I really really really love the Hanson sculptures. I think it's so cool the messages that he is trying to get out through them and also how incredibly realistic they are. I think they are by far the most interesting things that we have studied all year in this class. Also, I really like the stuff that we learned about yesterday with Christo and Jeanne-Claude. My favorite of theirs would have to be the Valley Curtain. Imagine driving down Airline Highway and noticing that these is a huge sheet hanging in the distance. Also, how could I possibly say anything about Eveleth's doughnuts? They have made me look at jelly-filled doughnuts in a totally new light. I have nothing deep to say about any of this stuff at the moment.. just that I really like it.
i really like some of the hanson stuff also. i like his message and i think he executed it well. i really lvoe the christo stuff, but i think they waste too many resources to make their art. i think i'd like their art more if it was more permanent.
I agree about the Hanson, although, if I walked in an art gallery, they would probably creep me out because they're so realistic. Also, I really liked Weem's photos and they message she's getting accross with her artwork.
The hanson ones were cool, but they were rather creepy. i did not like the photos, because maybe I'm not a member of the time. They seemed to blatantly trying to fight back about racism that it ended up pointing out more racism than I would naturally think.
I like how pomo art makes me question my definition of art-- it challenges me to consider whether or not it is actually art.
So I will consider. Some of it, unquestionably, is art-- Eveleth, Pearlstein, Estes, Hanson-- their message and focus is new and different, but they use pre-established media, just in different ways.
I know that I said before that art is evolving to be about the message and not so much the medium or the representation. I definitely think this is true of the postmodern--you can see that with Weems, with the feminist stuff, and sort of with Kosuth ("Chairs")-- but some postmodernism takes it further. In the true pomo spirit, some of it denies a message-- and evolves to be about the effect, about the moment, about the demonstration-- without ever posessing a message (I'm thinking Christus & Jeanne-Claude and Noguchi).
But should I draw the line?
Some of the art we've looked at-- I hate to say it-- doesn't quite seem to be art to me. It seems more a cultural movement, a demonstration-- that's not to say that it's worthless or not deserving of study; it is. It illustrates the postmodern era we live in. Things like Dadaism, or Christus and Jeanne-Claude, I think, definitely would fit into this quasi-art/statement/demonstration category. I'm sorry-- I just feel like this postmodern art sometimes tears itself too much from the inherent visuality of art. It has to contain a visual idea, a visual focus, a visual message. I'm not sure if trees wrapped in plastic accomplish that.
I know I just posted, but I wanted to separate my completely different ideas. So I'm starting a new post-- and Mrs. Scandurro, I'd appreciate if you could count this as a second post.
I hate to be disdainful about any "art." It seems far too subjective a matter for me to even try to impose or form opinions on it. I am a creature that, sadly, is all too comfortable in neutrality.
Sometimes, however, I question the recent direction of art. There are things, again, that seem to be quite legitimate-- as I said before, using pre-established channels and mediums to express new ideas. But then there are those that are, for better or for worse, constantly challenging the status quo, taking "art" to the next level, pushing buttons and expression ideas-- or a lack thereof-- in controversial ways. You could see this as a great expansion in thinking, as a fantastic progression that pushes the boundaries of art and thought.
But sometimes I wonder what the point is. Sometimes I wonder if the focus has shifted too much. I wonder if these "artists" have just gotten too carried away. There was once a time in art history when new art wasn't controversial. From the Renaissance to the Baroque, for example, things weren't questioned. There was a shift in style, but it seems to have been a painless one-- the same applies to the transition from Baroque to Neoclassical and then to Romantic. Art stays similar-- the focus shifts, the ideas, the composition-- they shift to represent their time. Art finds new ideas and new subjects, but never does anyone say, "That isn't art." It was different in its subject, but nobody seemed to object.
Then there were the Realists. Courbet, Manet, painting controversial topics in sometimes controversial ways. People where outraged. But with time, they, too, were considered Great. The impressionists and the post-impressionists and many of the early moderns followed this same route-- after their ground-breaking art received shock, it became accepted-- revered, even. They changed the way we look at things, the way art looked at things. They were innovators.
And I wonder if sometime in that span, objection became the status quo. An artist who was first rejected was often later deified. Innovations were to be desired-- they were the only legitimate art-- and not to innovate was to be less than Great. Perhaps art today is too based on this idea, that one must defy everything that defines art and recreate art itself to be accomplished-- that one must be bold, outrageous, and controversial if one wanted to be great. And so we have this art-- something that might be called silly, which elicits violent antipathy, which stretches convention and forces us to define art. There seems to be this awful attitude there: "You'll disagree with me, and you'll call this stupid, but later generations will laugh at you. Go ahead, damn yourself to ignorance-- or accept this as art!"
Maybe I'm being to backwards in my hypothesis. Maybe I'm not being open-minded enough. I'm not saying this is the case-- it's only a paranoid suspicion that I have, so to speak. A fear that the focus of art is no longer to create art-- but to force it into a redefinition, to be newer and more different than all who came before you-- without really thinking about whether this innovation is worthwhile. Change for the sake of change seems rather silly to me.
But i really like the playfulness I've seen in Pomo. Also, the odd angles that the art puts you in are really interesting and give you a new take on the art, and creates a different emotion in the viewer.
I love the stuff we studied yesterday and today with Krugar (or however you spell it). Even though I may not necessarily agree with every message she sends in her artwork, I find it really interesting the way she challenges people and how she is so upfront with addressing such controversial and important topics.
even though pomo art is commonplace now. i still like seeing it a lot. in fact, i wish there were more pieces like the cube around town. i really like earth art too. it's really interesting and changes over time like the spiral jetty.
I really like Christo and whatsherface. I think its so cool that someone can just wake up one day and see a random wall or umbrella collection that wasnt there the day before. I think in this case the art isnt really about the "art" itself, but more about the reaction that it produces for the viewer.
I can appreciate the Rothko Chapel. Have you ever been in a really quiet room and started to stare at the walls or ceiling? Don't you start to see shapes or figures? That's not my imagination, is it? My point is, I can fully understand how large panels of painted color would provide an intimate setting for religious reflection.
I really like the super realistic paintings we went over - I think that's what art be all about, ya'heard? Is the idea of post modern art to just do the outlandish?
I totally don't get the stuff we've been going over recently - like the feminist art - no matter how many times it's explained to me I still don't get it
To continue what I was saying - Yeah, sure, I think it's pretty cool that Shonibare put himself in Victorian positions and "Deonstructing society" or something along those lines, but is it really that revolutionary? Is it really that genius?
I do too Caroline. I thought that was so interesting and really funny in a way. The Hatcher one was really cool too. I like how we all just read the quote instead of reading the eye chart.
I liked shonibare's resistance against racism, as opposed to the lady who did the "lady with chicken" photos. She seemed to just bring up stereotypes in her pictures, but Shonibare's pictures took a lot of effort.
...and his pictures really kind of caught me off guard because you don't expect to see a black man dressed in expensive Victorian clothes like an aristocrat, so I think he got his point across in a better way.
I'm just informing everyone that the people on the front are Christo and Jeanne-Claude... since Caroline didn't know. Also, Marsalis hates them. Just informing everyone of this.
anyone think that POMO and Dada-ism are related? Also, I was talking to my dad about Midrash [a rabbinical study of the Torah]; it turns out it's really similar to what the POMO artists are doing...I'm going to suggest that maybe it's an old idea that's been re-hashed for the modern world.
Thanks for sharing that Taylor - that's completely changed my mind about Christo and Jean-Claude. I love them now.
I somewhat agree with you, Nuzzy. I see how you can relate PoMo art and Dadaism, since both (to some extent) are made to make statements. I just don't consider Dadaism art.
I like Weem's art because she uses humor to point out the flaws in society's beliefs. Typically art is open for interpretation or representing certain people, but this type of artistic representation points out our flaws and beliefs even if they are not held by all.
22 comments:
I really really really love the Hanson sculptures. I think it's so cool the messages that he is trying to get out through them and also how incredibly realistic they are. I think they are by far the most interesting things that we have studied all year in this class. Also, I really like the stuff that we learned about yesterday with Christo and Jeanne-Claude. My favorite of theirs would have to be the Valley Curtain. Imagine driving down Airline Highway and noticing that these is a huge sheet hanging in the distance. Also, how could I possibly say anything about Eveleth's doughnuts? They have made me look at jelly-filled doughnuts in a totally new light. I have nothing deep to say about any of this stuff at the moment.. just that I really like it.
i really like some of the hanson stuff also. i like his message and i think he executed it well. i really lvoe the christo stuff, but i think they waste too many resources to make their art. i think i'd like their art more if it was more permanent.
I agree about the Hanson, although, if I walked in an art gallery, they would probably creep me out because they're so realistic. Also, I really liked Weem's photos and they message she's getting accross with her artwork.
The hanson ones were cool, but they were rather creepy. i did not like the photos, because maybe I'm not a member of the time. They seemed to blatantly trying to fight back about racism that it ended up pointing out more racism than I would naturally think.
I like how pomo art makes me question my definition of art-- it challenges me to consider whether or not it is actually art.
So I will consider. Some of it, unquestionably, is art-- Eveleth, Pearlstein, Estes, Hanson-- their message and focus is new and different, but they use pre-established media, just in different ways.
I know that I said before that art is evolving to be about the message and not so much the medium or the representation. I definitely think this is true of the postmodern--you can see that with Weems, with the feminist stuff, and sort of with Kosuth ("Chairs")-- but some postmodernism takes it further. In the true pomo spirit, some of it denies a message-- and evolves to be about the effect, about the moment, about the demonstration-- without ever posessing a message (I'm thinking Christus & Jeanne-Claude and Noguchi).
But should I draw the line?
Some of the art we've looked at-- I hate to say it-- doesn't quite seem to be art to me. It seems more a cultural movement, a demonstration-- that's not to say that it's worthless or not deserving of study; it is. It illustrates the postmodern era we live in. Things like Dadaism, or Christus and Jeanne-Claude, I think, definitely would fit into this quasi-art/statement/demonstration category. I'm sorry-- I just feel like this postmodern art sometimes tears itself too much from the inherent visuality of art. It has to contain a visual idea, a visual focus, a visual message. I'm not sure if trees wrapped in plastic accomplish that.
I know I just posted, but I wanted to separate my completely different ideas. So I'm starting a new post-- and Mrs. Scandurro, I'd appreciate if you could count this as a second post.
I hate to be disdainful about any "art." It seems far too subjective a matter for me to even try to impose or form opinions on it. I am a creature that, sadly, is all too comfortable in neutrality.
Sometimes, however, I question the recent direction of art. There are things, again, that seem to be quite legitimate-- as I said before, using pre-established channels and mediums to express new ideas. But then there are those that are, for better or for worse, constantly challenging the status quo, taking "art" to the next level, pushing buttons and expression ideas-- or a lack thereof-- in controversial ways. You could see this as a great expansion in thinking, as a fantastic progression that pushes the boundaries of art and thought.
But sometimes I wonder what the point is. Sometimes I wonder if the focus has shifted too much. I wonder if these "artists" have just gotten too carried away. There was once a time in art history when new art wasn't controversial. From the Renaissance to the Baroque, for example, things weren't questioned. There was a shift in style, but it seems to have been a painless one-- the same applies to the transition from Baroque to Neoclassical and then to Romantic. Art stays similar-- the focus shifts, the ideas, the composition-- they shift to represent their time. Art finds new ideas and new subjects, but never does anyone say, "That isn't art." It was different in its subject, but nobody seemed to object.
Then there were the Realists. Courbet, Manet, painting controversial topics in sometimes controversial ways. People where outraged. But with time, they, too, were considered Great. The impressionists and the post-impressionists and many of the early moderns followed this same route-- after their ground-breaking art received shock, it became accepted-- revered, even. They changed the way we look at things, the way art looked at things. They were innovators.
And I wonder if sometime in that span, objection became the status quo. An artist who was first rejected was often later deified. Innovations were to be desired-- they were the only legitimate art-- and not to innovate was to be less than Great. Perhaps art today is too based on this idea, that one must defy everything that defines art and recreate art itself to be accomplished-- that one must be bold, outrageous, and controversial if one wanted to be great. And so we have this art-- something that might be called silly, which elicits violent antipathy, which stretches convention and forces us to define art. There seems to be this awful attitude there: "You'll disagree with me, and you'll call this stupid, but later generations will laugh at you. Go ahead, damn yourself to ignorance-- or accept this as art!"
Maybe I'm being to backwards in my hypothesis. Maybe I'm not being open-minded enough. I'm not saying this is the case-- it's only a paranoid suspicion that I have, so to speak. A fear that the focus of art is no longer to create art-- but to force it into a redefinition, to be newer and more different than all who came before you-- without really thinking about whether this innovation is worthwhile. Change for the sake of change seems rather silly to me.
MICHELLE WHAT HAVE I SAID ABOUT LONG BLOGS!!!!
But i really like the playfulness I've seen in Pomo. Also, the odd angles that the art puts you in are really interesting and give you a new take on the art, and creates a different emotion in the viewer.
I love the stuff we studied yesterday and today with Krugar (or however you spell it). Even though I may not necessarily agree with every message she sends in her artwork, I find it really interesting the way she challenges people and how she is so upfront with addressing such controversial and important topics.
even though pomo art is commonplace now. i still like seeing it a lot. in fact, i wish there were more pieces like the cube around town. i really like earth art too. it's really interesting and changes over time like the spiral jetty.
I really like Christo and whatsherface. I think its so cool that someone can just wake up one day and see a random wall or umbrella collection that wasnt there the day before. I think in this case the art isnt really about the "art" itself, but more about the reaction that it produces for the viewer.
I can appreciate the Rothko Chapel. Have you ever been in a really quiet room and started to stare at the walls or ceiling? Don't you start to see shapes or figures? That's not my imagination, is it? My point is, I can fully understand how large panels of painted color would provide an intimate setting for religious reflection.
I really like the super realistic paintings we went over - I think that's what art be all about, ya'heard? Is the idea of post modern art to just do the outlandish?
I totally don't get the stuff we've been going over recently - like the feminist art - no matter how many times it's explained to me I still don't get it
To continue what I was saying - Yeah, sure, I think it's pretty cool that Shonibare put himself in Victorian positions and "Deonstructing society" or something along those lines, but is it really that revolutionary? Is it really that genius?
I really liked the Shonibare pictures we saw today, and I really like the idea of his 24 hour video. The whole concept behind it is really neat.
I do too Caroline. I thought that was so interesting and really funny in a way. The Hatcher one was really cool too. I like how we all just read the quote instead of reading the eye chart.
I liked shonibare's resistance against racism, as opposed to the lady who did the "lady with chicken" photos. She seemed to just bring up stereotypes in her pictures, but Shonibare's pictures took a lot of effort.
...and his pictures really kind of caught me off guard because you don't expect to see a black man dressed in expensive Victorian clothes like an aristocrat, so I think he got his point across in a better way.
I'm just informing everyone that the people on the front are Christo and Jeanne-Claude... since Caroline didn't know. Also, Marsalis hates them. Just informing everyone of this.
anyone think that POMO and Dada-ism are related?
Also, I was talking to my dad about Midrash [a rabbinical study of the Torah]; it turns out it's really similar to what the POMO artists are doing...I'm going to suggest that maybe it's an old idea that's been re-hashed for the modern world.
Thanks for sharing that Taylor - that's completely changed my mind about Christo and Jean-Claude. I love them now.
I somewhat agree with you, Nuzzy. I see how you can relate PoMo art and Dadaism, since both (to some extent) are made to make statements. I just don't consider Dadaism art.
I like Weem's art because she uses humor to point out the flaws in society's beliefs. Typically art is open for interpretation or representing certain people, but this type of artistic representation points out our flaws and beliefs even if they are not held by all.
Post a Comment