Helmut Newton, were erotic meets fashion

Continuing on with photographers that take nudes I ran across Helmut Newton. Normally I'm not a fan of nude or fashion photography but for newton I'll make an exception. After looking at some of his work I was thoroughly impressed by the quality of his images. Although many of the images are 40 or 50 years old that contain many of the same qualities that are still used in modern fashion photography. The use of light and contrast in his images are fantastic and follows the artistic nude style. What makes many of his images so fantastic is the contrast between the clothes on the women and the unique background. Many of his models are wearing some kind of lingerie that work perfectly with the background. Although each piece of clothing stands out from the skin of the model it blends perfectly with the background creating an ideal mood. It is becasue of his ability to create this mood that he was so successful as a fashion and nude photographer.

Bill Hesnon's dark nudes

While wondering the internet in search of interesting and unique photography I came across Bill Henson. Bill Henson can probably be classified as a portrait photographer although his pictures are strange and unique. The first, and most notable aspect of his images is how dark they are. Typically portraits are very well lit and allow the viewer to see much of the person who's picture is being taken. Bill Henson does not follow this style. Most of his portraits are unbelievably dark to the point were the only thing you see is a certain part of the body. Some of his images do contain background information like specs of light or a branch but for the most part his background is completely black. In addition to this almost all of his models are nude and are either posed in some odd way or performing some strange action. Because of this it is nearly impossible to determine space and time within the image. With the dark background and poorly lit nudes in the foreground many of his pictures take on a kind of erotic quality. Some appear as if they were taken by a voyeur in the dead of night. becasue of the way he shots and how the light is set upon the images Henson has undoubtedly created his own little style of portraits.

Video games and art

After reading several recent articles over whether videos games can be considered art i decided to jump in and give my opinion. For any who have read my previous blogs I had mentioned that as I see it the difference between art and non art is the intention behind it. If someone creates a piece of so called art just to make money then it no longer becomes art but more of a business venture. In the same way I think that if a game is created specifically to make money then it still falls under the category of being a business venture. Many people, while playing a game, will say that the graphics are beautiful or the landscape is breathtaking. Typically words such as beautiful and breathtaking are associated with things that are aesthetically appealing. however just because something is aesthetically appealing doesn't make it art. If this were true then I could easily claim that food is art, that is as long as your hungry. So although it is aesthetically appealing it doesn't matter because its original purpose wasn't to inspire but to market. There are some games out there that try to go beyond just creating something to market. These games have qualities that were specifically created to be aesthetically pleasing. And not aesthetically pleasing to sell but simply so that players might be inspired and enjoy them. For this reason these games can be considered art although the main purpose behind the game was to sell.
It kinda follows the same idea as movies. there are some movies that are created to express ideas, share thoughts, and inspire audiences. these movies can be considered art because their purpose was not motivated by money or fame. However there are also movies that are created to simply thrill and excite. These movies cant really be classified as art because they were made to either win awards or make money. So it all comes down to what I mentioned earlier. It all depends on the intention and motivation behind the work

Art 108 Charles Ray

Charles Ray is an interesting sculptor who deals with alteration of objects. In many of his pieces he changes around either the size or the materials of everyday objects and makes them appear exact in every way to their real life contour parts. One of the best examples of an objects who's materials he changed was a firetruck. In the piece called firetruck he created a life size fire truck out of aluminum, fiberglass and plexiglass. Except for it looking slightly cartonish it does look like a real life firetruck. In another one of his pieces he alters the viewers perspective by presenting a nude family that are all the same size. This is very disorienting because the viewers minds automatically wants to make the children of the family smaller then the parents. It is also odd becasue one would not typically see the family together holding hands while nude. There are other sculptures that follow the same idea, altering the nude figure. In all Charles Ray is very strange in his art. For many is can be playful becasue of how it alters our perspective, for others it is a look at something that might be uncomfortable or distasteful. For whatever the reason Charles Ray is a very successful artist who has become very well know.

Art 108 Ron Mueck

Looking at work created by Ron Mueck I was thoroughly impressed by both the scale and lifelike quality of his sculptures. Much of his work seems to focus on people and their expressions. This can be seen in the amount of detail in the face of each of his sculptures. This is probably the reason behind the size of his pieces. Because of their enormous size it is much easier to see the little detail in the faces and allows a larger audience to view it at once. Another thing I find interesting about his sculptures is the way each of their body's are positioned. Unlike a typical contrapposto statue most of his pieces are curled up in the fetal position. In Doing this it makes the viewer question what kind of enviroment these statues would normally be found in as well as adding to the story that each detailed face gives. Finally, the fact that almost all of his sculptures are in the nude adds further to the strangeness of the sculptures. All in all his sculptures seem to ask the viewer not only what they think the piece means but also, if the piece were real, what kind of enviroment would each piece be found in. In doing this I think that Mueck not only has the viewer question the sculptures life but also their own personal lives. The strange, odd, and sometimes tragic things that make up each individuals life and past.

Good art and bad art

While in class one day I heard my professor mention that a piece was bad art. Unfortunately I was not paying attention however it got me to thinking if there was such a think as good art and bad art. Since Duchamp's "Fountain" I don't think anything can be considered either good art or bad art. Even before Duchamp I don't think there was any bad art, even though at the time there were many pieces considered bad art. I think the idea of good art and bad art is more a judgment on whether or not a piece follows a particular style or genre. The fact is that since art can be anything and that the purpose of art is to draw forth something from its viewer then nothing can be considered bad art. If someone does not like a piece of art and considers it bad becasue of their dislike for it then the piece still achieves the goal of art is to bring forth an emotion or thought from its viewer. In the same sense becasue every piece of art draws forth some emotion or idea from its viewer then no one piece can be considered better then another so there is no such thing as good art. However, it is possible to say that a piece of art fails to meet the criteria of a style of art. In that case the art isn't so much as bad but unsuccessful in achieving what it was intended to achieve. However some of the best art to have ever come forth was deemed unsuccessful. I think the success of a work of art also has to do with the time it was introduced and viewed. For example there was a time when impasto was considered the material of the masters and oil based paints were for novices only. However now days many people believe that some of the best work ever produced was done so with oil paints. So when looking back through the history of art there really is no good or bad art but just art that was to early for its time.

What is Art

Recently in class we had a debate about what is art. This is an interesting subject because after what Duchamp did with his piece "Fountain" technically anything can be considered art. This was the main point behind his piece. He was such a famous artist at the time that it seemed anything he created was automatically hailed as a great piece of art. So he submitted this piece anonymously under the name of someone else. When it was discovered it was him some did in fact praise it as art while other were offended that he had the gall to mock art in such a way. But the point of the piece wasn't that the piece is art but that art can be anything. The debate we had in class was when a student placed a door into the middle of the river for a project. Although it is not the usual style of art, in terms of contemporary art it is still considered art. However to one student it was not art because there did not seem to be any much effort in creating it. he believed that in order for something to be art there has to be effort in its creation. However he seemed to think the only effort that seemed to count was that of physical effort and not mental. What he probably did not realize is that the student had to think up something that when created would have a certain meaning. For example the meaning of the piece to me was that the river was a doorway to fun. This is because I use to float down the river as a kid and it was one of my best memories. I think in the end that is the difference between art and a prank. Art asks people to think about what it means to them or what was the artist trying to express. It tries to draw forth an emotion or idea from its viewer in a way that is unusual. A prank on the other hand has the purpose of angering the person or audience it is targeting. And although some art does achieve this same effect it is done so for a different reason. I think that as long as the intention of the piece is to expand the mind or make the viewer think and realize the statement the artist is trying to make then it can't be considered a prank. So what art is isn't so much about what the viewer considers to be art but more the intentions behind the piece.

ART 108 Kiki Smith

Kiki Smith has become known as somewhat of a feminist artist. Although she creates in a wide variety of media she is most know for her sculptures. For much of her earlier work she dealt with the topic of feminism and changing the traditional erotic style. However in later years she has focused more on shame. Shame of the body and mind and how people wear their shame. Many of her sculptures depict people in what what would be considered shame full acts such as urinating or being whipped. The idea behind this work is to expose what our society keeps behind closed doors and is considered taboo. Along with this shame subject much of her work deals with relationships with nature. An example of this is her piece "Tied to nature" in which a women is died to the underside of a goat. In all her work seems to delve into our society. The relationship between us as natural creatures and our wanting to hide natural functions and feelings.

ART 108 Louise Bourgeois

After looking at some of the artwork created by Louise Bourgeois it reminded me of movies from the 1950's and 60's. Her piece Spider is like something that would come out of war of the worlds. Many of her sculptures seem to deal with people and problems in their lives and represent some of her own life problems. Although some of her pieces are serious they are done so in playful way that ensures that the viewer does not feel to saddened. Many of her pieces are abstract and ask the viewer to only think and find out what the piece means to them. An example of this i the 3 30 foot tall tower she made that she intended to be the setting and topic for many conversations. It seems as if most of her work does not ask the viewer to join in what the piece means to her but instead asks the viewer what does the piece mean to them. Her most famous piece is "Spider" which is a 35 foot tall spider currently residing at the Lourve.

ART 108 Janine Antoni

Janine Antoni can probably be best classified as a crazy person trapped in an artist body. Many of her pieces deal with a love hate relationship between either her and the object or the object and the viewer. Some of her more famous working involves copying herself or using herself in the piece then altering it in some way. In the piece "Lick and Lather" she created 2 busts of herself, one made from chocolate and the other from soap, and uses them to either eat or bathe with. The more she eats the chocolates the more it is destroyed. The same with the soap. The more she uses it the less the bust looks like her. In one of her pieces she was covered in some kind of sheet then had the sheet covered in a hardening agent that produced a raggedy copy of her an all four. By doing this she created a ghost effect that is both like and unlike her in many ways. One of her most famous pieces is "Loving Care" in which she paints an entire floor using the hair on her head. The continual use of her body for her artwork has made her stand out because of the deep connection she has created with each piece of work that she does.

ART 108 George Segal

George Segal became know for his sculptures of people. Originally a painter he began making sculpture of people. Unlike other artists Segal did not discard the the molds of made of plaster but rather used them as the final product. Because of this his artwork stood out and had a slightly ghostly appearance. After several years of doing this he then began to paint them in monochromatic colors. He also started to blend them in to their environment by adding signs and other street like items and presenting them on the street. His unique style as well as his way of presenting his art work on the street has made him stand out as an artist.

On site installations

Recently I have had several ideas pop into my head concerning on site installations. Normally how this occurs is that I think of the idea as a joke then it evolves into something far more meaningful. One of the ideas I have been playing with has to deal with uniformity and breaking away from the norm. I know this is a very common theme however I hope that I might be able to change it up. What I’m thinking is not so much breaking free from society but breaking away from the planed life. It seems that everyone is following the same model. Basically going to school, then getting a job and working till retirement at which point you play golf until your death. It seems that people in today’s world follow this plan as much as a possible to the point that the only adventure in their lives is their debt and their planned vacations. What I hope to do with these on sight pieces is to represent the repetitiveness of this style of life and show that it is possible to break away. This might be accomplished by doing something as simple as having a bunch of frogs hoping down a hallway one way and having one frog in the group turn down a different path. Another possible idea is to make a maze of cubicles, all of which are grey, and have one of them stand out in some way, either by coloring it or decorating it in a unique way. However I might do it I must be able to represent the idea of a uniform society and a break away from it.

Damien Hirst

Damien Hirst, born in 1965, is a very well know artist whos work seems to focus around death. Not so much depicting death but showing death. Some of his most notable work, such as “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” which depicts a dead shark preserved in formaldehyde, consists of animals cut up and presented in formaldehyde. He is currently a turner prize winner and holds the record for most expensive piece of artwork sold. This piece, entitled “For the love of God” sold for one hundred million dollars and was a human skull completely covered in diamonds. Besides being an accomplished artist Hirst is also know for his opinions on art and how money affects it. He has often said that the only reason some of his artwork sells for so much is because his name is on it. There has also been much controversy around his work because people do not see it as art but simply displaying something dead and grotesque. It will be interesting to see what Hirst produces next. Although it is likely that he will stay true to the theme of death it is impossible to predict what he’ll create or how much it will sell for.

Tempera

After learning a little bit about tempera in art history I decided to find some more information about it. Tempera is a type of paint that uses egg-yolk as its binding agent. The way it is prepared is very precise in order to achieve a perfect consistency. First the desired pigment is placed onto a mixing palette. Then an equal volume of egg yolk is mixed with the pigment. Finally about a teaspoon of water per yolk is added to the mix. Sometimes less or more water is needed depending on the consistency. Of the paint. What makes mixing it so difficult is that if there’s not enough water the paint becomes lumpy however if there’s to much then the paint will run on the canvas. Another challenge presented to the artist is the thickness of the paint. Because tempera is so thin it often has to be added in several layers. However, because of this an artist is able to work on a painting for many years. Because its applied in thin layers it rarely has the deep saturated colors that is provided by the oil paints. However its colors do not change over time like oil paint does.
This type of paint was used for a long period of time ranging from Byzantine to Medieval times. It was eventually replaced by oil paints in the 16th century. However much of the artwork created through the use of tempera can still be seen today in the same way that they were painted almost 2000 years ago. Because of this lasting power tempera has allowed us to see artistic styles and ideas that have long since passed.

Andreas Gursky

Andreas Gursky is a well known german photographer whos first exhibition was in 1989 at the Museum Haus Lange, Krefeld; Centre Genevois de Gravure Contemporaine, Geneva, Switzerland. With his large format textured photography Andreas Gursky has left his mark in the contemporary landscape field. His images often depict detailed colorful areas full of either people or the products of people. Some of his most notable work captures foreign workers working in large factories. These images generally have a unifying theme or color which ties the entire scene together. He finds these scenes around the world and all seem to follow the central theme of landscape created by humans and their waste. What is so amazing about his images is the level of detail in theme. He often prints them wall size which allows people to see fine details in each image. A fantastic example of this is his picture entitled “99 cent” in which it is possible to see each item of food and even the labels on the food in the entire store. Although this might not seem to impressive to some, the level of detail in this image is amazing. But whats more powerful is the message he conveys without trying to convey it. That we are a society of consumption. However he would never say his images take one side or another.

Art 108 Questions for Conceptual Art assignment

1: The viewer is an important element to conceptual art because conceptual art means different things to different viewers. Some people are able to see art when presented with an ordinary object while others only see the ordinary object. If and artist presents an ordinary object as art it is up to the viewer to see the meaning behind that piece and decide if it means something artistic to them.

2: It is difficult for people to accept "Fountain" as art because its an ordinary object that anybody could have easily taken and put into a gallery. What people don't understand about it is that its not that the piece is art its the message behind the piece. The message that art is everywhere and that anything can become art if it inspires or means something to someone.

3: The question posed by Duchamp's readymades is what makes and ordinary object into art. What makes a tree or a piece of paper into art if the artist does nothing to it. The answer to this question is that an object becomes art when people look for the meaning behind it. Weather that meaning is in the actual piece or is a reflection of their own lives.


4: It is hard to categorize conceptual art as traditional art because its non traditional. Up until only recently the only art produced and kept was art that embodied certain artistic values or ideas. This is why most of the art produced in Europe during the 14-16 centuries all looked the same and followed the same artistic style but with minor variations. Conceptual art brook away with suggesting that anything can be art as long as it means something to some one. It is the idea that art does not have to be created on in a certain way but that anything can be art.

5: "Conceptual art is not about forms or materials, but about ideas and meanings" (page 1) This single sentence describes conceptual art fully. That its not about how a piece is created but if there is meaning behind the piece. That anything can be art as long as some one gives it meaning.

Art 108 Transformation

1: Words that describe the object formally. Hard, gritty texture, sharp, tan, white, brown, small, 6-inches tall, heavy for its size, out of the ordinary, tasteless, odorless, sturdy, abrasive, fragile.

2: Words that describe its original function. Portable, held water, used for gardening, used to stop water, used for its weight, can be found through out the world, light by itself, required to stay alive, small, hardy, camouflaged, useful.

The context does not change its function however depending on its location it creates irony. The object that I constructed is a canteen covered entirely with sand. The reason for this is because typically a canteen is used to hold water but in this case it is holding sand and has even become sand. Although dirt does hold water sand does not so by having a canteen made of sand the piece is saying that even though it was designed to hold water, and still can hold water, it shouldn't hold water. Also because there is sand in the desert which is a place you would need a canteen the last thing you would want is a canteen that would blend into the desert if you ever lost it. Finally, because it is heavy and abrasive it would be problematic to carry around.

Modern black and white

1st prize General News Stories
Balazs Gardi, Hungary, VII Network
The Valley, Operation Rock Avalanche, Afghanistan, October
Coming across this image at PopPhoto.com I was reminded of how great black and white photography can be. It seems that ever since things have gone to digital there has been very little in black and white photography coming out. Its gotten to the point were any black and white produced is almost automatically considered old or is art. What i love about this image is both the wide angle and the use of light to highlight some areas and silhouette others. I also enjoy the contrast in between the figures within the image. Finally with the one tree in the center of the figures it makes it seem that these people from different origins are coming together to for one common purpose. The message conveyed from this image would not be any clearer in color and would probably mean less. It is the light and shadows of this image that makes it so unique. It says that it is a dark land but there are rays of hope coming through.

Andy Goldsworthy

After watching the movie on Goldsworhty and some of the things he does I was inspired to go out into the world and and create something. I found it very interesting how he uses nature to create large works of art that are very time consuming. Its amazing how he can see the potential for something such as a twig or a leaf and make it into something that that would most likely be impossible to create any other way. I am curious on how much time he averages on a project and if he has a job outside of being an artist. What I find very interesting is how he uses either circles or lines in almost every one of his pieces. He often stacks things in a circular pattern or is attaching straight lines to make a circular pattern. Most of his work seems to center around the idea of using a circle for the center of the work. I am curious if its because he believes that the circle is the strongest whether its most aesthetically pleasing, or whether he's just doing it on a subconscious level.

Journal entry William Eggleston

"A native Southerner raised on a cotton plantation in the Mississippi Delta, William Eggleston has created a singular portrait of his native South since the late 1960s. His large-format prints monumentalize everyday subjects. Although he began his career making black and white images, he soon abandoned them to experiment with color technology. The Museum of Modern Art's groundbreaking one-man show of 1976, William Eggleston's Guide, established his reputation as the pioneer of modern color photography.

The appreciation of Eggleston's work has come a long way since the 1976 exhibition. He has been called the "father of color photography" - although he did not of course invent it - and since the 1990s he is widely regarded as the leading and most influential color photographer of the 20th century." (http://www.egglestontrust.com/bio.html)

After looking at some of Eggleston's work and reading about his life, as well as watching a movie about his life and his process, I think his fame might be more because he was shooting color photos in a time when every one else was shooting black and white. His images are often of the mundane things in life that any person would be able to capture. I think what makes his images slightly more unique then the average color photographer of that most of his images have several colors that are present through out the entire image. The image I included in the blog is an example of this. Besides this and his unique way of framing the picture and what he chooses to include and exclude I don't see much difference between him and any person taking color images during that time.

Journal Entry

I ran across this Photo at the PopPhoto website and instantly fell in love with it. I believe that this photo is very successful because of both the angle and use of lighting in the image. because of the way the picture is shot it makes it seem as if these little creatures are enormous almost alien like beings. Being so low to the ground creates this illusion because we are not given a frame of reference of the size or scale of these bee's. The use of lighting in creating silhouette's of the bees further enhances this alien like idea. It makes them seem almost unworldly and as if they are spawning from some dark place. Finally the use of limited color in the image is successful. By the shape we already know that they are bee's. What the color does is give us a referecne to make sure they are bees but at the same time still telling us they are dark becasue of the lack of color in the image. It more acts like an anchor into reality. If not the the image might be mistaken for some fantasy but since it is there we know it is reality.

art 341 journal assignment 1 Susan Sontag

1. Photographs function in our culture in many different ways. Some of these include for personal use, media, advertising, art, education, remembering, evidence, information. These uses just scrapes the surface of the amount of things that photo's are used for.
2. Some of the inherent qualities that most people associate with a photograph include generally revolve around truth. People believe that a photograph is absolute truth that something has occurred and even though photo's can be edited people still see it as truth.
3. "That age when taking photographs required a cumbersome and expensive contraption -- the toy of the clever, the wealthy, and the obsessed -- seems remote indeed from the era of sleek pocket cameras that invite anyone to take pictures. The first cameras, made in France and England in the early 1840s, had only inventors and buffs to operate them. Since there were then no professional photographers, there could not be amateurs either, and taking photographs had no clear social use; it was a gratuitous, that is, an artistic activity, though with few pretensions to being an art. It was only with its industrialization that photography came into its own as art. As industrialization provided social uses for the operations of the photographer, so the reaction against these uses reinforced the self-consciousness of photography-as-art." (Susan Sontag) I find this interesting because the use of photography is continually evolving. As new technology comes Photography is used for different. reasons. First it was just for art, then for recording information, and now it is often used in advertising.