely agree with this statement. I think that it is human nature to be creative and that creativity can show itself in many ways.

            One of the things Ty wanted us to think about in our blogs this week was the idea of things being precious. I feel as though both Anya and Feodorov both discuss this idea but in different ways. In the works that Anya showed she talked about how a reproduction of something does not carry the same weight or preciousness that the original does. Making copies almost dilutes the meaning or originality. Feodorov approaches the idea of preciousness differently. I feel that he explores things in society that are so important or precious, such as a teddy bear or the office place, and uses those implications to comment on our culture.

           The artwork I chose to share this week takes something that is already made, a suitcase, and reproduces it in a new way that also changes its use.  I think this went along with the theme this week of craft. 

Week 7

           This week’s guest lecture was one of my favorites so far. It was all about Environmental Art, something I have seen very little of. I am a huge partaker of nature so it was amazing to see some of the pieces of work Carla showed that integrated nature into works of art. I love the idea that she shared with us that “Land is not a setting for the work, but a part of the work itself.” All of the works she showed us I absolutely loved, especially the piece where a man created a circle of good soil in a site of toxic waste and eventually plants and life started to form in an otherwise desolate and sick area. I think that piece did a great job at not only creating something beautiful, but at making a powerful statement as well. Another work that I found very interesting is the “Spiral Jetty” by Robert Smithson. At first I was unsure if I could like something that was pretty obtrusive of nature. I was also unsure if I liked the immense contrast of a lake so natural combined with such a planned and human element like the perfect spiral. The more I looked and thought about it, the more I liked it. The way it has weathered over time and how it has become part of the environment is beautiful. I also would love to go there at some point in my life and walk on it and experience the journey around the spiral. It really is quite an interesting piece of art.  I also really enjoyed Carla’s work that she showed us at the end. The part I loved about her ant paintings the most was when she talked about how she blew them up so that the viewer can understand the perspective of an ant, with the pixilated paper and the large “footprints” of the ants. It was quite fascinating to see.

            This week’s multimedia was challenging for me however, after listening to Ty explain Barthes a little bit I understood it more. The main thing I took away from the reading was the idea that no matter what each viewer will bring their own meaning to what they see and that sometimes anonymity, of the author, allows for more interpretation on the viewers part. This is what “the birth of the reader comes at the expense of the death of the author” means to me. Kiki Smith also had a quote that resonated with me. She said “Art is just a way to think… like standing in the wind and letting it pull you in whatever direction”. I think this is very true. When I read this the analogy of an essay prompt came to mind. Art is kind of like a prompt in a way. It can guide your way of thinking and make you think about things you might not have thought about.

            One connection I found throughout all the media this week was actually the idea that I just stated; that art can guide you. I think the quote by Kiki Smith is definitely applicable to the works of art that Carla showed us this week. Some of these works can actually physically guide you, like the Spiral Jetty or the two lines in the desert that are a mile long. Others can emotionally and mentally guide you and I think that is a very powerful quality. Another connection I made is kind of a general connection, but still a connection. This idea that Barthes has about how regardless of the intent of the author everyone will form his or her own unique interpretation. Just as I formed my own interpretation of the Spiral Jetty, someone else will have a totally different take on it. Any work of art is subjective and no two people will have the exact same view of something.

            A piece of work I chose to share this week is just something I believe illustrates the idea of different interpretations or takes on the same thing. It is more a quote than a piece of art I guess. 

Week 5

            I had been looking forward to the week in this class when we got to hear about Photography and I really really loved Craig Hickman. Although he was a little scattered and all over the place it was very refreshing and it was nice to not take art so seriously for once. He showed the class a wide variety of Photographers and work and a lot of it was really beautiful and amazing. One Photographer he showed that I really loved was Tony Mendoza. What I liked about Mendoza’s work was the emotions he created. He used studio lighting in an outside and natural setting which created kind of an eerie feeling. He did this with flowers, dogs, and cats among other things. The colors that resulted from this were very vibrant and beautiful. Another photographer I really enjoyed was Caleb Charland. He has a much different style than Mendoza but still very interesting. He creates these books of random titles and we looked at one called “Bored Couples”. It was exactly what it sounds like, pictures of couples who are bored. It was actually quite funny when put together in a book all together. That was something that I found very interesting. If there was one picture of a bored couple it would probably be a pretty boring picture, but when looking at a book compiled of numerous bored couples it was really interesting and funny and brought a whole new meaning. I found something that Hickman said about the field of photography to be very interesting and inquisitive. He brought up the “dilemma” of being a photographer in that when you take a picture you are taking a picture of something someone else has done. In my opinion photography is partly about the art of capturing something, whether or not it is someone else’s, in a beautiful and unique way.

             In this week’s multimedia I was really touched by Alfredo Jaar’s works. I think he illustrates just how powerful photography can be. I think that photography is very unique in the art world because it brings the viewer so close and involved with the subject matter in such a way that a painting or drawing cannot. Jaar’s works are very emotional. “The Rwanda Project” was especially moving. Jaar spent six years on this project and after it all he said that all the pieces failed because there is no possible way that the viewer could understand what is happening in Rwanda through a picture. I love how he went about this project though. He says that when you tell someone “a million people died” its tragic, yes, but meaningless. Understanding this he goes on to say that you need to narrow it down to one person, one story that the viewer can become involved with. This idea made complete sense to me. It reminded me of something completely off topic but follows the same idea. I heard that if you are kidnapped you should tell your kidnapper details about your life and who you are so that they become involved in your life and it becomes harder for them to do you harm. By narrowing it down to one person and their life it becomes almost impossible for someone not to relate to them. The article this week I found a little bit boring. I understand that now in this day and age with photoshop and advanced computer rendering programs faking photos is an issue but the article just seemed to go on and on. I think that with everything in the media one must take information with a grain of salt and an inquisitive mind and that extends to photographs too. It is kind of a bizarre concept though because in the past faking a photograph wasn’t really that prevalent and is more of a recent thing. Overall, I found the artist of this week much more fascinating than the reading.

            An overarching theme I found this week was a sense of playfulness, even if the subject matter was serious. Starting from the way Craig presented his lecture materials to the content of what we looked at this week there was a sense of playfulness underneath it all. Craigs work was pretty cool and playful itself. He takes pictures and adds text or visuals that weren’t really in the picture when he took it. His text was satirical and funny at times. In Mendoza’s pictures of his dog there is definitely a sense of playfulness not only in the dogs expressions, but in the color and lighting and closeness of the photographs. Charland’s books have a definite lightheartedness and light tone to them. Another connection I made has to do with the very topic of the article we read about faking photographs. This is exactly what Craig does in his “fictional photographs”. He takes real life pictures then photoshops text in while making them look like the text could actually be there. If one did not know that he added the text himself, they would think it was actually there. Is it a bad think to deceive the viewer? I think in some situations, like the one in the article, yes but in others it can be harmless and playful.

            The piece I chose for this week is a piece that I have always liked and it reminded me of the work Craig showed us by Mendoza. 

(unknown)