Final Podcast

Here it is..Thank you Mr. Yost-Miller for all of your hardwork this year--it really has been an awesome and very unique course

FINAL PODCAST

"End of Year" Reflection

---THE FOUNTAIN...art?

What is art and who decides? It is a question that this course has revolved around, and it is a question that I feel my answer really hasn’t changed. In the beginning of this course, I saw art as whatever the artist wanted it to be, or, in turn, whatever the observer interpreted to be. But, as Mr. Yost just mentioned, this course has given me the knowledge to back me up. When we first started watching the films, Jason Pollock was a fine example of art being for the artist; he was unaffected by the criticism he received, and because of that confidence his work became somewhat accepted later in his years. Even in Spongebob, we learned art ‘rules’ often make us too focused on trying to fit a stereotype that in the end, only frustrates and inhibits our natural abilities. Then, we began reading about post-modernism (where readymades were considered art by the artist) and modernism (where machinery and mainstream culture were considered over-exposed by the artist)—where perception made art what it is. And with these final readings, we see art being broken down through multiple lenses: Does the broken triangle symbolism the repression of women? Does the color red invoke community opinion? Does the wood of Christ have a deeper level? It’s all about perception.

Methodologies of Art

After reading this passage, it was quite interesting to compare to our knowledge of PoMo and Mod. Alot of this passage deals with the ideas of Artistotle and Plato, who had rather definitive rules and regulations for what art is; however, in our post-modernism and modernism texts, such stipulations were thinning and almost non-existent.

I also really enjoyed the Magritte pipe, and the notion that words and images are lost in translation (ie, taking a french classic and translating into English can demystify the original work of art).

Mimesis is something talked about in this piece as well. In Plato's view, perfection and representation were more important than creating something new and fusing your own ideas. Aristotle, however, is not so restricting in his thought. He feels art is not a copy of the real world, but an essence. I agree more with Aristotle, in the sense that more modern art is focused on conceptualism rather than reproduction. And, I feel Aristotle's philosophy is much more creative in nature.

They also discussed how animals build art in nature, but for function only. Humans, however, must learn to create, and then therefore they are able to create more creative pieces.

Finally, I liked how they mentioned that people recognize description based on natural association (I.e., flowing hair reminds us of flowing water--and through this image associated with the word, we can imagine through written word). But, at the same time, as noted in our post-modernism and modern passages, words are merely words that have become accepted and in essence have no meaning until they were put into a context.

Post Mod v. Mod

Podcast

A Modernist View of What Art is

I think page 136 says it well "The art that ensued from this interpretation (avant agarde) of modernization could be seen as elitist, anti-demoratic, and at odds with mass culture". Modernists are in my opinion very anti-mainstream. They attempt to create art and masterpieces that later become mainstream, at which point they redesign and reconfigure to fabricate a new modern genre. On page 47, it mentions that things that used to be modern are now sitting on shelves in university libraries as 'classic'. Society as a whole are modernists in loose interpretation, because they welcome modernism into their sphere, however, modernists as a whole are more removed from their art. I get the sense that modernists create a piece and walk away from it--almost sensing public mass production and exploitation. These artists don't revel in their works, they move on to the next piece without looking back.

Modernists would think that each individual decides what art is for themselves. They would say that art is a personal matter, and that, interpretation and conceptual-ism all aid art's definition. Modernists are self-proclaimed exiles who choose to be out of the mainstream, whereas post-modernists were so far from society that they weren't ever apart of the bigger world. Modernists also reject modernity, the industrial side of modernism, because modernity is about fusing form and function, and most modernists care more about the emotion of a piece, rather than the use of it.

Part Two of Modernism

In this section of the book, a part that stood out to me was the idea of there being a connection between primitivism and modernism. Primitivism, as defined by the book, as a deep link to 'feelings and ideas'--a sort of fancy way to say that they take root from the past and what we consider 'primitive' or 'third world'. But when you think that the book has suddenly shifted to an ignorance, you flip the page to find that primitivism has received controversy over the notion of ethnocentrism (or bigotry judging based on the values from one's own world view). So, is primitivism, while a crucial part of redefining art to create modernism (because most anything new takes its foundation from something in its past), could it possibly be the wrong way to go about creating modernism? The whole primitivism section delves not only in art in the typical canvas form, but also in literary and expressionistic form.

I also liked the way that the novel blended together Dadaism into surrealism, which in turn refers back to Freud and the idea of the 'mental world' and psychology being used to express the real world in rather abstract ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EDdCjtzcw8&feature=PlayList&p=BEB03A62FE28FFD3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

^ primitivism reminded me of "Why Man Creates", because of this idea of an evolution of creation and how some things never change

Why Man Creates

Love Song..?

In this poem, you hear a cynicism and satirical nature with his choice of words. The last line especially , "Till human voices wake us, and we drown", is very eerie. His use of stream of consciousness may at first confuse the listener, causing them to focus on his scatter-brained style of poetry rather than the words themselves--but this stream is eerie because of this. Hearing someone's true, uncensored, raw emotions put on paper can be the scariest thing on this planet--because I am a firm believer that with the dark comes the light, and everyone is capable of writing "dark and twisty" things, even if in reality the writer is far from dark. Hearing/reading his mind on paper really shows this side of him.

He does thread the whole poem together with the question of "Do I dare?"--the idea that people often question whether or not they should do something (either pre, during, or post an event). In this way, he makes you connect his stream of consciousness and create a work of art that makes you question yourself and others.

It is post-modern for all of the reasons mentioned above. By having a natural flow, the author allows for a poem to be created that in itself is unorthodox. It has no constant rhythmic pattern, nor constant rhyme scheme or even tone. It has imagery (the yellow fog) and it has description, but any other ties to poetry are seemingly gone from the text.

The Parable of the Madman

Nietzsche's selection evokes great emotion. The speech of the madman, in reference to the death of God, is in itself very powerful. But I don't think he is literally referring to God being dead---I think it is much more symbolic of the notion that people were abandoning him for the potholes of sin and evil. Nietzche died right before the turn of the century, and in my opinion, his works were too soon, and too new---which therefore would make it modern. I dare say this because of Mr. Yost mentioned in class before we read: that he died before WWII and the rise of Anti-Semitism in Germany as a means of scapegoat for the rough economic times in Germany. His works were needed during this time, but he died long before he could be present in the lives of those who lived 30-40 years after his death. His lack of physical presence made it impossible for his works to make any impact on Germany during the time, because the citizens were too busy in a frenzy of chaos and depression.

In this case, the modernism found in this piece was harmful to society; not because it was too advanced for the time, but because it was needed later on. But I still think the piece is modern because of its lack of romanticism, and its stark look on reality. It is roughly comparable to the idealism of transcendentalism in America, in the sense that it was an abolishment of the establishment---but Nietzsche doesn't put any romanticism in his work.

In my other post, I said modernism doesn't use symbolism--I think I was too rash. I think in our book on page 43, this statement was in reference only to a single piece of art, something I didn't realize.

Modernism Novel

So we have just begun a new book to kind of rewind history to take a look at the movement pre-post-modernism--ie., modernism. On page 42 there was a great summation of the whole section. "It proclaimed itself, it exuded a confidence in its newness and radicality" And on page 43 "the figures (of modernism) are not allegorical or symbolic--their meaning must be read off the canvas, the surface of the picture". Modernism is in my opinion an attempt to redefine art as something new and original.

Also, there was talk of modernity versus modernism/modernists, which was really interesting. Modernity being referred to something as more industrial, rather than artistic.

But, it also mentioned something we discussed in class: the notion that something considered modern at its original emergence becomes an 'established tradition' (47). Something boring, old, and has-been material. Dry and boring, like what the majority of adolescents dread to read in a English fine literature course, or what they hate to have to interpret in an Art 101 course.

Postmodernism??

Well, after reading "Introduction to Post-Modernism"--with the hyphen of course, I really learned a little bit more about the extremist views artist have on art itself. The main thing I got from this book was that art cannot be categoried. Art is collage and hybrid of a multitude of resources and traditional artistic forms. Post Modernists themselves try to break the 'art rules' and take things out of context to therefore create an artistic medium. However, the notion of a post modernist is slightly paradoxial in a sense that post-modernism is about anti-identity. And, since calling something post-modern automatically brands an image of rebellious anarchy and over-conceptualism, things considered post-modern with that title are in themselves no longer post-modern, for one cannot be in the movement if it is directly associated with it. This creates an even more complicated slant on 'What is art and who decides?'...But, an interesting one at that. I feel those who are not post-modern or who do not associate with the movement would decide the 'art' to not be art, because it is so far from mainstream

this book really on skimmed the surface on this question of art, and opened my eyes to how truly contreversal the subject is.

APPRORIATENE$$

I myself believe that in some senses, things considered 'inappropriate' such as textual pictures that deal with taboo subjects (ie. sex, religion, gory battle scenes etc) are truly appropriate in art and English courses. The purpose of these classes are to broaden our knowledge of the world in full scope, including topics that some adults deem too graphic for our innocent minds. I may not speak for everyone, but we as a whole (students that is) are not that naive---and, there is a majority of us who are mature enough to not make something 'inappropriate' become a joke. Some of these graphics help to explain the task at hand better than the written word, which can only take you so far. However, such pictures are not necessary in a math or science class, because these courses deal with arithmetic and theory, and simple/safe pictures are the best option--so as not to ruffle feathers unnecessarily...

Basically appropriateness is a judgment call, which is what makes it difficult to get a feel for in school settings. But even if that is so grey, it needs to be addressed.

Post-Modernism

^ reproduction of Van Gogh's Sunflowers

I really was captured by the artwork on page 48. It depicted Mona Lisa saying "the more Van Gogh's 'sunflowers' becomes a poster cliche, the more you have to pay for the original!"..with a picture of a dollar bill with Van Gogh's 'sunflowers' replacing washington on the bill. I think it is quite humorous because it is a statement that is so true. Many famous pictures have been reproduced so many times that the actual piece itself becomes 'hidden' in a sea of fauxs and parodies. The more acient or distant an original piece is, the more people wish to have it for themselves, and the more money is spent at hoity-toity auctions for the rich that can afford these paintings.

Other Example:

Andy Warhol---"Marilyn Monroe"
da Vinci-----"Mona Lisa" and "Last Supper"

Modernism

What is modern? How can one possibly define modern? Modern is anything considered contemporary, which in itself needs another definition. Being contemporary means something to the effect of 'being in the times', but still progressive. Interior Design has a great example of modernism in real life. Clean lines, bold colors, and sometimes unclear shapes. Shapes are combined to create new shapes (a square and a circle become one (===) )

As seen in the picture above, white is a color often associated with modernism, because of the literal interpretation of 'clean lines'. The angelic qualities associated with the color white (clouds, baptismal dresses, wedding dress) white is used to show purity and polishment (and yes, I did make up the word 'polishment')

Other than that, I feel modern pieces start off modern until a new wave of modernism is defined, and the original modern work is relabeled as another type of art to make room for the new.

The Art Class: the students make a film

The purpose of this student created film was to show the perspective of a variety of stereotypical artists. The cliches included but were not limited to: an eager student, technically minded, overly conceptual, reluctant teacher. All are examples of fairly extreme personalities that represent most likely a small portion of the population they represent. I believe this allows the viewer to (in a humorous way) see that art has come from a multitude of cultural backgrounds and each group has left an impact on the world of art. It shows that art is not in a literal sense, but it is also not fully figurative either. It is a fascination with the blending of many styles, and each style evolved from the same source

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9je55bsxk

Coattails

I think all things art require creativity. Art itself is a creative expression of feelings and emotions, so without creativity art would not be possible. It is true that some artists are able to revive and reuse artistic ideas, and in effect replicate, but that is still a form of creativity because no work of art can be the exact carbon copy of another. There is always a piece of art within the entirety of the piece that is personal.

The actress rules that: Creativity influences art.

The movie we watched today had creative touches. The composer changed the coattail jacket trend at the music hall by a happy mistake: his sleeves. It created a comedy for the audience, while presenting his musical piece, which was the original art. Validation was required in this piece for it to be art.

Why Man Creates

By Far my favorite film shown to us, because it was a taste of all different forms of artistic expression in one little soundbite. During the edifice, they took us through history to see how creativity began and how it evolved. I also remember the scene with the cross walk where people were forced to do jumping jacks. They used interesting examples to help explain that art can be many things, but often it does require a process or some sort of planning to be implemented. Overall, the movie felt like some tricked out alternate universe, with minimal transitions and maximum thought. I really think it would behoove our group to use some of their tactics to shape our film project.

Pollock and Bosquiat

The one thing I really liked about Pollock was his choice not to use the brush stroke as his modes of painting. To think that anyone created the abstract arts that he did without the use of a brush is quite amazing. But at his show, the audience tended to whisper and question what kind of art it was, if it was even art at all. His art didn't classify into cubism or any other category, it truly was a mash up of different styles.

Lee also asked Pollock questions like "who did you work under to learn art", suggesting that art requires a teacher to become perfected. And I definently think this is quite true, or why else would we have art class? Art teachers help shape our ideas to put them into an art form, but they should not be the end all of critic.

He also doesn't like accidents: he says he uses them to become part of the art, and then they are no longer accidents. Very interesting indeed.



In Bosquiat, we are revealed to the typical starving artist waiting for his big break. After he gets his big break, his friends no longer treat him the same way (the whole 'stardom' syndrome kicks in), and the wave of personal questions ('you dated madonna?') begin to wave in. "They say I’m killing myself, but then when I clean up they say my art’s dead": a quote of truth, since people, namely the public, always want more or less, but whatever you are at the moment tends to be too extreme for them. It's like nothing will make them happy.

Klimpt

I really enjoyed the line about measuring success by the number of hats still on people's heads. It was pretty cool to see how Klimpt also used Chinese styles into his art.

In coffee house philosophy, people deemed philosophy to be simply rubbish, of no importance. It was quite funny to think that an artist (I' m pretty sure he was an artist) would say such a thing since, in my opinion, art heavily relies on philosophy, since philosophy allows one to think in new and near-existentialistic ways. But at the time, I guess art was considered more of a set of rules than a freedom of expression.

Frida

In Frida, we saw a stereotypical case of the student becoming the teacher. Frida asks for Diego's approval of her art, and at the end she reassures Diego of his lenin piece.

In the first part shown, it was interesting to see how stubborn Frida was about her meeting with Diego being strictly buisness. It showed how she wanted to bring a new light to the stereotype of a latin american women in the past (frida was the 1900s, right?). She was also very focused on the money aspect of art, and strived her best not to be labeled as easel art, the cliche of motel art being uncreative and not 'real'.

The stereotype of not losing your vision to the man is also in this film. Stubborness seems a constant of artists in these films

Van Gogh: Tortured Artist (make up work/today work)

After watching part of the movie in class today, and making up the reading of the letter, Van Gogh (spelling?) sounds like one cool dude. His perspective as an artist is very much personal and emotional, as he connects to his pieces like a true artist. I see in him the same emotions of an actor who uses method acting on stage. The ability to translate your feelings into an art form is truly magical.

He also attempted to draw 'by the books'. The letter suggests he used math/science related skills to draw human figures with precision. He explains the process of adding elements--new subjects, colors, techniques---to his paintings to make them better. His inspiration from live models is very apparent in this letter.

To be quite frank, his passion for drawing may be cliche, but it is that cliche-ness that makes him Vincent, the artist. He seemingly would die for his art, or at least risk injury (ie-- his ear, in later years). But I guess cliches can sometimes be good...

Mom and Pop Art

So I was absent for the PSSAs, which were SUPER fun :(. But anyhoo, I was able to look up some small clips from the simpsons episode and found quite a few cliches of artists. For one, Homer was told by astrid that essentially anger is the greatest muse, a nod to the notion of a tortured genius.The also mentioned European and Cultural influences, often associated with artwork. Astrid is a kind of hippy gallery owner, a direct picture of the cliched artist.

I also saw Homer trying to build a BBQ, but in my opinion, this is a form of indirect art, because BBQ require design and planning to become possible. Instead of avoiding art, like he originally intended, he became face to face with it.

Artist Unknown: Spongebob

In this episode that we just saw, Sponge Bob defines art as whatever Squidward tells him art is. In the beginning he comes into the art class with a previous knowledge of his own artistic point of view, including finding inspiration in less than perfect mediums (rippy bits, crumbled paper), and through his open mind he is able to create what is considered a stereotypical masterpiece. Through Squidward, Spongebob’s freedom in art becomes limited to the ‘strict rules’ of art, and he no longer allows himself artistic expression. Art becomes a mechanical robot of sorts for him, mass produced to look the same. It is made out to be that all art is realistic.
I think that the episode itself was Art in that it relays a message to its observers. Art is supposed to make you think, and the subtle and over the top clichés in this piece alike all make you question art and what it is. Whether cartoons themselves are art, well I’m not 100% sure. I feel like they would be considered art because they are made by the basic stereotype of art---drawing in a 2-D plane. So that would have to make it art---right?

What is Art? Who decides it? Podcast

podcast for "What is Art? Who decides it?"

Art Cliches and Stereotypes

People always assume artists are crazy, dark, and in some level of solitude. Artsy people are often associated with flower-child patterned skirts and shirts, a pair of beat up shoes (converse, combat boots, never usually uggs because they are mainstream), and very natural hair, which can be died any color from the color wheel. Like made with the uggs comment, mainstream media, music, and art is all-well-and-good but is often not associated with true art. Art is revolutionary, and it has to make a statement according to cliche. And alot of times, art is considered art in the form of a painting or graphic piece, and other forms of artistic expression receive other names (performance, vocal, marketing,science, poetry). People also think that because of their narrow scope of what art actually is that artists cannot and will not make sufficient funds from their artwork.


unfortunately, I can't make this very funny. But the picture at right perhaps can add some humorous spice to this post. (although I don't
know how much...)

Spring Comedy Logo Contest

Hey art lit class!

check out my blog page for information on how YOU can enter the Spring Comedy Logo contest and have your artwork displayed on all our advertising mediums!

http://springcomedylogocontest.blogspot.com/

thanks everyone!

What is Art? Who decides it?

Art is anything that provokes an emotional response, of any magnitude. Art is all around us, whether in the form of architecture, paintings, performance, even your travel mug all required art to be possible. Art is a creative expression that can be either spontaneous or planned. Art is defined by everyone: the creators of the art, the observers of the art, and those who avoid the art—its meaning, however, is different for each person based on their personality and morals.

I haven't learned the lines

Welcome to my blog!

Here I will describe my inner thoughts, emotions, feelings, and I may even post a thing or two for you to view here. Just an fyi: My title says it all. "The Actress Hasn't Learned the Lines"--from the musical EVITA: I don't let other people guide me to my actions, I make my own path and my own way. I avoid letting people tell me what I can and can't do, within reason. I make up the lines as I go, and live my life accordingly.

Until later (and only the actress knows when THAT will be),

up-and-coming actress (I hope!)