Homework-- 11/20

BRING IN ALL OF YOUR PROJECTS FROM THIS SEMESTER NEXT WEEK! YOU WILL BE REVIEWING THIS WORK INDIVIDUALLY WITH ME.

We are close to the end of the semester, so you should be focused on your final projects and making them GLORIOUS! Remember fundamentally there is CONCEPT and there are FORMAL academic elements to be considered in the creation of this final piece. What are you doing? What are the parameters you must follow to achieve this goal? How are going about accomplishing this?

Sadly, it is not enough that you make art these days, you must be able to articulate your making it. To be successful you must have some semblance of a competent answer--even if it is exploratory art making. You may simply set up parameters or want to work within a specific medium or at a certain time of day or delve into a concept and see where it takes you. Awesome! However, you need to be able to express for a critical audience.

While we discussed early in this class the concept of AUDIENCE/ VIEWER and the conversation your work will have with them, you can always chose to ignore the audience (though you cannot be ignorant to it!!!!). 

REMEMBER: AUDIENCE and CRITIC are two separate beasts ENTIRELY! As Rabia stated in class today, critics and elitism can be some of the worst things to happen to your art, so BE AWARE of who you are making art for.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/560088 (AWESOME SAUCE!! WATCH!!)
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/weekend-update-guest-jebediah-atkinson-snarks-historys-greatest-speeches-on-snl/ 

FUNDAMENTALLY I want you to always ask who you are as an artist and why it is you make art. We will be reflecting on your own personal growth during the course of this class, ad where you hope to go from here. Make sure your artist statement for this class (minimum 1 page) needs to speak about you as a creator and your goals/ problems/ frustrations/ specific work. It does not need to be overly long, but should cover what you need to say. This is DUE with your final project.

Though we have looked at MANY examples, here are some links for you to see different artists talking about their work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aREk3XH8aGg (Lorde)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaK0YBA8Lss (M.I.A.)

http://www.therawbook.com/2013/11/18/nataliaroman/ (directed interview format)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ridley-howard/nudes-in-venice-interview_b_3437912.html

what is art?

1. A piece of art exists depending on who you ask.  I once argued that everything is art, from the pencil on my desk to the fallen trash on the streets.  In trying to argue my side I realized the flaw in my theory.  How can art exist if there isn't at least one person that can acknowledge the art?  Though the fallen trash held my attention as temporary art, it existed as art solely because I found meaning in what I saw.  I’m not saying that art only exists if it has a deep meaning; I believe that art can be found in something that is purely decorative as well.  Art can found through sound, words, paints, decaying objects. It doesn't matter so long as one person can call it art and explain why.

2. An artist isn't only a painter or a sculptor; an artist can be someone who possesses an impressive skill in their profession.  For example skilled carpenters can be artists at what they do. The title can be exclusive or inclusive.  It’s the same as asking what is considered art.

3. Art is necessary; it records time in a way that most textbooks ignore.  Art is limitless in a world full of structure.  Without art, the world would be dull and meaningless.  Art crosses political boundaries without fear of disapproval.  Art cries for those who are tired of crying alone.  Art brings laughter and beauty on streets full of disappointment.  Art is necessary.

4.  Depending on what kind of art I’m looking at I change my expectations.  If I’m looking at a decorative piece of art, I decide whether or not the image keeps my attention long enough to be considered objectively appealing.  The one question that I ask for all art before seeking extra information is, “Does this piece make me want to continue looking at it, or do I just want to keep walking by?”  Sometimes it’s necessary to know the artist’s intent.

There is definitely good art and bad art.  There are no universal guidelines that differentiate good and bad art.  Viewers, art critics, instructors, they are all going to have their own idea of what is good and what is bad.  Some people will say good art sells; some think that good art has to be emotional and inventive.  That’s why good and bad art changes.  When Van Gogh was alive his art wasn’t considered good art, and now it is.  The difference from when he was alive to now is that the viewer changed. 

wtf IS art?

What is Art?

I hate this question. I'm not sure I can define it; who can? Why does it need a definition? Why does there always need to be a reason? I suppose art is a type of language. It helps one speak in ways that's words can't do. It's visual expression I guess. Personally, I feel like art isn't a blue canvas with a yellow dot in the middle...why? Because that's not creative to me. Creativity and imagination should come from deep within, it should take some effort.

 

What is an artist?

It's me. You. Us. We. Everyone can be an artist. Anyone can create. The title isn't necessary because anyone can be.

 

Why make art?

I don't know, why? I make art because its required in my classes. I make art because I've always had it in me. I make art to make money. I make it to express myself. Why NOT make art?

 

How do you asses art?

I hate assessing art. Why can't it just be? When the viewer makes an assumption, when they read a really deep and psychological story out of a painting, I feel as if the painting is almost ruined. I realized this while taking art history....UGH! I don't think there needs to be a reason for everything.

What is Art? - Amy Wynia

 

Art is creativity.  It’s what comes through hard work, skill, or even inheritance.  Art doesn’t have to be what one understands, but what the creator themselves understands and loves.  An insight to one’s imagination is what becomes of art.  The perception of a viewer can be changed.  Art is what opens minds and spreads a message for others.  There’s no way one can limit what art truly is.  Art can be seen as something being as simple as the way a water drop creates a splatter form upon a surface.  Art can be seen in so many different ways.

            An artist is one who creates art or has their own expertise upon an area they’re good in.  They bring forward new ideas to others to broaden one’s eyes.

            Making art allows others to express how they feel and express their imagination and thoughts.  Sometimes one can’t speak what they want others to know, and express it correctly, but if they are able to draw, dance, or paint it out, that’s what art is.  Art allows communication in a way that one can’t completely explain.

            There’s no distinction between “good” or “bad” art.  Art is assessed upon how one views it, and everyone views things completely different.  Art really depends on one’s preference and that varies widely.

What is art?


Art is something that requires a high degree of skill to produce

Art is something that requires personal, individual expression

I think that art can be functional, and something functional can be art. I think that the intentionality that is put into a piece is key in separating art from simply an object.
Art does not have to be liked by a viewer, but good art should allow someone to appreciate it regardless of whether they like it or not. This is tricky because if you don't like it, how do you appreciate it? This is why I think art requires a high degree of skill.

Art can be either conceptually or technically based. Either way it is the skill set of the artist and how they choose to use it that defines a piece. The artist in many ways allows a piece to be art, but there is still a component of audience that defines whether or not a piece is truly art.

While someone defining themself as an artist vs a craftsman etc is important, I think that personally saying "I'm an artist" is not a legitimate definition

I think that an artist is someone who makes good art - someone who has the skills to make a work that can be liked by some for an emotional reason, and appreciated by many for it's technical aspects

I think that this is in some ways an exclusive title - It comes with a standard. I am not sure whether or not titles are necessariy. While I think that maybe an academic standard or opinion of who is and who is not an artist is somewhat ridiculous, I feel that just because someone makes a painting does not make him/her an artist either.

Art is indispensably unnecessary - It is a dichotomy in human nature to need art, while art is totally irrelevant to life.
Art is necessary. It is an expression of experience, opinion, emotion on a level that reaches deeper than words. Art is also personal. So art is necessary to express these things as an artist, and to create something beautiful.

Art is also superfluous. Art is not necessary to function or to survival. That is why it is art, it goes beyond what is actually necessary in a way that is necessary.

I assess art first on how I feel about it - My instinct as to whether it is good or bad. This is not necessarily the best way to assess a piece, but it is practical: "Do I like it?"
Second, I look to it's formal qualities - Is it well made? Is it thought out?
Third, does it have a message? is that message to be beautiful?
I I think that the best art should be pleasing to look at formally, and that it should not be reserved for a highbrow audience. I think that highbrow vs lowbrow does exist - hence the elitist academic world of art. However I think that such categories are a messed up system that chokes art and creativity with ideas of concept and meaning above beauty/the unnecessary ornamentation of life

I think that a truly successful piece of art is one that holds a concept or meaning while retaining a sense of  the unnecessary. A balance between the necessary expression of feeling and the unnecessary ornamentation.

meaningful art

1) I believe that art is too broad to describe and encompasses all crafts and tasks taken to an emotionally powerful level.
2) artist in my opinion is someone who achieves the title. I believe that it takes many years of success and achievement to be considered an artist. I personally hate how the word is thrown around but artist does not just include fine art it can be pushed into realms of culinary, fashion, design and many other categories.
3) the reason to make art is to leave a mark on society. if you have not produced anything that can live past your death its almost like you did not exist.
4) I don't think art can be assessed but the existence of good and bad art is present. I think the way it can be gauged would be through thought and originality. also by capturing the desired attempt of imagery or presentation.

Whats ams art?

The technical definition of art is the expressive application of creative skill or imagination. This definition lacks all of the romanticization that the world of art embraces, but it does tell how artists  universally approach their work. From the painstakingly rendered tenebrism of Caravaggio to Picasso's cubism, and from Chris Burden's trans-fixed to Slayer; the world of art has always had the mission of transferring human imagination and emotion into "physical" form (can be sensed by any of the five human senses).

The purpose of art is the mark it leaves in history (this purpose does not need to be intentional) of how human tradition is in the different environments of days of yore and beyond. All art is a reflection (from one degree to another) of the environment in which the artist lives. The "physical" manifestation of this reflection is the imagination and emotion of the artist brought to life.

The word "artist" can be a very inclusive word. It can also be very exclusive. Whether or not an artist will actually be accepted as an "artist" can be entirely dependent on the opinion of a surrounding population. In reality, anyone can consider themselves an artist. Because art is nothing more than the praxis of invention and emotion, anything can be called into consideration on any terms without any boundaries.

The distinction between "high" and "low" art is a social construct. What the wealthy and "in" crowd love is high art and anything else is low art. The distinction does not matter unless an artist considers artistic success to be driven by popularity and money.

What is art? Joe

Joseph Millard

Cornelia Oliver

11/19/2013

     Art has been, in modern context, on this planet for over 60,000 years. It has changed and continues to change in its definition and context. It is a very difficult thing to try and define, since so many different forms have been generally accepted as art, though a general theme is, "Art is art if an artist deems it so". A person must recognize the existence of art and what hand people play in making art, then after that, is when art has a tendency to be made. The term art is usually applied for pieces made either, not for the purpose of purchase through a mass market and doesn't explicitly serve a utilitarian purpose. That being said, some art has been established that HAS been sold for mass market and HAS been made that does serve a utility. 

   An artist is a person that recognizes that they make art. An artist could be a person that occasionally will paint, but spends their days putting computers together. An artist is a title and with titles come certain expectations and duties. An athlete that doesn't use their body for sports or physical activity wouldn't be considered and athlete by societal standards, but does that change what that one person thinks of themselves? What value is there in claiming to be something and/or being recognized as a title? Does it affect what a person does or doesn't do? Should a person be defined solely by their vocation, disposition, or nature? 

   The relevance of art has been questioned from its inception and forced to fit within societal guidelines, yet it has also broken out of the constraints of communal thought to change perception. Art will always remain relevant; as long as people create boundaries, guidelines, and rule it is through the revolution of art that people can peacefully object to what is taken for granted, taken as the norm. Art is as necessary to life as any other form of communication as it is through communicating with other people that ideas can be shared and spread.

  Art is assessed through many different criteria, whether or not that is a good thing or bad. It can fall into different categories where, based on those guidelines, can be graded and fall into "bad" or "good". All art SHOULD be approached with a sense of altruism, with the sole intent of assessing a piece to be helping the artist think about other perspectives and ideas to help them with understanding, so future pieces can change as quickly as the person changes with it. Art should be so altruistic that there are no good or bad pieces of art, but that isn't what happens; when a person latches onto an idea ostensibly, then they have stopped growing and have created guidelines for themselves. Ideas should be malleable and subject to change as more information becomes available. It is through these people, that do not change and cannot accept change in a COMPLETELY open way that Art is deemed bad or good, though artist intent is something else entirely. If an artist deems something bad, for the intent of being a bad piece of art, then is it bad? How do you assess? Within a category of art that has rules? As something new? Does it challenge any sort of convention? If so, does that make it a good piece of art? And when it comes to forms of art (high or low), the only clear distinction should be how the artist perceives what they do. Does a cartoonist look up to a vivid expressionist? Does a sculptor look upon paintings with a longing to be born into the life of a painter? It is up to the artist how they want to view themselves, and if an illustrator wants to change how her work is viewed in the light of 'High or Low', then it is up to her how to proceed. As for me, no, I don't think of high or low art as being different. Just different perceptions of the same thing.

(Insert Broad and Vague Title about the Definition of Art)

I feel as though art is everything inside and outside of one's own mind. Much like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Art is that which is designed, or created. It has an artistic process in which it is manipulated and moved so that way it may move others. It involves skill (through either the aesthetic or the concept).  Art is intentional. Sometimes the artist manipulates the intent, or it is simply created within the mind of the viewer. Art is actually anything that is considered art. That which is not art is what has never been considered art. So that tree in the forest that falls, that no one hears, the noise that it makes is not art. It is what does not exist. Not to say that what does exist IS art.

            Artists are the creators of such intentions. They are the manipulators of their surroundings and the architects of perception. They skillfully catch the viewer through either aesthetic or concept. The title is not exactly necessary, but it is helpful. The title of artist embodies such a broad and complex idea, much like the title of love or beauty.

            Art should be made, because without art, life has no marrow; no substance. Life becomes a sort of hot water with no teabag. Art is one of the strongest forms of communication. In ancient times, on the walls of caves, mankind didn’t write out his/her thoughts. We drew what we saw. We attempted to recreate our perception in the most raw and unprecedented form of communication.
            Art must be assessed in a organized manner. A set of ground rules should be established if we ever want to criticize art effectively. first of all, comparisons might have to be made, this is why art history is so important. We must understand where we are coming from if we ever want to know where we are going. Next, we must look for the intent of the artist. Was the artist attempting to create solely for aesthetic pleasure? Or is there a concept involved? A message? When criticizing art, it is always good to know what the artist intends for us to see. The difference between good and bad is an extremely subjective judgment. Even with ground rules to criticize artwork, we are still placing our own judgments and experiences behind the piece of artwork. The distinction between high brow and low brow is art that has been done skillfully, and the artist has obvious talent, or art has been done unskillfully, despite having a sound concept. This distinction is unfair, and much like many other annoying distinctions placed upon society, it may change, but only with time and attention.

What is art??? -Jeffrey

What the Hell is Art?

Art is such a broad term to try to define. I always thought art was all popsicle sticks and elmer's glue when I was young, and in a way i was right in thinking that. On the other hand I had no clue that art was as powerful as I have came to see it. now.

When you think of what really influences a culture or a society most people would say it's the food, clothing, and maybe the architecture. The art, not really anything else. I feel like the art defines us as cultures. We appreciate it in many different forms around the world. 

This brings me to wonder what art really is? Is it strictly paint on canvas or graphite on paper? I think no. Anything can be considered art and many things are. Its impossible almost for me to think of something I don't perceive as art. From the finger paintings stored away in a box somewhere to the laptop I type this on. 

I think as artist we must all strive to grasp our own personal interpretations of art, and thus life, because what else s art but a capture of life. Both very complicating terms that I believe have a interconnected relationship that will forever grow with us.

Homework: Art Questions.

* I guess in a more definition approach I guess I would say that art is the use or application of imagination, creativity, and skill to create a  visual form (although it doesn't just have to be visual) which results in a combination of meaning, content, emotional response or is aesthetically interesting. But it's hard to draw the line between what is and isn't art, and based off of that definition pretty much anything can now be considered art, which may or may not be a bad thing. I may not see a backpack as art because for me it was not made with the intention of conveying a meaning, response, or aesthetics, but someone else may see it as art. Neither person is right or wrong in this case but I guess it comes down to the individual.
* I think the title of artist can sometimes become weird, there have been several times when I've told people that I'm majoring in art studio and they respond with, " Oh so are you an artist or an Artist?" Seeming to imply that one is better than the other. Because of this I sometimes think people see an artist (not Artist) as some hobbyist crafter who isn't truly passionate about art. Whereas an Artist is person showing exclusively in galleries, going to art events and living (perhaps cliche) art life. I don't think that is necessarily fair to separate the two, in both cases they are passionate and make art.
* We make art as a way to express ourselves in a way that other forms and material can't accomplish. We paint, draw, act, etc in a way that allows us to express an emotion, desire, passion, or dream that we want to share and experience with others.
* I assess art based off if it gets a response out of me, particularly if I find an interesting narative or story to the image, whether or not I like the image. I always find myself being drawn more to the images that hold a story for me, with interesting or pleasing aethics to enhance that experince. If I'm bored with it or get the point right away then it holds no interest, but if I want to keep coming back to it then there is obliviously something there for me to experience and engage with. If I can no longer engage with it, it is hard for me to enjoy it as art.

ART

I think art is any motion of life that one finds is worth there   time to master. One of the things that distinguishes you from the others is your perception. Your perception even though finite can have infinite possibilities. An artist is a person that has found elegance within a certain craft. For some the elegance may be non-elegant and may include painting fresh blood all over a wall and calling it "Art" but that motion is not the point. For others an ink pen or paintbrush will subdue to being conventional enough for them to feel accepted. A major part of art for most is acceptance of expression and knowing that your perception is worth its weight in gold within criteria of the self. When observing daily actions one can sometimes find artistic elegance within the smallest qualities of the world. Sometimes I find elegance when a bus driver pules up two inches parallel to the curb or even when someone composes themselves well against a person that has no composure. I think we all have artistic qualities within but the the thing that distinguishes artists is that we have noticed these qualities that are possible. Once noticed it becomes a finite world with infinite possibilities. In regards towards the assessment of artwork I personally only assess an artist's work relative towards there idea. If there idea is to stick the middle finger towards the government than i am looking for a middle finger composed so well that it could be said it is the hand from 85% of the population. The only time art can be good or bad is when you relate it towards your ideas and expect.... Art when assessing is about relativity and how relative it is towards you and your comrades.

Homework: 3/7 (to be posted to blog) DUE: by beginning of class 11/18

Answer the following questions, to the best of your ability:

1. What is art? (you do not have to limit yourself to visual art, but you should think about what this means. Think about art v/s design v/s artistry v/s draftsmanship v/s craftsmanship v/s creativity v/s communication and language, etc. In thinking about WHAT ART IS, consider WHAT ART ISN'T and WHY)


2. What is an artist? Is this an exclusive or inclusive title? Are titles necessary?


3. Why make art at all?


4. How do you assess art? (What makes art successful? Is there such a thing as "good" art v/s "bad"? Does the distinction between "high brow" and "low brow" exist? Should it?) 


Fun links:

http://hennessyyoungman.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/HennesyYoungman
http://hyperallergic.com/49261/the-problem-with-hennessy-youngman/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzixKZp_a0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soren-petersen/what-is-art_b_1938274.html

http://www.walkerart.org/calendar/2013/painter-painter

Keep working on your FINAL PROJECTS!! Dig deep and look for those things that make this piece UNIQUE and interesting. Why are you making it at all? What are you trying to say?

Painting II: Figure Painting FINAL PROJECT

Models in class: 11-13 through 12/2

DUE: 12/4
Your FINAL painting(s) is/are completely open (materials/ technique/ concept) and will be a culmination of your experience in this class. This work should express who you are as a figurative painter and demonstrate your acquired knowledge of paint, composition, and surface. You may not use toxic materials or techniques in class, but are free to add them on your own time.

PARAMETERS:
Must incorporate some element of all three models in class. Must have well-­‐articulated artist statement. 

You will need to have ALL of the work you have done for this class posted and up to date!