Final Question 1

      Abstraction is the act of taking something concrete and portraying it in a non-physical sense. It makes something conceivable but intangible. Modernism is often known to include "abstract" paintings. The term abstract has become a way of describing non-physical things, yet I would argue in the case of modern paintings that the term abstract would seem to be applied incorrectly. Modern paintings attempted to be solely about the medium of paint rather than a realistic representation of something. Due to this, the term "abstract" coined the style of artwork that did not represent something physical. However it seems an unfitting descriptor to me because in the sense of modern paintings, the "abstraction" actually advanced closer to a physical state. It was no longer about representing the idea of some person, place or object but physically representing that thing. It was simply paint on a canvas and it was real. You could physically touch it. So where is the abstraction? Before modernism, when art was a representation of a place or a person or an object it wasn't really that thing, but rather, a depiction, which in essence is something removed from the actual physical thing it represents. It was simply the idea of that thing. To me that would be something abstract. 

      Modernism is a philosophical framework, and therefore can be applied across disciplines. Modernist thinkers believe that truth is absolute, meaning that it is something constructed independent of other factors. Due to this opinion of truth, modernists sought purity. This type of thought redefined art of the time to be "true" to itself. Paintings could no longer be about literature or depicting realistic imagery because that was not true to it's identity. Paintings could only be about paint. They needed to be pure. They had to be original, and therefore all additional elements needed to be removed to ensure genuineness. 

      Color Theory became an integral part of modernism as it was a tool for the "universal communication" sought by modernist work. Color theory breaks down the formation of colors and how their different combinations can create different effects and communicate different feelings. Color theory also investigates the way in which our eyes perceive certain colors due to the colors around it. For example, if you look at the first three paintings in this post, the pink square in the middle painting appears to be darkest while the one on the right seems to be lightest. The value of the color appears to change due to the color surrounding it. Another example of how color theory is present within these paintings is in the last painting. This painting follows one of the color schemes listed within color theory--the monochramatic color scheme. The color schemes created through color theory help develop paintings to be appealing, or unappealing to the eye, depending on the mood that the artist wants to express. 

Posted Images

       A modernist would first and foremost approve of the image on the left as it is true to its nature. This image is about paint and not about portraying something realistic. There is evidence of the artist in the paint splatters. Everything one needs to understand the work is given to them, which is what would make it universal.

     Though the photo on the right contains some modern principles, ultimately a modernist would disapprove of it. One of the modern principles that it does contain is the emphasis of form. However, the image reaches out to things and ideas that are not all provided within it's frame. The subject matter forces audiences to consider the context of the items and the reason why they are grouped here together. The fact that there are some formal elements here among these objects would also go against modernist thought. These objects are being represented artistically which would in essence oppose their pure original state to simply be climbing gear. It relates to the example of art reaching towards other disciplines to ground it's work--something that a modern artist would have avoided. 

    On the other hand, a postmodernist would care about the context of how these images were created and shown. If the image on the left was created by expressionistic painting then it would be viewed with little value. However, if the image on the left was created with gun powder and lard with some sort of racial critique, then it would be more widely accepted. Within modernism, the context was of little importance because everything within the frame was supposed to be the only thing that mattered. That was how they achieved universal communication. However, to a postmodernist, truth is socially constructed and therefore the context of something becomes very significant. The same ideas would apply in perception of the image on the right. The fact that there is some information not given within the frame of the work already, that it cannot be universal in nature, increases the likelihood of it to be accepted by the postmodernist. In terms of color theory, the left image might be rejected by the postmodernist as it contains the obvious "universal" monochromatic color scheme. The image on the left would be more appreciated as a combination of multiple color schemes which moves further away from mere formal appreciation. 

3 Questions

Would the first set of images be considered modern or postmodern paintings? (Why or Why not?) How does the context of the work affect your response?

What elements and principles of design and/or postmodern principles stated by Olivia Gude are present within this piece? Explain your reasoning.

Gallery Stroll

          For the gallery stroll experience I went to the UMOCA. I had mixed feelings about my experience. There were some things that just made me just feel like a contemporary artist just needs to do something weird or bizarre and that makes it exciting or avant garde. The first image inside the gallery was a show that was trying to reconstruct the mundane every day life. The artist made prints, sculptures and a stop motion animation. I may have been lost but I felt that nothing in the piece grounded me in the "daily mundane." It felt more like a psycho analysis on the human conscience to me. Which is why this piece just made me feel like some forms of contemporary art just seek this weird niche. The next photograph was from an exhibition that centered on the idea of recreating history with women in the picture. I like the piece because it seems more accessible for viewers and is easier to interact with. It made me want to find the women I recognized and to learn the story of those who I did not. 

          The last piece was by far my favorite. It was called "Singing in the Rain." I like this work not only because I felt mentally engaged but also because my husband even got into the work as well. In this piece the figure dressed in gold does a dance along a red carpet to the song singing in the rain in the middle of the dump. Alongside the singing figure, others look through garbage, picking out certain things that they find. The juxtaposition of this almost hollywood-esque figure with the setting and those rummaging through garbage created a really intriguing dialogue. It forces you to consider the consumption of our society. Do we, like the figure, dance along in our merry state without noticing the effect that we have, or the by-products of that lifestyle? The dancing figure felt so oblivious to the whole situation. So disconnected. It forces viewers to combine these two worlds in an uncomfortable way. 

Visitors

I was unable to attend class on Tuesday for Jethro's visit due to an annual work meeting that I had to attend. However I was told that he talked about the portable gallery space that he created for his AP Art class. During ARTED 226 I had the chance of observing Jethro's class and he actually talked to me about this display space that he created and many of the things he was working on as a teacher. I love the idea of a portable gallery. I like it because I think it changes not only the access that students have to display art, but also broadens the types of audiences that will interact with it.

As far as Dan Barney's visit we talked about Object-oriented Ontology. At first all of this was going over my head but then as he continued to talk about it and read about it from books I started to get some interesting insights, though they may not be exactly what was intended to come from that discussion. First he read a chapter to us from Graham Harmon's book about how "objects teach." This is the idea that every object offers something for us to learn from. Some examples given in the book were that tulips teach how to stand alone, or grass teaches how to network, etc. I like this theology because isn't that partially what we hope to do through art? If we claim that art, just like any other object, is pedagogical by nature, that may seem deeply rooted in instrumentalism. However, I feel that this idea could be somewhat related to every theoretical approach to understanding art, just through different terms. If I was an expressionist I may say art exists to communicate through feelings, emotions, etc., yet are our senses not just another way to learn about and understand the world? Although this approach may not be perfectly applicable to all theoretical approaches, I feel that in essence each theoretical approach seeks to communicate something very specific through art, which in turn creates some form of a clarification, understanding, or learning based experience either by the audience or artist.

Artist Presentation

Links:
Odile and Odette clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmS3ruy5LA

Yinka Shonibare:
http://www.art21.org/videos/segment-yinka-shonibare-mbe-in-transformation

https://africa.si.edu/exhibits/shonibare/odette.html

What riding my bike has taught me about white privilege:
http://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege/

Discussion questions posed:

What is white privilege?

What makes it hard to accept white privilege?

Where do we go from there?    

Artistic Response:
       During my artist presentation on Yinka Shonibare's piece "Odile and Odette," our class talked about white privilege. I asked the class about ideas of how to deal with white privilege. Some people talked about dealing with it by trying to find the voices around that are unheard. Another person suggested that we just need to stop focusing on the differences and see each other as equals. As children of God. After our discussion in class I decided I wanted to make a response as a hope to "humanize" people we don't know. I surveyed 70 people online through qualtrics and used their responses to create an interactive artwork. Here are pictures of the piece, though the real piece would be installed in a gallery for viewers to navigate through themselves.

      The three different colors represent the questions posed and all of the dots link to responses. So ideally this would be displayed on a big screen just with the image of all the tiny dots, and the key image displayed off to the side. Viewers would then click on any dot to find a corresponding response, and just be able to explore the many different answers that were given. See the examples below.

West Hooks & Foucault

        Cornel West is a political and social rights activist. He questions the role that race, class and gender play in America today. Bell Hooks is a feminist and an activist for race. She has written several books about gender, race and how they can create systems of oppression. Michel Foucault critiques the way in which knowledge and power can create oppression within society.
        Each of these people deal with postmodernity because they do not accept the idea that truth is universal. They each question what society has whole heartily accepted as the "norm." They see understandings of politics, race and gender as relative and therefore alterable. In terms of deconstruction they question the ways in which old schools of thought have impacted the nation. They seek to deconstruct old meaning and then construct new meaning within specific social issues.

Art 21 Presentation

Odile and Odette clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmS3ruy5LA

Yinka Shonibare:
http://www.art21.org/videos/segment-yinka-shonibare-mbe-in-transformation

https://africa.si.edu/exhibits/shonibare/odette.html

What riding my bike has taught me about white privilege:
http://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege/

Discussion questions posed:

What is white privilege?

What makes it hard to accept white privilege?

Where do we go from there?

Art vs. Design

         The first main difference that I felt between art and design is that design is commercially rooted. It is about selling something to someone. Another thing I noticed is that art and design both deal with accessibility of meaning, but in completely different ways. Design seeks to be universal in interpretation. Designers focus on aesthetics as a means to make their concepts or information so blatant that nothing distracts the audience from receiving that message, or even worse, misunderstanding that message. On the other hand, in art it is often cliche if the concept is obvious at first glance to viewers. Most artists want viewers to find meaning through time and consideration of a piece, and they often allow the viewer to make interpretations of their own.

Modern Art

Modern Art could simply be defined as art that lacks deception. It's a painting that is just paint on the canvas, not trying to be something else, like a basket of fruit. It's flat and two dimensional. True to its nature.

One of my favorite parts from "The Painted Word," reading was where Wolfe suggested that when viewers look at literary paintings they approach such work with "mental baggage." Though this may especially be true in relation to literary paintings, I feel that this is also true in any work, and I think that is beautiful. Every person has their own thoughts and experiences and no matter how hard an artist tries, those will somehow find their way into the viewer's interpretation of the work.

I also appreciate the idea from Greenberg's article that modern art became pure. I like the idea that paint on a canvas is almost a humbling expression--what you see is what you get. On the other hand, this single interpretation of what painting should be can also be very limiting. Dan Barney says that art is about asking what is possible. When you define painting as only being two dimensional and about the paint I feel that many possibilities are being missed. However I do recognize the value that this perspective played during the time, and how it has helped art's continuity to today.

Art in America Article

The article I read was an interview between Keltie Ferris and Daniel Belasco. As Belasco asks about her work, Ferris says that she wants her work to be accessible for anyone and very autonomous. Though I find that there is value in Ferris’ stance towards autonomy and accessibility, I find her opinions to be contradictory. It is clear that Ferris is against institutionalism, as her work seeks to avoid the backstories of conceptual practice and contextual importance, yet she is clearly a part of the institutionalist group as she displays work in high-end art museums, museums that cater to a very specific audience.

Mike Birbiglia & Ira Glass Response

I think that both of these pieces show a certain wisdom about each artist. The difference between being knowledgable and wise is that wisdom includes experience. It is easy to see that both artists have gone through many experiences, enough to the point where they can see the major points in their careers that got them to where they are.

I really found it interesting how Mike Birbiglia included quitting as one of his 6 tips. Most often any sort of feedback you get from the experts is keep trying and work hard. However I think by including this step, it forces us to be honest with ourselves, and what we hope to accomplish. For example personally for me, it isn't very important for me to show in big galleries or to become a well known artist. So maybe by seeing that I accept that, and put my energy elsewhere. Art for me has always been something centered around other people. So a path in art education seems to fit those passions better than something else would have.

I also liked Ira Glass' idea about our abilities catching up with our taste. I often feel this way when observing teachers or thinking about the type of teacher I want to be. Sometimes I don't exactly know what to do to be that teacher, but thats where practice comes in. We have to keep doing it. Put in the time. Pay the price. It reminds me of the book 10,000 hours by Malcom Gladwell. It's the idea that we need to put 10,000 hours into something before we become an expert.

Aesthetic Images