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.