Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Examples of Final Projects:
For their final projects students were encouraged to try new mediums they don't usually work in. These projects included performance, sculpture, object making, painting, drawing and video.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Proposal drawings for final projects:

Monday, August 14, 2006

1. Global warming
2. Poverty/ distribution of wealth
3. Discrimination
4. Health and diet
5. The government
1. poverty 2. world hunger 3. slavery 4. global warming 5. genocide
Things i am concerned about;

2. invisible children
3. Global Warming
4. Sexism
5. Bush
Hi sugah dadies and honey-dipped mamas i'm listing
Issues th@ are imporatant to me

1. SEX EDUCATION its bad enough th@ people die every day from STD's but i think it worse th@ not enough people know how 2 prevent .

2. family

3. wutevery
Important Stuff

Hatred/intolerance; can't we all just accept each other for who we are?

Poverty; can't we all just share?

Hunger; can't we all just share?

Greed; can't we all just share?

Prejudice; see hatred/intolerance
So, Susanna told me to write this again.. but deeper.. like from the heart. So I decided to go back in time and tell you the story of my upbringing. Why I perused art in the first place. Okay, here it goes. I was born and raised in the artic, and I lived there for quite some time with my family, who were wolves. One day, I was trying to catch a fish, with my spear, when an Eskimo approached me. And he was like, “Wow, Erin, you really need to try out that whole art thing.” and I was like, “Wow, Eskimo, how do you know my name.” and he was like “I just do, but trust me, that whole art thing, you really need to try it.” And he disappeared. So I was like, wow I really need to try out this whole art thing. So I did. I started by making ice sculptures. But that wasn’t enough. So I decided to step it up a notch and travel to the US. So I made a raft, and waved goodbye to my wolf friends and sailed the seas. I moved into a house, with a door and a window, and started to paint. I used lots of color. I like color, and I like to paint.
5 world problems. in order.

1)the idea of world peace.
2) rasism.
3) lack of self expression.
4) cencership.
5) self abuse.
- Treatment of the mentally ill
- Racism
- Drugs
- Big corporations
- Propaganda
Five things that are important to me...
1. The health of my family and friends, both physically and emotionally
2. Where this country will be in ten years
3. Where I will be in ten years
4. Government
5. Future generations
I express a most dire concern for the following five issues (and five is not enough):

1. Global Warming.
The most important issue that everyone seems to ignore. I don't think I need to explain why this is explosively important to me.
2. The Environment.
Ties in to the issue above. But it's equally as essential. The environment's our home guys, the only home we've got.
3. World Poverty.
It's just so easy to say its the poor people's own faults. It's just so easy to turn the other cheek, or switch the tv channel and then go for a drive in your well-conditioned family SUV. (@$#$&&#^%*@#!!!!)
4. Political Dimwits with fat pocketbooks running the world with their greed and egos.
No explanation necessary.
5. Apathy.
Why doesn't anyone care?
5 issues:

1. global warming
2. money
3. peoples lack of concern for the enviornment
4. racism
5. gay marriage

Both of my parents do some form of art so art has always been an influence art. however it is a new form for me. i have always had an art flare but i would never actually express it just to not be like my parents, but sure enough it came out anyways. I remeber when exactly i became intreseted in art, when i was a sophmore we had to do a project on a career we were intested in and find out everything we could about it. So i knew i always had a love for fashion and so i looked into all the careers having to do with fashion, stumbled apon fashion designer and desided to try it. I self taught my self how to design and once my mom found my drawings she signed me up for a class so i could really tell if i liked it. Which obvously i did. My mom is very supportive in my dream of being a fashion designer because when she was younge she waned to be one also. So she showed me her sketches from when she was younger and i got completely inspired and just started designing like crazy. my designs are very inspired by the 1950's but with a highly motern flare. I think that with time our innocents has withered and in the earlier times,such as the 1950's, they still had it and i personally feel and experess in my sketchs that we still should have some innocents today. I enjoy simplistiy but with a hint of complexity, as cliche as that sounds. i am absoulty inthroaled with fashion and what other people and my self are wearing. going out in public with me must be horrible just becuase im always commenting on what people are wearing, good or bad. I also lately have started being interested in the nude drawing. i really just find it intresting, and challenging because i have been taught to exagerate certain parts on the human figure for fashion design so it kind of brings me back to the reality of the figure. It helps me in knowing that peoples legs are littereally 80% of their body and arent all so skinny that you could see right threw them if they turned one way. being femine and fun but with a more funky flare is what exactly i like in fashion. it takes a certain mix for me to really like it because i know what i like.

Artsy Fartsy Statment

I don't refer to my self as an artist. it just never felt right . i don't feel like what i do is work , for me
calling my self an artist is like calling my self a Breader, a sh!ter or an eater , i do all these things
true but it all comes natural to me like my art.
i'm creative in all sence of the word. i draw, cook , design (clothes, cd players, people...ect)
do hair, dance, photography (a little bit), computer crap, spoken word (poetry, prophormance)
... well u get the idea. whatever i could get my hands to use to express my self, i used.
i think art , true art is ..................................... what ever makes YOU happie.
its every thing and nada.

untill whenever sugha daddies and honey-dipped mammas

Artists Statement

well... i like showing what i see in life in pictures, drawings, paintings and so on. I think it is important because i can show the details that people often dont notice
. People can see a painting of a tree as beautiful when they don't actually notice the tree itself. I especially like having people as the focus of my artwork. A picture or painting of a person can tell their story just as easily as a book can. Also art can make a person's flaws beautiful sometimes even in a poetic way.
Artist's Statement:

I lived in Atlanta before I came to boston. about a year before my family and I took the long drive from Fulton County ATL to Boston Massachusettes, I started becomng artistically concious. It never before struck me pay attention to any other artists. In a since, I didn't even know they existed. I was too interested in further exploring my own capabilities and artistic pontentials. When i started to hear about other artists, I heard about Picasso first, then Leonardo daVinci then Michael Angelo, and I figured out where that was going and that I was not interested in those types of people so I never paid much attention to art history because it did not connect with my lifestyle, beliefes, or with my interests. Picasso and the other artists that i got a first glimpse of gave me a not-so-enticing intro into the world of art history because i learned of these dead people as a fucking weirdos who thought there was something artistic about forcing themselves into a state of phycological torture and them commiting suicide, objecityig women, and fantasizing about insanities. I however came to see that there was so much more to that world, i just happen to learn about the wackos first. I found alot of artwork that i really liked by those artists that i didn't like, so i looked at them through my interpretation of their work intead of reading their life story or reading thier philosophical opinions and explanations of their work which made them loke so much better as people. As the years passed by, i continued drawing, then i moved up to painting and sculpture and so many other things. Once i discovered all these other mediums, I began to familiarize myself with as many as i can. Now I am free to exples myself through almost any medium partly due to the fact that i tend to be a perfectionist. I do art work to captur beauty, send a message, get something out of my system, or to please others or to make money. No matter what the reason is, the fact that I am a perfectionist affects each process of creating art that i go through. At times it makes me more satisfied because i worked harder, and at other times it slows me down because i am almost never completely happy with the final outcome of my work. I am not a fan of confining myself to I certain thing and i also make more use of people's opinions of their reaction to my work than for them to try to tell me that i was trying to make a particular statement through my work when i established that already within myself. This is because people, especial some art critics or mainstream art educators are afraid of or too uptight to accept the fact that some artists like myself do art sometime just to be visually appealing or to recreat a moment, not to make an underlying statement.
Artist Statement
I've only been focussing on art for a short time, basically just for a few months this year. Before that I was expected to go to Yale due to my good grades. Due to changing schools three times within a year, my grades went down and my interest in school dropped dramatically. So I started doing what I wanted to do more, singing and drawing. I was never really serious about drawing at that point. It would be simple things like photoshopping images, tribal tattoo-ish designs, and some poorly proportioned sketches that I usually never finished.
That's the background. My idea of art now is completely different than what I had thought before. I began realizing how much I enjoyed it and how many different things I wanted to learn. So far I have tested myself with figure drawing, computer graphics, stained glass, ceramics, photography (black+ white, color, and pinhole), interior and fashion design, jewellery, woodworking, glass, and now I'm taking metal working and printmaking at Massart. Obviously, I've tried a lot of things, leading me to know a little about everything, but nothing impressive. I've enjoyed them all but there are deffinately a few I liked more than others and want to do more with. The woodworking I had done in the past was mostly as furnature and jewellery boxes. Now I want to try to blend the skills I learned in the past with a new artist mindset. I'd also really like to work with blowing glass more, as I only had a short amount of time to try it.
As you can tell, art has become something that takes up a lot of my time. It's something that I can be proud of an continue working on. I can zone out for hours and be completely immersed in what I'm doing, something very impressive for a girl with intense A.D.D. I love that it's something I feel strongly about and that it can be combined with other things I feel strongly about. Art is also something I can share with my friends. Teaching them and seeing how much fun we're both having is a really good feeling.
I guess one of the main reasons why I love art so much is that I can show my life, thoughts, and feelings through it. It tracks the progress and work I've done both as an artist and as a person. It's encouraging every time I do something I'm proud of, or compare my art from the past with my current art and seeing the improvement. It's something I can never get bored of.

Art Talk: what do i think about art... theres many points of view. Depends on the art i'm viewing i guess. There may be quality art that i may really admire, or some abstract art that rather confueses and bores me. There's some that amuse me greatly, or some so outrageous it makes me want to smack the artist. There's this tought that comes to my mind often. That artists, any type, musical or visual, becomes known and famous after their death. In fact i did not know any famous artists in this modern age until i learned them at this camp. But i still don't think they'll be as famous as the masters that lived way before. I read this fiction story about this group a long ago who complained that the art that one of the member made wasn't appreciated enough, even though it was great. So one of them, knowing that dead artists becomes more famous suggests that they fake the artist's death. Soon the arts sold for extreme amount of money and they becam rich, but the artist had to disguise his identity from then on. The artists that i've seen during the issues and images class, most of them are lunatics. It's hard to tell what they're thinking and that's rather frustrating. I was very surprised when some people said they understood the meaning of the strange movie we saw. Sure there is no definite meaning, but it's so vague to connect those events with definite or some abstract thoughts and emotions. Oh yeah, also, i really don't get the naked body stuff.
Artist Statement
Art to me is a means of self expression and should not be forced. I make art when I feel compelled to do so. I lean towards art with a strong or sharp message, often political. I feel that art is most powerful when it can be understood by the masses and provoke change. I have a special affinity for surrealism; taking something that people know and changing it to provoke them is something I'm very interested in. I also really wish that modern artists would revisit the past and use the same older techniques (painting and sculpture) to produce new work.
Artist Statement
My work is focused on creating an emotion and conveying that emotion to the viewer. I am always observing people. I have a fascination with inner emotions, and the facade that one builds around them to conceal these feelings. Drawing is my prefered medium, but recently I have branched out to painting in watercolors and acryllics. I enjoy the dark and shadowed effect that charcoal can give to a piece of art. My work mainly consists of drawings from my imagination. Because I read fantasy and science fiction books, my artwork often displays fictional creatures such as vampires. I like to escape from reality and delve into other worlds, whether it is by drawing or reading. Vampires fascinate me because they are immortal yet they are often lonely and isolated. Loneliness and isolation are significant themes in my artwork. They often fuel my imagination because I am constantly reflecting on my own life and putting it down as drawings. I have been trying, for some time now, to write a vampire story, but I haven't made very much progress. Snipits of scenes for this story will come to mind when I am bored or simply thinking, as I often do, and I keep these full-page drawings in my sketchbook. My sketchbook is basically a record of my emotions and thoughts of the past couple of years.
Artist Statement

I didn't wake up one morning and decide to do art; there was nothing that all of a sudden make me want to do art. Art has just always been around me, like food and air and all that jazz. My dad was in art school for about ten years, studying all sorts of weird stuff and then finally becoming an architect. Because of that, I grew up designing huge cities out of blocks, complete with railroads and skyscrapers. But art is just a piece of me. My mother, the artisticly-challenged, raised me with words, not blocks. I was reading in preschool, maybe before, and every night she would read me a book before bed. Just as art is a part of me, so are words and stories. Another part of me is my music. I live and breathe music, just like words and art. Always, in my mind, music is playing. So, for me, art isn't all of who i am, just a little part.

I love art because it enables me to express myself, just as words and music do. I started getting into really expressing myself in about eighth grade. I had a lot of problems back then with people not really accepting who I was, what my race was, and all that stuff. I wanted people to know me for real, so I tried to tell them, first through poetry, then drama, music, art, stories. Also, I guess art is really soothing to me. Take ceramics for example. It's really nice to handle the clay after a really stressful day because it's so responsive and so organic. Going on the wheel is kind of hypnotizing; you kind of get lost in it and forget about everything after a while.

Okay, I'm done. Later.
Artist Statement! Boo ya!

I became interested in art in the preface of my childhood. I was learning everyday--useful information---for instance, which objects not to put in my mouth, or learning left from right, but most importantantly, learning how to draw. My two older brothers are what the public calls "comic book nerds," and they were my role models at the time. They drew muscly men, smashing through walls and holding guns. I took these examples, and used them to observe all the humans around myself. I've been drawing people ever since.
Like any other child at the time, I liked to draw what I witnessed, like my family. But after a while, I began my own series of comics. I've still kept them all, and I like to study them from time to time. My most constant comic was the character "Lily" who had 7 brothers and sisters. After a while, Lily became a real person to me.
These cartoonish drawings were all that I ever drew until middle school. Over the years, my drawings became more realistic. Sometimes, I would spend weeks at a time working on one body part in particular. When I went to middle school, I realized my full potential for drawing, and it was there that I learned how to paint.
Today, I have gone through three years of my high school teacher Ms. Leary's intense art classes. She has pushed me to become a real artist. I can now think more conceptually, and I can work in many different mediums. I made two series last year, my first took me back to my roots. I created seven portraits of my friends, in all different mediums, as superheros. They took on different powers according to their different interests and personalities. For instance, my friend Elena works with animals in real life, so her super power was to tranform into the animal of her choice. My second series was more simplistic. It was ten portraits of my friends, all in acrylic paint, using color and composition to express their emotion. Overall, I spent the year improving figures, which has always been my greatest fascination.
I continue to grow as an artist, and I try new art forms all the time. I have no plans for what's coming next, but life changes so fast--with college coming soon, my life is turning upside down--I'm excited for the future.

An Artist's Statement brought to you by a friendly neighbor...

This "Artist's Statement" fiasco is a funny business, partially because I personally do not believe a few sentences and witty phrases can encompass the whole breadth of the soul of an artist's endeavor, but also because I feel as a human being I have barely even begun living. With a limited repertoire of experiences, to write a statement dictating what I believe, what I feel, and what I pursue in my art and how it impacts my life would seem presumptuous and pretentious. Afterall, my life is just beginning; too short of a sprout to be cut down as of now. The biggest flop would actually not come in the form of sounding egotistical, but contradictory. I think I perhaps have some very bad luck, and I set myself up for it. If I say right now, "this is what I do, and what I will do, and this is what I will definitely NOT do..." the bloody chances are, I might end up doing it. Perhaps its because my youth attracts fickleness (and I would not be alone on that account), perhaps its superstition, and perhaps it happens because I want it to. It seems that the only consistent pattern in what artwork I have finished is that it always seems to mock me, even if by the most subtle standards that only the artist could pick out; it's like painting a portrait of the devil's advocate and his obnoxious smiles. For instance, I would declare that I shall not use this failure of a color called "peach" to color flesh, only to find that a few days later I'm picking up the dreaded color and secretly shading it in to the canvas. Or I would declare that I do not believe in the use of black for shadows...what's this Jade? changed your mind already? Of course not, I'm combining the black so that it is not black. Sure you are. Shut up. Nyah.

So in a nutshell...I talk to my artwork. And it talks to me. And if it had a face, I'd probably slap it, those bastards.

I tend to lace my work with themes, sometimes subtle, other times harsh and raw. The themes I use include; abuse, sexual fetishes, drug addiction, psychosis, shock therapy, experimental medical procedures, prostitution, psychedelia, sub-psyche, subliminal messaging, synesthesia, the third eye, flowers, needles, rust, glass, facism, abandonment, monoliths, evolution, de-humanization, hatred, lust and more. I've been heavily influenced by pornography, censorship, mass media and my own experiences. I do a lot of my work in ink and watercolor, occasionally using unorthodox materials such as blood and alcohol. I enjoy working in many sizes, but lately I've been drawn towards working large. A really like looking at old anatomical/mechanical drawings for inspiration. Thats all I can think of now. Yeah. Bye.
I tend to lace my work with themes, sometimes subtle, other times harsh and raw. The themes I use include; abuse, sexual fetishes, drug addiction, psychosis, shock therapy, experimental medical procedures, prostitution, psychedelia, sub-psyche, subliminal messaging, synesthesia, the third eye, flowers, needles, rust, glass, facism, abandonment, monoliths, evolution, de-humanization, hatred, lust and more. I've been heavily influenced by pornography, censorship, mass media and my own experiences.
artist statement:

i am not really sure of how i can define myself as an artist. because i do not focus on using one particular medium, it is hard to really defime myself. although i do see myslf drawing a lot; when i do draw i mostly focus on drawing different types of flowers and things such of that nature. i am also big on doing graffitti. so i guess i could say that drawing is my favorite thing to do of all mediums. when i draw flowers of all different types i go for more of a realistic look to them rather then as a cartoon or non-realistic feel or look to them.

My name is Erin Whitson and I like using color, lots of color. Color on top of color. I like painting people. I also like drawing in pencil, but not as much as I did when I was younger. I enjoy making movies, which is also a form of art. I like to express myself through anything I make or do. I believe in futurism, and all of you should too.


Thursday, August 03, 2006

Should art be useless? Or should it communicate an idea?
No, it shouldnt be useless, but it should communicate an idea/ an expression of some sort. It makes art more intestesting. If it didn't have any political or moral credability art wouldnt be around.

Can functional craft objecs be art?
Anything can be art, but what makes art interesting is the fact that there is some meaning behind it. If there is no meaning behind something, then what makes it art?

Can we all agree on what's beautiful?
Do we all share the same brain? No, so we def. all have different opinions on what is beautiful. Let me answer your question with another question: What if i thought a public toilet bowl was beautiful? Would you honestly agree with me?

Can art be ugly?
Well no form of art is perfect, everyone has dif. opinions. Just becuase one person like Van G's Starry Night becuase it georgeous, someone else might just see a whole bunch of crap, which makes it ugly to them. Some people might even like to make things ugly on purpose. Like i read about this guy who peed on a small metal cross in a cup and called it "art."
The Order is one of those films you really can't ever understand, however hard you try. It's very stream-of-conciousness, as if Matthew Barney hooked a camera up to his overactive imagination and let it run free, recording as he went. I get a sneaking suspicion that theres a big message in this film but I sure as hell can't figure it out. If you want to see the entire Cremaster Cycle, tell me. We can have an artsy film party.
The Order is one of those films you really can't ever understand, however hard you try. It's very stream-of-conciousness, as if Matthew Barney hooked a camera up to his overactive imagination and let it run free, recording as he went. I get a sneaking suspicion that theres a big message in this film but I sure as hell can't figure it out. If you want to see the entire Cremaster Cycle, tell me. We can have an artsy film party.
I don't understand how anyone can really get any pleasure out of Matthew Barney's film besides himself. It was almost like he just had a weird dream and decided to turn it into a movie. Everything was much too abstract and random. I understand the idea that each floor had obstacles and that the main character had to overcome them...but I feel like that idea is so over used in the media now a days, that it almost lost its meaning. I really didn't see a whole lot of American culture in this film. It's possible that the different groups represented conformity. The bubble bath girls, the can-can sheep girls, and the punks were all either identical or very similar to each other within their own groups. But even now reading that idea over to just seems way to complicated to even mean anything. He worked with a lot of mediums including music, dance, and various types of design. I can't say they all meshed real well together. To me it seemed like he was just trying too hard to fill in gaps. Overall this film made me feel extreme confusion and discomfort. I was actually kinda scared as I was watching it since it was so bizarre. Don't get me wrong...I love bizarre stuff...this film was just painfully weird.
Matthew Barney Movie

I thought that the movie was very... interesting. I thought some of the characters (the women as sheep) and the angry punks moshing around a cross worked towards a greater purpose however i did not understand Richard Serra shoveling or the giant plastic things. He used color and pattern and sound very effectivly to create an emotion. The industrial noise and the image of the goo was sickening. The silence caused the viewer to have to concentrate on the legless woman's uneven gait. I really did not like how repetitive everything was i think repetition would have been more effective if the purpose behind the piece was more obvious because it would have cemented the rhetoric in the viewer's head.

Ayer(el miercoles), nosotros mirandos una pelicula del artiste Matteh Barney. Despues de mirando la pelicula, you creo que esta algo en su pensamientos porque yo no puede comprender el punto de por que los mujeres caminando sin ropas, pero solamente zapatos y correas. No creo que estan necesario para los mujeres tener un poco ropas. En me opinion, la pelicula es para hombres quen le gusta mirar a las cuerpos de mujeres, no es intentar para mujeres. The simple fact that the women we half naked, and white while the men were fully clothed for es un indicacion que es un representacion de la cultura de los americanos.
Matteh Barney- The Order.

Basicly we watched The Order yesterday. The movie demistrated many dementions of american culture. For example, sexuality, conforminty, and music. I mention these strictly because these were the most often and are so much a part of american culture. Barney obvously used film to create this video, and apon that there was melted wax, and that puzzel sort of art which he kept taking apart. Other mediums were the music and the insane arcutecher.What this movie was acutally trying to convey is beyond me, however this movie did make me feel like it was just random thoughts of a person who was tripping out. It was a weird experence and i am now aware that performance art is absoultely insane and you never know what is goin to exactly happen. i could never tell what was goin to happen next. it just made me feel like i was a part of a chaotic mess.
Le film d'hier qu'on a vu me semblait très bizarre. Il me semble qu'il y avait une autre, profonde signification de ce film, mais je ne l'ai pas vu. Pourtant, j'ai vu que l'artiste a utilisé quelques images pour montrer des idées compliquées et j'ai aimé qu'il n'a pas nous frapper sur la tête avec ses idées. He did not use words or dialogue, but rather movement and repetition, which are more powerful than if he had simply told us point blank what was on his mind. For example, in the film, there were certain references to American culture. The idea, for example of the sexy woman showing off something for sale, like a car by using her body to attract viewers, was used in the film, but much more exaggerated. In Barney's film the barely clothed women were definitely using their bodies to call our attention to the things on the pedestal that they were spinning, but there was a twist to the basic idea. The women wore only thongs and patches over their nipples, and the things that they were showing us could hardly be called normal; on the pedestal appeared a legless girl, a man all in pink with a kilt and blood coming out of his mouth, and some horrible travesty of a sheep puppet. The terrible "off-ness" of these objects, coupled with the sinister and screeching music, gives the audience an uneasy sensation. Barney is clearly testing our idea of what is uncomfortable, starting with the barely dressed girls, and then building the music, the man in pink, the legless woman, etc. To recap, Barney's use of the mediums music, human and inanimate sculpture, and outfits tests the audience's sense of discomfort.
Apart from discomfort, I also experienced confusion, frustration, and annoyance while watching The Order. The last two feelings stemmed from the second: confusion. During parts of the movie, while I could understand what was happening as in where people were moving and doing, but I just did not know why. The deeper meaning was lost for me. This led to frustration, because I really did want to understand the whole meaning for what it was without being told, but I simply could not. This frustration with myself turned into annoyance with the director, for it was easier to be mad at him for not being clear than mad at myself for being thick in the head. All in all, I'm not sure that I liked the film, because it did not give me pleasure, per se, but I have to say that I was fascinated and intrigued, which is definitely something.


HI sugah DaDies and Honey-Dipped mamas
Today i'm writing about a movie my Issues and Images class saw yesterday instead of going on our field trip because sugah DaDies and Honey-Dipped mamas it was to hot!!

The movie was Mattheh Barney's "Cremaster 5" and i hated it.
now i know that many other people in my class my have enjoyed it nd maybe i just didn't "get it" but i hated it just the same.

it was like watching a coke addicts dream.........scratch th@ a nightmare
the only thing felt was that i just wasted an half hour of my life watching this.
i got nothing out of this movie but rage 4 watching the whole thing and happie th@ i did not pay 2 see it.
i did not feel there was a real story to engadge myself into just some strange sh!t to sit through.

sorry th@ this is not a happie blog but it was so f@#king bad

Untill next time


I think the movie was really odd and made no sense, but that's what makes it so interesting to watch. I honestly can say i didn't know WHAT THE HELL was going on.. becuase there were all of these random people jumping around and the main character was wearing a pink scotish uniform. Plus, what in god's name was up with with the freaking cat woman? This is a good presentation of Conceptual art at its best, and it was really provacative becuase it was so crazy that you had to see what was coming next and what would happen to the random pink scotish guy.....
Matthew Barney Reflection

Matthew Barney's video left me in awe with all of its human emotions and examples of human culture, but it seemed to be too chaotic to function properly. I enjoyed watching the main character and his wide array of adventures. I felt his emotions--I felt his determination for every little things he attempted. He failed so often, yet he kept trying. Through all of the destruction around him, he still managed to find beauty. The beautiful image was the woman with the glass legs. The most powerful image for me was when the woman transformed into the wild cat of some sort. She immediately attacked the man who she had shown affection for. I felt betrayed while watching the video. When there was some honest goodness in this world, it turned out to be disguised evil. The man was bitten, and as a result, he hit the beast. He hit the woman with a metal hammer. This was scarring to me to see that image of betrayal. Besides that one image, Barney used the "punk rockers," a line of dancers, and beautiful bathers to show other sides of the society...Were these images to depict the artist's view of a hellish world? The main character was choking on material lodged in his throat. It seemed that his whole world was strangling him. All beautiful objects were dangerous. Therefore, the artist must have been expressing his feelings of suppression. The world in the video was chaotic, evil, and deceiving.

Matteh Barney Review:

The Matteh Barney movie was very bizaare and it was an unfamiliar work of art to me. i did not quite understand it; it almost made me feel lost and confused. an example of an art medium that was used in the movie could be the man who kept throwing large spoon fulls of melted wax onto a cube type thing. i'm not too sure but i believe that an aspect of american culture that was used might be pop culure. the movie was very strange/foreign to me and it was hard for me to get a good picture or a good idea of what it really was about. i really do not have much to say about the movie because i found it to be so confusing and weird.
Matthew Barney

After reading an excerpt depicting Cremaster 2, I officially think Matthew Barney is a man striving to be different and. The plot line sounds like something from a dream which you wake up to and think "what the hell was that all about?" I find myself wondering if he is a very introspective man, attempting to bring the ideas floating around in an extremely creative brain into the world as a peice of artwork to be shown to the public; or if Barney is simply doing things he believes looks artistic, different, shocking, etc, then adding meaning to all of it after. Although the end result of the two forms of motivation are the same, I believe within the difference lies the answer to its value as art. The first theory shows new, unique ways to depict ideas and emotions while the second would mean that he is just looking to get recognition and praise for something hardly wothy of it. As far as asthetics go, it varies from peice to peice. Some are placed in ways which are obviously meant to get a harsh reaction from the viewer, most likely one of fear or disgust. Although morbid, it is still an interesting challenege for the veiwers to experience.
Despite composition, inspiration, or motivation, the fact of the matter is that Barney's work is bizzare to say the very least. Verging on vulger or obscene even. It is arguably this break from traditional art and political correctness that attracts his admire's to his work.
My thoughts about the Matthew Barney movie...
it's...strange, little bit special.
i didn't get the plot, but it was entertaining in a way.
i thought t was an adventure like a game where the pink scottish guy had to
solve the mysteries of each floor by using the things he gets from other floors.
but i was pretty wrong.
Matthew Barney Movie "Cremaster 5"
What feelings did the movie give you? How is this affected by asthetics?
What samplings did he take from society?
What mediums did he use?

The movie left me confused and wanting to understand what happened. It was bizarre at times like the cat woman and the guy with the huge ladel. I have no idea what those images represent. I was impressed by the dancing lamb women who were tap dancing. That was cool. Some of the images were dark and almost violent, the screaming bands and the wild fans, for example, and the scenes with the metal spoon guy had a creepy effect. The fact that he scooped up...that gooey stuff and continually splashed it at the metal block over and over again, walking in a slow and precise way like in thriller movies was kind of creepy. I noticed that Barney used juxtaposition a lot, moving from these dark scenes to the dancing women or the woman in white. The two bands were also a display of juxtaposition, one in white and the other in black. So, some images appealed to purity while others were focused on being grotesque. He wanted to make us cringe and feel uncomfortable, but also be in awe of the woman in white.
I'm not sure of what each floor symbolized. I think that the floor with the concert and dancing fans represents anger and violence in society. But it also had a religious factor with the cross that the crowd was dancing around. It look almost tribal.
Just after we watched it, I was puzzled and didn't really like it, but looking back on it now I find it interesting and in need of another viewing.
What feelings did the movie give you?
It took me awhile to realize that the pink man/thing must have been in excellent shape in order to complete the stunts that he did. The locaton was really interesting and worked well with the whole concept of orders. I kind of loved the idea of all these completely different things/people co-existing on different floors where they couldnt reallllly interact with one another but still were in the same general area, seperated by floors. I was almost dissapointed when he got to the top. Overall, I felt a general sense of cleanliness. Even when the artist was throwing the wax onto the metal on the top level, the film retained all of its clean edges. It was defintely strange but not boring. I was engaged the whole time curious to see what would happen next but also wanting some answers (knowing that none would be given). I think the music was an enormous part of the film and helped guide the viewer when the images didnt. I felt an almost pitying sympathy for the protagonist because he juyst climbed around and got abusedd by the things on the floors (catwomanglassleggedthing). The glass legged woman was fascinating and i kept wanting her to come back. Each floor conveyed a distinct feeling to the audience and some were more friendly than others. I felt safer with things I recognized from the real world.

Monday, July 31, 2006

i accidentally erased my introductory blog, but it was stupid anyway. i just explained that my blog name or whatever is my chinese name. it was pretty pointless. ok, here are some random facts about me-

1. last summer our house was invaded by bats and my dad killed them with a tennis racket. don't give me that "oh, but they're so cute!" line; they're not. they're ugly. trust me.

2. when i'm nervous, i twitch

3. i played a whore in the musical Tommy last summer. a singing whore.

4. my favorite book is The Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston

5. i've never broken, sprained, or twisted anything, nor have i been stung by a bee before

6. i once auditioned for A Midsummer Night's Dream, but the director didn't want me to read the part of Helena because she believed Helena should be fair, not a half-asian girl with dark skin and hair. however, when i convinced her to let me read it in the audition, she gave me the part.

7. i like the number seven

go to

then go to

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Pre-Kant Questions:

1. Should art be useless?
-Free from politics, stories, morals, etc…
-Or should art communicate ideas?

2. Can a functional craft object be art?

3. Can we all agree on what is beautiful?

4. Can art be ugly?


-use complete sentences.

Matthew Barney "Cremaster 5" Review Questions:

What aspsects of American culture do you find in the work?

What art mediums did he encorporating in his overall work?

What feelings does it give you?

Discuss these feelings/reactions as they relate to the materials he has chosen. His overall aesthetic?
1. Should art be useless (free from politics, stories, morals) or should art communicate an idea? Art should communicate the artist's beliefs. It should include the thoughts or feelings of the artist, whether they are about politics, stories, morals, or whatever else is influential to the artist. Landscapes or still life works may seem like useless art, but they also incorporate the mood of the artist or a certain style. When artists incorporate their ideas into a work of art it makes the work more interesting. It gives the viewers a sense of who the artist is and what their beliefs are.

2. Can functional craft objects be art?

Functional crafts can be art and it can go the other way; art can be functional crafts. Furniture, for example, is created for a functional purpose, but the design of a chair, or the type of material it is made out of, or the details carved into it, make the chair a piece of art. This also applies to architecture and ceramics. Buildings and pottery are supposed to be functional. By incorporating the artist's style into these functional crafts, art is formed.

3. Can we all agree on what is beautiful?
Beauty is not something that we learn or know, but a feeling. Some may agree on what is beautiful and others may feel differently. Often when someone states that they believe that something is beautiful, other onlookers who previously disagreed, may begin to change their mind and see the object in a new light. By stating that they feel that something is beautiful, the first person is challenging the others to look at it and find the beauty within the object, to discover why the person found it beautiful. Most people will change their first impressions, thus agreeing that something is beautiful. At the Museum of Fine Arts we looked at the faces of statues and noticed that the facial features were symmetrical and had certain features that most would consider beautiful, like an even face and full lips.

4. Can art be ugly?
Art can certainly be ugly. It depends on the person viewing the piece of artwork. One may believe the piece to be beautiful while others believe it is ugly. Sometimes art is intentionally ugly to express an emotion or inspire a feeling. Like the question of whether or not something is beautiful, it is all relative on what one thinks is ugly.

hello again shugah dadies and honey dipped mamas!

i'm doing q&a 4 class

um (Portuguese for one). Should art be useless? free 4rom stories, morals, politics..... Or should it communicate something?

i believe th@ the use or uselessness of art is up to the artist.
all art is of some sort of an idea weather (<-yeah i like spelling it th@ way. so wut ) its deep and mind blowing or shuting out the teacher during a long long dullll lecture.

# after one. Can a funtional craft be art?

i was taught th@ everything and anything can be art, if you choose 2 see the world th@ way. Art maybe in the eye of the beholder but wise is the eye th@ can see beauty in all things

tres.Can we all agree on what is beautiful??

n0 sorry but people are unique and so are thier veiws.
many can find an object,idea beautiful but there will be some who find th@ same object,idea not of thier taste and th@s okay because if every0ne liked the same thing beauiful then art would not be varied and humanistic as it is.

oven(french for 4). Can art be ugly????

i don't know, what is ugly?

Well shugah dadies and honey dipped mamas th@s it thnx 4or reading
please feel free to respond

till next time
1. Should art be useless?
-Free from politics, stories, morals, etc...
Art can never be useless. It can provide an outlet for an emotion (even boredom). It is a way of expressing yourself even if it is just through doodles on your homework. It can also satisfy a feeling or show something that only the artist can understand. Art that is made to provide an emotion or to tell a story or to convince a point is just made with more thought of the audience than artwork that is made purely to satisfy the artists need to create.

-Or should art communicate ideas?

2. Can a functional craft object be art?

3. Can we all agree on what is beautiful?

4. Can art be ugly?
i like...
neon colors
rollar coasters
Grey's Anatomy
sour apple candy
Harrison Ford
The Who
Regina Spektor
Star Wars
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The Fugitive
Johnny Depp
fried food
Snow cones
Donnie Darko
Green Tea
Black and White photography
Gone With the Wind
Young Frankenstein
The Dresden Dolls

1. art should be very useful in societys. for pictures, little kids would be hopeless without pictures in their 5 page books. art can set a mood for political discussions.
pictures mean more than thousand words - according to some people. so if the picture is clear, then it should convey few ideas.
2.functional craft can be called art. if it's a chair, as long as the maker had an artistic means when creating it, then i guess it can be called an art. If people have enough time to make sinking pirate ships outside the park, then they should turn it into a bench.
3. not everyone can agree on one thing on whether it's beautiful or not. everyone has their own perspective about something.
4. can art be ugly. i guess to some people some arts would be ugly if they didn' like its looks and themes. i would say something's ugly if i didn't understand it and had no themes whatsoever.
Should art have a funciotn?
Well art is a rather broad concept. Many people say 'Everything ever created is art." How can you prove them wrong? It is virtually impossible to do so in a factuall sense although it may be possible in a opinionated sense. art does not have to have a funstion because art can be solely for visual purposes.

Should something that was made soley for funcitonal purposes still be considered art?
Art has two elements of design; Form and function. Art can be something that is created solely for visual purposes, meaning the artist created that piece of work fosusing only on the form. It can also be something that is created solely for funtional purposes, or both. so even if something is created soley for functional porposes it can still be art because it was created and because it consists of form, whis is an element of design in art.

Can we all agree on what is beatuful?
It is highly unlike that we will all agree on what is beautiful. Some people see beauty in art as a phasicall thing, meaning if the look of the suject is apealling or atractive to the viewer's eye, they would say "That's beautiful!" Some people see beauty in art as evidence of the process that the artist used to create that piece of art, for example, if the painting ws of a goury unpleasant scene, but the layers and colors are layed out with precision and create care and is amazingly well rendered and composed, that may be what makes the art work beautiful to a particular people. Yet others see the beauty of art as having nothing to do with the appearance or the process, but as something that is provoked within the mind of the viewer. They see beauty power that the art has to evoke deep emotion and feeling within the viewer. these three ways of describing the beausty of art is how people decide on what is beautiful, yet still others may just say "that's ugly, but who cares? its art!" So I don't think wee all agree 100% with each other on what is beautiful beause there is more than one was to look at things, and we all have our own opinions.

Can art be ugly and still be art?
Once again, the human race is a highly opinionated population. Just as beauty is seen in the phisically aspects, the elements of process, or in the evokation of strong emotions in art, so is ugliness. some art is meant to be ugly, but it is still art.
i'm not into visual arts much, more into musical. it's amazing how some people seem to understand rows of circles and scribbles as something deep. i take this course to try to understand some of those meanings but it seems doubtful. i like...ramen. and i play video games sometimes. my hobbies are tennis and trying out every flavor of frappucinos at starbucks.
1. Art's primary job should come from provoking thoughts from one's self and others. You can look at anything and be forced to think something about it; so, in a sense, art, as an object, already succeeds in achieving that goal. To exclude art from current issues or politics is equivalent to censorship. Often the touchiest of subject produces the most thought provoking art. Art needs to communicate ideas, if not, it has no other function than to look pretty. Pretty is nice but human beings are more capable than that, and thrive off of more. The artist loses the luxury of expression if art becomes useless and purely asthetical 2. Functional craft objects can be art when they are removed from their natural surroundings or altered. Marcel Duchamp's taking of everyday objects and calling them art created contrversy suring his era but his pieces provoked thought, and sparked broader questions regarding the general nature of art and what it is/ought to be. Duchamp suceeded in that respect. 3. What one person considers beautiful will never be exactly the same as another's opinion. This is why so many styles have emerged and why people like having variety to choose from. Beauty over time (what the majority feels is beautiful) has shifed along with the ideal human being. This can easily be illustrated when comparing contemporary publications and art to older art. So no, we are all different therefore we can't all agree. 4. Art can be considered ugly to one person or the vast majority. "Bad art" probably replicates another's ideas or is produced without much thought. If two artists produce essentially the same or similar pieces, one with intentions and ideas, the other just mindlessly painting away, the latter is more apt to be rightfully considered 'bad art.'
1. Should art be useless (free from politics, stories, morals)? or should art communicate idea?

Art can have many purposes; it can be created simply to please, to contribute aesthetically to the environment, to tell a story, to express an opinion whether political or religious, to express the emotions of the artist, etc. What I’m trying to say is that there isn’t just one universal purpose for art. Someone who creates visual propaganda is considered an artist, but his or her art has a very different purpose than, say, someone who paints a still life. But even though their purposes are really different, it’s still art, right? I mean, art can certainly tell stories, like those huge tapestries that people used to create in the medieval era, which are definitely forms of art, just as a modern artist’s sculpture of intertwined people writhing in pain to represent his or her feelings is certainly art. Bottom line: the purpose of art can’t be pin holed; it includes all of the ideas expressed in the question.

2. Can functional craft objects be art?

Functional craft objects can be art, just as art can take the shape of something that can be used for a specific purpose. For example, many of the things that I make in ceramics can be used as functional craft objects, but they are still considered art. A fashion designer creates clothing that serves the purpose of covering our bodies; of being worn, and yet these articles of clothing are also considered to be art. The craftsmanship of these pieces is one of the oldest forms of art. The fashion designer, the potter, the furniture maker, they all pour their feelings into what they make to create things that are functional and pleasing to the eye. Their pieces of art encompass another dimension than, say, a still life, and that dimension is the ability to function.

3. Can we all agree on beauty? Are there things that are just beautiful?

Beauty is, in general, pretty subjective; everyone has a different opinion regarding what is beautiful and what is not. For example, my friend might find that a stained glass window in her church is beautiful, while I might think it garish and obnoxious. However, I think that on some level, we all share a certain base concept regarding what is beautiful. I was reading about this particular subject last night in that Kant reading, but I don’t remember that much. I would probably be really bad at explaining it, anyway, so I’m not even going to try to go there. I don’t know, I feel like some things art beautiful, period, but I’m at a loss to think of why. I mean, for the most part, we all think that flowers are beautiful, but I can’t think of why besides maybe we were brainwashed into believing that when we were younger. So basically, I don’t know. Ask Kant.

4. Can art be ugly?

Art can definitely be ugly and still be art. Just because something isn’t pleasing to look at doesn’t mean that it can’t be art. For example, take propaganda against wars. That type of propaganda can consist of huge paintings of gory battles and dead children and brains spilling all over the place. Now, to me, that is not beautiful; it does not please my eye, but it is propaganda because it makes me feel repulsed by war, so therefore, it completes its purpose and is art. The same thing applies to furniture or bowls or whatever, and also depends on the purpose. Just like beauty, whether or not something is ugly depends on the person. I might think that the stained glass window in my friend’s church is ugly, and she might think that it’s beautiful. It all depends. But what do I know? In the eyes of my 7-year-old neighbor, I know everything, but if you asked Kant, he’d probably say I’m an idiot.
1. should art be useless; free from political things, should it have a purpose or should art communicate something?
i believe that art can be useless yet have a purpose at the same time. for some people, art can just hang on their walls and look nice and pretty; while for others, the art that hangs on the other persons wall and looks pretty, speaks something to them, it communicates to them, it gives off strong feelings and emotions, or it can have an actual purpose; such as a chair. some may think a chair is a chair, while others may see it as art while they are still making use of it.

2. can a functional object be art?
i think a functional object can be art, i think anything can be art if you want it to be. to me, it is just a matter of the fact of how you look at the functional object and how you want to see it. for example, a door or a fan. some may see a door as a thing you open, close and walk through, while someone else may see it in a totally different/opposite way. they might see it as an amazing work/piece of art. i dont think there is a right or wrong answer to this, i think it just depends on the way you see the functional object and how you look at it.

3. can we all agree on what is beautiful?
i think that we cant all agree on what it beautiful. being that we are all human beings and we all have different opinions on things, we cant all agree on what is beautiful. for example a flower, while someone may look at this flower and think oh wow this flower is so beautiful and pretty, someone else may look at that same flower and think oh wow this flower is so ugly and not attractive. i think it is impossible for us to all agree on what is beautiful being that each and every one of us has a mind of our own and an individual opinion. we are not robots, we all have different brains and different ways of thinking, seeing things etc.

4. can art be ugly?
to me, i believe that there is no such thing as ugly art. i mean everyone has there own and seperate opinions. but i personally believe that art is something people do to express themselves. meanwhile the artist takes so much time and effort into doing the piece of art and when they finally finish it is an accomplishment, its somehting they have worked very long and hard for and i beleive that for someone to say that art is ugly is unfair. i mean everyone does have there own opinions but i believe art can not be ugly. i think that it also depends on the way you look at the piece/work of art and how you see it and what kind of a vibe it gves off to you. but i still think n matter what kind of emotions or feelings you read from the work of art, it still cant be ugly.
1) Should art be useless? (free from politics, stories, morals)
"All art is quite useless"
-Oscar Wilde
Well, I'm not Oscar Wilde. Useless I think is a faulty word to describe art. Art cannot be "used" like a fork or combat machine, but it may or may not be just a creation to please the eye either. For centuries, art was derived from cultures and their stories and their political occurrences. It is all those things that make people "people." And even art that seems to be completely meaningless still reflect the artist's humanness. For instance, Caravaggio painted dramatic religious themes, such as The Calling of Saint Matthew shown below, which depicts a story deeply rooted in Catholic culture and also reflects his society's values at the time. This would be what his patrons and countryment thought was "useful" art.

But a few centuries later you have the Dadaists like Marcel Duchamp whose purpose in their art was to incite an outraged "what the hell is that crap!?" reaction from their audiences. Below is one of Duchamp's most infamous work. He took a urinal, put it upside down, and named it "The Fountain" and that became his found-object masterpiece to the chagrin of many who protest to call it "art." Yet there is something genuinely ingenious and hilarious about how Duchamp embraced the absurd dadaist philosophy in his work. While at first glance it seems like a piece of crap and Duchamp is just insane, the very being of "The Fountain's" existence is a glimpse into Duchamp's character and ideas, and the work's controversy revealed a bit about his society's personality as well. Thus, I believe work like Duchamp and the Dadaists are equally valid works of art as Caravaggio's biblically narrative paintings.

"What is art?" Is a question that shares a bunk with the question, "what is the meaning of life?" And I'm still trying to figure that out. I'll post my ideas about that whenever it hits me.

2) Can functional craft objects be art?
While functional craft objects might seem more disengaged with the artist individually, I think some of the most intricate expressions are embodied in a variety of every-day functional objects we use. A chair for instance, could reflect the very soul of a designer's love for a certain pattern or shape. The user of the object could nonchalantly dismiss it as a mere object to cushion their butt, but to the artist, it could be their heart the user is sitting on and the user will never know that. And in that sense, it makes it seem like a bold sacrifice for an artist to make: their identity for the sake of expressing their craft. This explanation probably opens the door for a lot of controversy; the devil's advocate in me is saying "well, in that case i guess plumbing could be considered an art." I say, if the plumber thinks he's an artist, I'd like him to fix my sink.

3) Can we all agree on what is beautiful?
The American society that I live in currently thinks an alien-glow of near orange tan and big boobs and stick-like physique is the epitome of beauty. And I disagree. However we can all agree that people can be pressured into thinking that their is only one mold for beautiful. Yet, ironically, that mold changes every season. Forgive me for quoting Oscar Wilde again...but:
"Fashion is something so hideous it has to be changed every month"
-Oscar Wilde
4) Can Art be Ugly?
What one viewer might call beautiful, another might call ugly. It is all relative. And it is a unique vision of beauty that makes each and every artwork individual and valuable.
Many artists also choose to not delight the viewer with images of beauty. Some create hideous pieces or disturbing images with an intent to incite an uncomfortable reaction from the audience. And I think in those works, the true soul of the art comes from the audience's reactions.

just a piece of useless art

art, yes, can be seen as just a peice of useless images. but just think how often art is influenced in anyones life. it cant be useless there must be a reason that people can make millions of dollars on something useless. Granted people are retarded and will buy basicly anything however people will go to extrodiary lengths to get just one piece of their favorite artist work. basicly if art is so useless why is it so extrodinarly expensive? art is not useless its strictly a "image" that makes us feel a certain way and we carve that as humans. So indugling in your the same as indulging in your expensive car or anything for that matter that people find full of use.

art meeting function? can that really happen?
I personally dont see the problem in making art functional. There would be a huge market for it and on top of that, sold products now already have eye apeal. In the case of most art, art is a way of generating a eye apealing image that conveys a deeper or any meaning in gerneral. To make anything much design goes into it...which is a huge peice of the art world. think about it. is there truely anything that has a real function that doesnt have an art feel to it? thats a no. Not saying that a can opener is a piece of art....but it could very easily be made into one. Medal scuptures are popular forms of art and they are just scraps of metal basicly....might be with out purpose however they could have purpose. Art already has a purpose to have eye apeal...that could very well be "art's" function. The real question is where does function meet art. everything has some sort of "flare" with it, art is just a flair with objects. nowadays art can be just about anything you want it to be, people do and feel how they want and that comes out in what they creat. If they create something with function....does that take away the feeling of art? where does the line go to say wheater or not? art is in the process of creating function, and some say that its the process and not the finished product. so it all depends on how you look at it.

Beauty.......can we agree?
Human nature gives us our various preferences in life in general. the idea of beauty varries from person to person. Honeslty if you got a group of people and surveyed on who/what they thought was physiclly apealing, No one would have the exact same idea on beauty. we all like what we like and for the most part ignore the rest. if someone likes the ugly work or the ugly person, good for them they find it attractive. we all differ in some way or another thus that leads us to a constant disagreement. Which is about as likely as gettin solved as world peace....people jus disagree and always will.

*Ugly Art*
There are so many peices of art that i have seen and found ugly. and there is ugly things in the world and people express those feelings as well. when people are so into art that its their life the things that are going on around them come out in their an ugly time in someones life equals in ugly art. art doesnt always have to be beautiful p eopel dont just want beauty they want dept, and sometimes ugly comes with that extra plung in depth. ugly art does exist just like ugly people in the world. arts basicly like the human race.....basicly.
Should art have a purpose?
Art should always have a purpose. The purpose, however, does not have to be blatantly political, tell a story, or show a moral. Sometimes the sole purpose of a piece is to provoke emotions from the artist and/ or viewer. It could be argued that emotions alone are not worthy of being called a real purpose. That statement is naive. To think that emotions play no role in our everyday lives would be like saying 9/11 didn't change the way we looked at things in life. Emotions and ideas provide a purpose which will stick with a person longer than any other form of teaching. As art provides the stimulant of these emotions, it can sometimes have the greatest purpose of all.

Can something with a function still be considered art?

Architecture has a function of housing people, offices, and just about anything else one could think to put in it. It also can be used to stabilize things which might otherwise collapse or break somehow. This being said, it is obvious architecture has a myriad of functions. Architecture can also be a form of art, thought out and put to life thanks to the mind of a creative individual. It holds attributes from both functional and artistic viewpoints, making it a perfect example of art being functional

Can we all agree on what is beautiful.

Nothing in this world can be agreed upon by everyone in it, art included. Even things one would believe is set in stone, like the Holocaust, is still argued by some as being false. As not even obvious events which can be proved be agreed upon, things based on opinions have no chance of being unanimously enjoyed. There are even some who think the stars in the sky are not beautiful, but just balls of fire and light billions of miles away.

Can art be ugly?

As stated above, not everyone can agree what is beautiful and what is not. The same is true when applied to art. Some would say a painting is a masterpiece, while others may argue it is horrible. They would most likely say that that particular piece of art is ugly. The other option of the response is the viewer saying it is not art at all. This person would take on the standpoint that only beautiful things can be considered art. Therefore, art can be ugly to some, while others may think if it is ugly it is not art.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Dale Chihuly
Lots of cool stuff

= )