Sunday, April 30, 2017

Final Studio Project explanation

For my studio project, I applied similarities and differences of my studied artist, Sol LeWitt's artistic techniques. Because LeWitt often wrote a set of "rules" to go with his artwork, I did the same. I set a "rule" for myself while making the project. The rule was to draw 50 lines for each piece of art. They could be any size, color, or texture, but they had to formulate a pattern.
Within the rule, I am following LeWitt's use of lines and pattern. I am also following his idea of using written rules in artwork. I am focusing on the idea, rather than the art itself, with the knowledge that once my idea is applied, it is no longer my original idea.
Though I am influenced by his use of pattern, line, and rules, I am doing the opposite of how LeWitt would have applied the piece. First, I, the artist, am the one physically making the art piece. I am following my own rules. LeWitt would have never done so, and would have given the rules to other artists to apply. Second, LeWitt often left his patterned wall pieces without color, or with directions on how to use color. Here, I am allowing myself to use whatever colors of sizes I want. This is going against the minimalist trends in LeWitt's artwork. Furthermore, I used paper and paint to complete my piece. LeWitt often used walls or wood as material in order to make a structure or piece.
Once I finished my project, I realized how difficult it was to follow one's own set of rules. I often wanted to break them, or go back and change the rule. In result, the idea behind my art work was automatically changed the second I began to physically apply it. By struggling with the rule, I gained more respect for LeWitt's idea of using others to preform his artistic idea. I believe he did so because it kept the original idea more in tact, rather than wanting to go back and change it.
In conclusion, I completed my final project by both following and contradicting Sol LeWitt's trends and rules found in his pieces. By doing so, I believe that I gained more knowledge and respect for the artist, and the meaning behind his artistic trend.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Blog Post: George Kubler - The Shape of Time

Blog Post: George Kubler - The Shape of Time

In this piece, Kubler discusses the traits of great artists. He touches upon the differences between talent and position in sequence. Talented pupils begin at a young age, and their skill out-shines their peers. While others have a hidden, or talent that has yet to be discovered. In result, time and opportunity plays a great deal in who is deemed talented.
The point I found to be most interesting is when Kubler pointed out that the artist used to be a rebel and an entertainer, and now they are not. To be a rebel, one must take effort away from their work, which artists are not willing to do. And, entertainers have professional common goals that an artist is excluded from. The artist is lonely, and works as a craftsman of “wonderful and frightening” surprises for his immediate circle.

I found this point in the text to be the most interesting because he is explaining the growth of the artist, and how artists have a small and lonely immediate circle. He mentions before that art is an invisible chain, almost always based off tradition. And, though an artist’s work is almost always to amuse the audience, all-important audiences come from a lonely class. This reminds me of many musicians and actors that lived to entertain others, but lived a very lonely life. For instance, Michael Jackson spent almost the eternity of his life amusing an audience, yet his life was lonely. Kubler says that an artist is no longer an entertainer, nor a rebel. In result, they are lonelier than ever.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Tufte- Escaping Flatland

While reading the Edward Tufte piece, “Escaping Flatland”, I had several insights on what 2-D represents to the viewer, how it is limited, and how it benefits society.
I believe that two dimensional images are limited because communication between the readers of an image and the makers of an image takes place on a 2-D surface, though we as people live our lives through 3-D. This means that within every flatland there will be a limit in dimensional capacity. While looking at an image, the viewer cannot look at the whole.
            Though two definitional images are limited, image has allowed the most complex objects to be tangible to the average being. This has helped society develop, gain facts, and obtain knowledge regarding the world around them.
For instance, the mapping of sunspot distribution, the modern butterfly diagram, or maps of the solar system has allowed the average being to be more knowledgeable regarding an abstract idea. Image can make something complex more understandable. Simple designs further the knowledge of ideas, and allow them to be more straight forward.
In conclusion, though two-dimensional image is limited in certain aspects, societies knowledge of the world continues to grow. Just because a picture’s perspective may have a capacity, knowledge for the world around us does not.


Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Friday, February 3, 2017

Ways of Seeing

An insight I gained from the reading was that time and culture are constantly changing the perspective of an image. Today, one will look at a piece of art in a way nobody looked at it before, and is viewed from a completely different perspective or point. This makes art so powerful because as the image ages, it's meaning may change with culture. The author relates this back to the perspective of a work of art being in the eye of the beholder.

Another insight I found from the text was the authors view on art of the past. He claims that art of the past no longer exists as it once did. Now, there is the authority of language of an image. I found this to be enlightening because I agree with the author when he says that this cuts off an entire class of people. In result, the entirety of art's past is a political issue in interpretation. I never looked at art's past from this perspective, and I found it an interesting approach to art's true meaning in modern day.

In conclusion, I believe that time, culture, and language have authority over art of the past, where the actual piece of art doesn't have a significant amount of authority.