But Is It Art - Chapter 3

This chapter discusses art and the meaning of art within different cultures. I particularly like John Dewey's idea that art is a universal language within which anyone, regardless of native language or geographical location could connect. I really like Asian art, for instance, even though I don't always know what its underlying meaning is. Because of modern technology I am able to loosely translate text in languages that are foreign to me, which helps to close the gap of misunderstanding.

This chapter also discusses certain art influencing other art in different countries. It also talks about how art can travel in a similar way to people because they take it with them. (not really physically take it with them, they bring with them their culture and native art ideas)

PS - I want a bonsai tree SO BAD. :D

In Class Blog Questions - Bloody & Beauty 2

1. What did Horace Walpole list as the "Three Sisters of Graces"?

Gardening, poetry, and painting.

2. What did Kant mean when he said, "Purposiveness without a purpose"?

Kant was referring to objects within art, or more generally, art itself, as not having a specific functional purpose, but being purposeful in the way that they are beautiful and elicit a pleasant reaction in viewers.

3. In Danto's opinion, what was baptized as a piece of "art"?

Warhol's "Brillo Boxes" piece. He classifies art as anything that is accepted by a gallery or museum and would be purchased by art collectors.

But Is It Art - Chapters 1 and 2

The first chapter of this book covers a lot of art with a particular shock value to it. Pieces, for instance, that contain bodily fluid, excrement, or other generally disgusting "medium. Serrano's "Piss Christ", for example, supposedly contains urine. Hirst's shark piece uses formaldehyde to preserve the body of a dead shark in a tank. Ofili used elephant dung in creating a piece called "Virgin Mary". I can only imagine the reactions that these works generated, and must still generate, given their content and expression.

There is also discussion about what classifies as artwork, and how that distinction is made. Warhol's "Brillo Boxes", for example. somebody thinks it's art...I'd have to say though...I don't really understand what deep thoughts he's trying to convey with that one.

Langdon Quin's Art Lecture

I went to Langdon Quin's artist lecture today. I wasn't really sure if I was going to enjoy it or not, I found that his paintings were very pastel in color and seemed "candy" to me. Professor Hood asked him about not having rich darks in his paintings; whether it was a conscious decision or simply a bi-product of his process. Quin replied that he wanted his darks to have visual weight, which he attributed to using whites in his darks. That makes no sense to me...and I still don't like that he doesn't use real heavy darks in his work.

Everything that was hanging in the show was more recent work I think, so i'm sure he has had darks in his earlier stuff. I did really enjoy his explanation of his triptych of the art studios. I thought that there was a lot I hadn't seen in the work until he spoke about it. I also thought that his other descriptions of his paintings made them more interesting.

Criticizing Art - Chapter 6 - Writing and Talking About Art

This final chapter was broken into three main parts. The first breaks down how to decide what to write when writing art criticism. It covers things like how to pick a topic to write about, how to describe it properly, how to interpret and judge it, etc. The second talks about more technical things like how to use a word processor...haha. (and also how to avoid plagiarism and how to edit a piece of writing.) The third section is examples of such writings.

Kate Gartrell's Artist Lecture

I attended Kate Gartrell's artist lecture about her experiences in the art world. She had really interesting things to say about her inspirations for her work. I really enjoyed her explain the relationships between bull fighters and dancing, and how that influenced several of her paintings. I also liked her experimentation with distorting the sexual nature of her figures- like having a males arm on a female torso. She explained that it was a study inspired by Michelangelo, who used male models for all of his figures in the Sistine Chapel paintings.

I found her paintings to be different from what I normally consider a painting to be. She did a lot of strategic figure cropping that I found interesting. She had several paintings where the figures head was missing in part or in total, and many that were just from the waist down. I thought it was a different take on the average, run of the mill self portrait. It was an enjoyable and enlightening lecture.