The video shown today about christos and the running fence gave me a whole new look on art and it's effect on people. As the movie began, you wonder why is this frenchman from the city in the countryside of california. As the video progresses and we learn what his purpose is you think no way is he going to get this done. Christo had little to no support from this tight knit community but he kept persevering so that he can change the minds of these small rural town farmers to really see the beauty of art and get them to even become artists themeselves during this process as christos even mentions at one of the town meetings. Well to skip to the end when the fence was near to completion and all the people just gaze at simple yet elegant white fabric that shines when the sun sets and how the cloth flows into the ocean. Even the people couldnt believe how structurally sound it all was. All in all, christo shined a light on me to not give up and to never underestimate the power of art. Stephen Pliaconis
Today in class I really enjoyed watching the video about Christo, a french artist in which went to the country side to do his next project.All of which was to consist of white translucent like sheets that were to hang from pole 18 ft tall to 24 ft long. In the beginning everyone thought the idea was stupid and no one believed it was art. Which bought me to remembering the first in class when the teacher first asked us what is art. I remember how we all had different answers. Which is really all Christo faced people to do was consider art in a different light. t was just even more amazing how he used nature itself to do it. It was as if he hung up the sheets to be the canvas and the sun and the landscapes provided the color.
Figure 4.12 the title of the piece is Speechless, which I think is a great title for this photograph by Shirin Neshat. My first glance at the photograph I was really taken back by it. Even though I can not see her whole face I could tell she was sad and maybe even suicidal. It took me a few seconds to realize that the object resting on her cheek was a gun. I don’t like being around guns, so it was eerie having to stare into a barrel of a gun in this photograph. She really captured the moment and makes you feel the content of the photograph. She really makes you feel the women’s pain and sorrow. I also like the way she uses Farsi on the women’s face it gives you a sense of the Middle East. The Farsi gives you some background to the women’s story without knowing her personally, because Women in the Middle East don't have many rights.
I have to say that todays class was my favorite so far. I highly enjoyed watching the movie on Christo and Jeanne-Claude and their piece The Running Fence. To see the whole process of the fence being built from the start gives you such an appreciation to the work put into it, which in the end makes you appreciate the final product so much more. The documentary gave such insight into Christos intentions and how it was art. How the whole process with the people in the community and getting all the building permits shot down is part of the art. Not only is the final piece art itself, but the creative process then the physical process of actually being able to fulfill the goal is also part of the art.
It also interested me how this one piece brought many political aspect out such as the permits and how they kept getting denied, the coastal society, and the people of the community itself and how some disapproved and some didn't. How all Christo wanted to do was put a curtain up for miles and people were set on not letting him do it even though its the simplest thing. Part of the art is brining that controversy to the piece, how Christo like the professor mentioned went into the ocean almost consciously without permits to get a reaction from the people and the government, which is part of the art and the final product. The movie opens your eyes to a different way of categorizing what is actually art. The people of the small community are examples of that and how they were divided in how some viewed it as the amazing art piece and some viewed it as something so stupid. It is very intriguing.
Today i really enjoyed learing about the media of wood. Learning about this particular media has allowed to to become more of a critical thinker of art work.This has given me the ability to examine art in a more in-dept way.In the art piece Kuya preaching, Kosha,1207 is a buda created out of wood. In class today i learned that wood brings symbolic reasoning and meaning to an art piece. This Kuya art piece has a realistic element to it being made of of wood.In real life wood is cheap and it , also has a connection with nature. wood is a material that brings an art piece alive beacause wood is somewhat considered everlasting.I learned today to see wood as a constant moving material(as if it is organic.
I thought that the comparisons of "Vesperbild" and Michelangelo's "Pieta" was a great example on how to derive meanings of an artwork. The "Vesperbild's" medium, wood, shows a more frail and fragile tone that play with the audiences' emotions. Also how the artist expressed the facial aspects of Mary and Jesus in "Vesperbild's" was completely different from the "Pieta." Vesperbild's" facial expression included more sorrow and mourn, while the other had a more blank and accepting facial expression. I think Michelangelo's artwork focused more on the techniques of representing Mary and Jesus realistically rather than expressing the idea behind what it is trying to represent. Michelangelo's skill is completely amazing and is very difficult to duplicate his artworks, but I think people would be too amazed with his intricate details, such as the draping robes, than the actual scene it is representing. I personally liked the "Vesperbild's" version of it because it provokes more emotion to the viewers.
You judge a piece of artwork in the first 5 seconds that you see it. Deriving meaning takes a little longer by understanding the background and the content in the picture. I found it really interesting when we bounced ideas in class about a sculpture called "Palace Sculpture" by Olowe of Ise (pg 84 in the book). I had read the chapter prior to our discussion so I knew the background on the piece. The interesting part was listening to what everyone else thought the meaning was. It is fun to see how people perceive a piece before they know any other information. Some of the same ideas were said that I thought when I first saw it. At first glance it appears to shown the dominance of woman in the society, and that maybe the person in the chair is a child. Digging deeper and reading the text showed this to be untrue. Although our discussion was right about the role of woman, the person in the chair is a king being crowned. Without reading the background info, this would have been hard to derive that particular meaning from the sculpture. This goes to show how important historical documents are when deriving the meaning from a piece of artwork.
What more can be said about fig 4.6 and how it portrays the human society. This painting has very in depth meaning that men have the solution. As the painting shows, it is men who are standing firmly and erected in a way that shows their complete confidence in what they are about to do. They have created the huge conflict of the war that they are in, as the story goes, and their final and only solution is a fight with the opposing side against three other men, thus ending their conflict. The women, on the other end of the painting, are not offering the men an alternative or any sort of help. Even if they did, based on the mens' posture and faces, would the men really listen and be reasonable to what the women have to say? Really, are these women valued if they and their opinions are not taken into consideration?
Not only that, but the painting really shows what the priorites of men were back then. Men lived to fight and fought to live. The painting has the men almost perfectly defined and shaped out thus making the viewer focus primarily on the men and their action leading to the fight and therefore emphasizing the mens' primary focus. The women and children in the back ground are not so noticable and seem to be a secondary prioriety. If the men are not fighting and killing each other, then they are making and caring for their families until they have to fight agian to try to bring peace once more to their society. Therefore we can assume that the women are just there to pleasure the men in times of peace (which I do not beleive is true). In the end, men will do whatever it takes, not carrying who they hurt or leave behind, in order to go and fight to defend their honor and respect. If this mentality still is the dominant one among males in our society today is up for interpretation.
To determine if a piece is really good, you really got to understand what that picture is trying to tell the audience. The "Starry Night" presentation yesterday was a good example to try to derive meaning. To me, that peice's colors and design was a little chaotic. I feel the author was being chaotic for a reason. I felt that the design was chaotic and it symbolized how our lives are a little chaotic. What do we do in a life that's chaotic? We try to organize it. So i feel that the "starry night" piece is trying to tell the audience that we need to organize the chaos. Just like how i believe there is chaos in that painting, I feel the author is trying to make us organize the chaos. The author is trying to make us put everything in perspective so that we can understand it better.
During this week when we watched the film my emotions changed from angry to happy. I say angry because in the film the artist is trying to create some sort of Art by placing poles miles long with a metal wire running across it and with white sheets along and the community there is not supportive at all at the beginning and wouldn't let him build it. Any who several points were raised while he was fighting to get cleared to build this and that was "that is not considered art". At first i agreed but Art started when they were building it, the hard labor and dedication put into it. Once done it looked really amazing you were able to see it miles out. If it wasn't for the film showing how they built it, i probably wouldn't have felt the same. One question i still had in mind was "how much did he spend doing that?"
I think today's discussion on the piece done by the Guerrilla Girls was a perfect example of deriving meaning.I perceive deriving meaning from a piece of art work by simply what is the artist trying to get across through their work, and what do you (the person viewing the work) is getting out of that work. With the work done by the Guerrilla girls they are sending a strong message through their work. And us as the viewers have to "derive the meaning". In this case and most other art work it is dependent on the viewer to decide what the meaning is. The meaning I got from their work was simple. They where angry as women that art is sexiest. And by creating this work they could change the way people perceive art and could make a change in society.
Chapter 4 discusses the various ways that people can critique art. I think that different works of art lend themselves to be evaluated easier with different forms of criticism. Through the use of formal criticism, Jackson Pallock's "Lucifer" is relatively easy to critique. However to figure it out through deconstruction is more challenging, and each individual would have their own interpretation of the art work.
I also find it interesting that in the current art world there is such a wide range of available media. This lends a larger number of people to explore as artists. However I do feel that this may in fact be detrimental to the art community as a whole. Because there is such a large number of "artists" now the truly talented may be missed in a sea of mediocrity. Also, the larger number of people practicing different forms of art may in fact yield an amazing artist who would have otherwise done something else in life entirely. I guess I have mixed feelings about the ever expanding breadth of art.
The presentation of the piece by Christo, "The Running Fence", was a very interesting and thought provoking documentary of the process involved in actualy getting the piece done. The documentary highlighted the fact that the simple artistic idea of putting up a fence across several counties, ultimatley ending at the pacific ocean, is not as easy as one would think. It was interesting that the community involvement, the politics, and the resources needed were all parts of the art.
The presention today of the painting, "A Man Ain't Nothing but A Man" by Palmer Hayden, was a unique piece filled with symbolism. The art dipicts a black working class man who has just died from exhaustion. The figure is splayed on the ground in the form of a crucifics, symbolic of Jesus on the cross. A huge crowd is gathered around the figure. The expression on the face of the crowd seems to be one of bewilderment and awe. The crowd seems to be reacting to the idea that a person can literaly work themselves to death. overall, the piece is symbolic of the many challenges the working class had to deal with at the time.
I found it quite interesting how the art piece, Lucifer, by Jackson Pollock was considered art. To me it just looked like a child could have done it or even a dog, no offense to the artist. But when I examined the art piece in a closer perspectice, I noticed that there was some sort of pattern with the colors that were used, especially with the black. As the text mentions, the artist was projecting his mood onto his art piece. There was a sense of dabbing, flinging, and pouring in the painting, abstract expressionism as it's called. And based on the title of the work and the color scheme, there is a sense of darkness or the life of the underworld being projected out of the painting. Looking at the painting in detail and then taking it all in as a whole made me realize the uniqueness and individuality of the painting. The artist Pollock made sure what he was feeling could be seen and felt within the viewer.
I'm sure I am not only speaking for myself when I say that the idea of building a fence constructed with the use of steel, wire, and nylon fabric to run 24 miles long and 18 foot high, is pretty ridiculous and at first thought, not considered a form of art. The short film The Running Fence, produced by the Maysles Brothers, goes about a documentary of the process and effort it took to approve a piece of land art. At first, Christo and his wife tried desperately for acceptance within the community. The entire process was difficult, but at the same time extremely fascinating. By allowing the audience watching the video to view the before hand process of how hard it was for a whole community and government to enable a huge piece of art to be placed onto land, it makes us deeply appreciate the effort put forth from beginning to end. It also makes us realize that whatever you choose to believe is art, then so be it. So as the video was ending, it completed the intimate connection we grew to have while viewing the process by taping how the fabric draped, how the wind gusted against it, how you can view it from far away and see the sun beam at it. All showing its beautiful aesthetic and engineering beauty. It also reverts our attention to the land we live on and the water that surrounds us. All in all, this work of art enables people to think of their own life in an artistic way itself.
the video we watched in class about Christo was very interesting. it gave me a different perspective in art.at first i questioned about his running fence. it was very odd to me that this can be art. when i think of art i think about drawings, pictures, sculptures... but never did i think this would be art. after seeing the completion of the running fence i noticed that during sunset and sun down the curtains caught the colors of the sun.that really caught my eye on how beautiful it looked. the color that was on the curtains really looked amazing. It looked as if it was a moving picture. After Christos work im pretty sure alot of people have shifted their ways of thinking in the concept of art.
I really liked the documentary that was shown in class. “Running Fence” was an interesting idea for an installation piece. However, as the documentary quickly showed, it really wasn’t about the fence at all. It was about the people involved with the project. Whether it be the naysayers who didn’t believe it was art, to those in the community who fell in love with the idea, and spent countless hours helping to see it done. The one thing that didn’t sit well with me was Cristo’s ignorance of the nature concerns in making his fence. By going ahead and doing it anyway, I didn’t see him as brave or a maverick, but rather a reckless fool who valued his art project more than the life and ecosystem of the animals around him. I realize the hypocrisy in saying this as I am not a vegetarian/vegan, but I still feel that it has merit to say he was not completely justified in his actions.
I really found the photo by Shirin Neshat very very interesting. This girl seems like shes goin through a lot but doesn't know who to talk to. Its almost like the gun is listening to her. Almost like thats the only thing thats sound right to her at this point in her life. Maybe she been thinking about killing herself. Thats probably why the gun is near her ear because thats the only thing thats sounds right to her right about now at this time in her life.
The video shown today about christos and the running fence gave me a whole new look on art and it's effect on people. As the movie began, you wonder why is this frenchman from the city in the countryside of california. As the video progresses and we learn what his purpose is you think no way is he going to get this done. Christo had little to no support from this tight knit community but he kept persevering so that he can change the minds of these small rural town farmers to really see the beauty of art and get them to even become artists themeselves during this process as christos even mentions at one of the town meetings. Well to skip to the end when the fence was near to completion and all the people just gaze at simple yet elegant white fabric that shines when the sun sets and how the cloth flows into the ocean. Even the people couldnt believe how structurally sound it all was. All in all, christo shined a light on me to not give up and to never underestimate the power of art.
ReplyDeleteStephen Pliaconis
Today in class I really enjoyed watching the video about Christo, a french artist in which went to the country side to do his next project.All of which was to consist of white translucent like sheets that were to hang from pole 18 ft tall to 24 ft long. In the beginning everyone thought the idea was stupid and no one believed it was art. Which bought me to remembering the first in class when the teacher first asked us what is art. I remember how we all had different answers. Which is really all Christo faced people to do was consider art in a different light. t was just even more amazing how he used nature itself to do it. It was as if he hung up the sheets to be the canvas and the sun and the landscapes provided the color.
ReplyDeleteFigure 4.12 the title of the piece is Speechless, which I think is a great title for this photograph by Shirin Neshat. My first glance at the photograph I was really taken back by it. Even though I can not see her whole face I could tell she was sad and maybe even suicidal. It took me a few seconds to realize that the object resting on her cheek was a gun. I don’t like being around guns, so it was eerie having to stare into a barrel of a gun in this photograph. She really captured the moment and makes you feel the content of the photograph. She really makes you feel the women’s pain and sorrow. I also like the way she uses Farsi on the women’s face it gives you a sense of the Middle East. The Farsi gives you some background to the women’s story without knowing her personally, because Women in the Middle East don't have many rights.
ReplyDeleteGina V.
I have to say that todays class was my favorite so far. I highly enjoyed watching the movie on Christo and Jeanne-Claude and their piece The Running Fence. To see the whole process of the fence being built from the start gives you such an appreciation to the work put into it, which in the end makes you appreciate the final product so much more. The documentary gave such insight into Christos intentions and how it was art. How the whole process with the people in the community and getting all the building permits shot down is part of the art. Not only is the final piece art itself, but the creative process then the physical process of actually being able to fulfill the goal is also part of the art.
ReplyDeleteIt also interested me how this one piece brought many political aspect out such as the permits and how they kept getting denied, the coastal society, and the people of the community itself and how some disapproved and some didn't. How all Christo wanted to do was put a curtain up for miles and people were set on not letting him do it even though its the simplest thing. Part of the art is brining that controversy to the piece, how Christo like the professor mentioned went into the ocean almost consciously without permits to get a reaction from the people and the government, which is part of the art and the final product.
The movie opens your eyes to a different way of categorizing what is actually art. The people of the small community are examples of that and how they were divided in how some viewed it as the amazing art piece and some viewed it as something so stupid. It is very intriguing.
Erika Bonsky
Today i really enjoyed learing about the media of wood. Learning about this particular media has allowed to to become more of a critical thinker of art work.This has given me the ability to examine art in a more in-dept way.In the art piece Kuya preaching, Kosha,1207 is a buda created out of wood. In class today i learned that wood brings symbolic reasoning and meaning to an art piece. This Kuya art piece has a realistic element to it being made of of wood.In real life wood is cheap and it , also has a connection with nature. wood is a material that brings an art piece alive beacause wood is somewhat considered everlasting.I learned today to see wood as a constant moving material(as if it is organic.
ReplyDeleteErika Beck
I thought that the comparisons of "Vesperbild" and Michelangelo's "Pieta" was a great example on how to derive meanings of an artwork. The "Vesperbild's" medium, wood, shows a more frail and fragile tone that play with the audiences' emotions. Also how the artist expressed the facial aspects of Mary and Jesus in "Vesperbild's" was completely different from the "Pieta." Vesperbild's" facial expression included more sorrow and mourn, while the other had a more blank and accepting facial expression. I think Michelangelo's artwork focused more on the techniques of representing Mary and Jesus realistically rather than expressing the idea behind what it is trying to represent. Michelangelo's skill is completely amazing and is very difficult to duplicate his artworks, but I think people would be too amazed with his intricate details, such as the draping robes, than the actual scene it is representing. I personally liked the "Vesperbild's" version of it because it provokes more emotion to the viewers.
ReplyDeleteMotohiro Yamada
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou judge a piece of artwork in the first 5 seconds that you see it. Deriving meaning takes a little longer by understanding the background and the content in the picture. I found it really interesting when we bounced ideas in class about a sculpture called "Palace Sculpture" by Olowe of Ise (pg 84 in the book). I had read the chapter prior to our discussion so I knew the background on the piece. The interesting part was listening to what everyone else thought the meaning was. It is fun to see how people perceive a piece before they know any other information. Some of the same ideas were said that I thought when I first saw it. At first glance it appears to shown the dominance of woman in the society, and that maybe the person in the chair is a child. Digging deeper and reading the text showed this to be untrue. Although our discussion was right about the role of woman, the person in the chair is a king being crowned. Without reading the background info, this would have been hard to derive that particular meaning from the sculpture. This goes to show how important historical documents are when deriving the meaning from a piece of artwork.
ReplyDeleteKatie Chappell
What more can be said about fig 4.6 and how it portrays the human society. This painting has very in depth meaning that men have the solution. As the painting shows, it is men who are standing firmly and erected in a way that shows their complete confidence in what they are about to do. They have created the huge conflict of the war that they are in, as the story goes, and their final and only solution is a fight with the opposing side against three other men, thus ending their conflict. The women, on the other end of the painting, are not offering the men an alternative or any sort of help. Even if they did, based on the mens' posture and faces, would the men really listen and be reasonable to what the women have to say? Really, are these women valued if they and their opinions are not taken into consideration?
ReplyDeleteNot only that, but the painting really shows what the priorites of men were back then. Men lived to fight and fought to live. The painting has the men almost perfectly defined and shaped out thus making the viewer focus primarily on the men and their action leading to the fight and therefore emphasizing the mens' primary focus. The women and children in the back ground are not so noticable and seem to be a secondary prioriety. If the men are not fighting and killing each other, then they are making and caring for their families until they have to fight agian to try to bring peace once more to their society. Therefore we can assume that the women are just there to pleasure the men in times of peace (which I do not beleive is true). In the end, men will do whatever it takes, not carrying who they hurt or leave behind, in order to go and fight to defend their honor and respect. If this mentality still is the dominant one among males in our society today is up for interpretation.
To determine if a piece is really good, you really got to understand what that picture is trying to tell the audience. The "Starry Night" presentation yesterday was a good example to try to derive meaning. To me, that peice's colors and design was a little chaotic. I feel the author was being chaotic for a reason. I felt that the design was chaotic and it symbolized how our lives are a little chaotic. What do we do in a life that's chaotic? We try to organize it. So i feel that the "starry night" piece is trying to tell the audience that we need to organize the chaos. Just like how i believe there is chaos in that painting, I feel the author is trying to make us organize the chaos. The author is trying to make us put everything in perspective so that we can understand it better.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Velasco
During this week when we watched the film my emotions changed from angry to happy. I say angry because in the film the artist is trying to create some sort of Art by placing poles miles long with a metal wire running across it and with white sheets along and the community there is not supportive at all at the beginning and wouldn't let him build it. Any who several points were raised while he was fighting to get cleared to build this and that was "that is not considered art". At first i agreed but Art started when they were building it, the hard labor and dedication put into it. Once done it looked really amazing you were able to see it miles out. If it wasn't for the film showing how they built it, i probably wouldn't have felt the same. One question i still had in mind was "how much did he spend doing that?"
ReplyDeleteI think today's discussion on the piece done by the Guerrilla Girls was a perfect example of deriving meaning.I perceive deriving meaning from a piece of art work by simply what is the artist trying to get across through their work, and what do you (the person viewing the work) is getting out of that work. With the work done by the Guerrilla girls they are sending a strong message through their work. And us as the viewers have to "derive the meaning". In this case and most other art work it is dependent on the viewer to decide what the meaning is. The meaning I got from their work was simple. They where angry as women that art is sexiest. And by creating this work they could change the way people perceive art and could make a change in society.
ReplyDeleteMichael Gavola
Chapter 4 discusses the various ways that people can critique art. I think that different works of art lend themselves to be evaluated easier with different forms of criticism. Through the use of formal criticism, Jackson Pallock's "Lucifer" is relatively easy to critique. However to figure it out through deconstruction is more challenging, and each individual would have their own interpretation of the art work.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that in the current art world there is such a wide range of available media. This lends a larger number of people to explore as artists. However I do feel that this may in fact be detrimental to the art community as a whole. Because there is such a large number of "artists" now the truly talented may be missed in a sea of mediocrity. Also, the larger number of people practicing different forms of art may in fact yield an amazing artist who would have otherwise done something else in life entirely. I guess I have mixed feelings about the ever expanding breadth of art.
The presentation of the piece by Christo, "The Running Fence", was a very interesting and thought provoking documentary of the process involved in actualy getting the piece done. The documentary highlighted the fact that the simple artistic idea of putting up a fence across several counties, ultimatley ending at the pacific ocean, is not as easy as one would think. It was interesting that the community involvement, the politics, and the resources needed were all parts of the art.
ReplyDeleteThe presention today of the painting, "A Man Ain't Nothing but A Man" by Palmer Hayden, was a unique piece filled with symbolism. The art dipicts a black working class man who has just died from exhaustion. The figure is splayed on the ground in the form of a crucifics, symbolic of Jesus on the cross. A huge crowd is gathered around the figure. The expression on the face of the crowd seems to be one of bewilderment and awe. The crowd seems to be reacting to the idea that a person can literaly work themselves to death. overall, the piece is symbolic of the many challenges the working class had to deal with at the time.
ReplyDeleteI found it quite interesting how the art piece, Lucifer, by Jackson Pollock was considered art. To me it just looked like a child could have done it or even a dog, no offense to the artist. But when I examined the art piece in a closer perspectice, I noticed that there was some sort of pattern with the colors that were used, especially with the black. As the text mentions, the artist was projecting his mood onto his art piece. There was a sense of dabbing, flinging, and pouring in the painting, abstract expressionism as it's called. And based on the title of the work and the color scheme, there is a sense of darkness or the life of the underworld being projected out of the painting. Looking at the painting in detail and then taking it all in as a whole made me realize the uniqueness and individuality of the painting. The artist Pollock made sure what he was feeling could be seen and felt within the viewer.
ReplyDeleteChristine Algenio
I'm sure I am not only speaking for myself when I say that the idea of building a fence constructed with the use of steel, wire, and nylon fabric to run 24 miles long and 18 foot high, is pretty ridiculous and at first thought, not considered a form of art. The short film The Running Fence, produced by the Maysles Brothers, goes about a documentary of the process and effort it took to approve a piece of land art. At first, Christo and his wife tried desperately for acceptance within the community. The entire process was difficult, but at the same time extremely fascinating. By allowing the audience watching the video to view the before hand process of how hard it was for a whole community and government to enable a huge piece of art to be placed onto land, it makes us deeply appreciate the effort put forth from beginning to end. It also makes us realize that whatever you choose to believe is art, then so be it. So as the video was ending, it completed the intimate connection we grew to have while viewing the process by taping how the fabric draped, how the wind gusted against it, how you can view it from far away and see the sun beam at it. All showing its beautiful aesthetic and engineering beauty. It also reverts our attention to the land we live on and the water that surrounds us. All in all, this work of art enables people to think of their own life in an artistic way itself.
ReplyDeleteLiza Cena
the video we watched in class about Christo was very interesting. it gave me a different perspective in art.at first i questioned about his running fence. it was very odd to me that this can be art. when i think of art i think about drawings, pictures, sculptures... but never did i think this would be art. after seeing the completion of the running fence i noticed that during sunset and sun down the curtains caught the colors of the sun.that really caught my eye on how beautiful it looked. the color that was on the curtains really looked amazing. It looked as if it was a moving picture. After Christos work im pretty sure alot of people have shifted their ways of thinking in the concept of art.
ReplyDelete-Kenneth Oh
I really liked the documentary that was shown in class. “Running Fence” was an interesting idea for an installation piece. However, as the documentary quickly showed, it really wasn’t about the fence at all. It was about the people involved with the project. Whether it be the naysayers who didn’t believe it was art, to those in the community who fell in love with the idea, and spent countless hours helping to see it done. The one thing that didn’t sit well with me was Cristo’s ignorance of the nature concerns in making his fence. By going ahead and doing it anyway, I didn’t see him as brave or a maverick, but rather a reckless fool who valued his art project more than the life and ecosystem of the animals around him. I realize the hypocrisy in saying this as I am not a vegetarian/vegan, but I still feel that it has merit to say he was not completely justified in his actions.
ReplyDeleteI really found the photo by Shirin Neshat very very interesting. This girl seems like shes goin through a lot but doesn't know who to talk to. Its almost like the gun is listening to her. Almost like thats the only thing thats sound right to her at this point in her life. Maybe she been thinking about killing herself. Thats probably why the gun is near her ear because thats the only thing thats sounds right to her right about now at this time in her life.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Spencer