2. Which movement do you think
citationism, neo geo, design
I really do not know to much about each movement but from the breif descriptions on google I think I would call it neo geo just from the picture shown at the top of the article.
citationism, neo geo, design
I really do not know to much about each movement but from the breif descriptions on google I think I would call it neo geo just from the picture shown at the top of the article.
3. Do you agree with him when he
disparate movements? Why or
I do agree. Again I am not to familiar with the movements but categorizing his art in different movements does change the piece. As the audience we try and analyze every aspect of the piece, it's size, color, form, space, positing etc. And the idea that the artist presented the piece as a part of a certain movement means a lot. Even though it may not be intentional calling the piece Fluxus is different than calling it Neo Geo.
4. What do you think of the
"Most important, I've never
work has anything to do with
I think he worded this just right. What ever the artist intended is not always translated clearly to the audience especially in the form of huge colorful lines. For all we know he may have been making a memoir based on a childhood toy but a critic might say it's a gay rights protest. Once someone is convinced they might spread the idea. The only thing a viewer has to work with is the pice presented and the title, in this case "too much is not enough."
4. What do you think of the
"Most important, I've never
work has anything to do with
I think he worded this just right. What ever the artist intended is not always translated clearly to the audience especially in the form of huge colorful lines. For all we know he may have been making a memoir based on a childhood toy but a critic might say it's a gay rights protest. Once someone is convinced they might spread the idea. The only thing a viewer has to work with is the pice presented and the title, in this case "too much is not enough."
6. What do you think about his "
still relevant today? Explain
I think that every day as new art is made and new palettes are introduced to us it becomes even more relevant. We have associations with certain forms and colors, for example red and green, and yellow and red. These are the kinds of things that, as an art student, I am taught to stay conscious of, we have to choose wisely. People have these associations and in art they automatically send a message. Something interesting that Armleder points out is that these things that represent other things can sometimes work for you. Some of these shapes can be be used to say something without you having to work to hard. For example, when I draw a lady wearing a red sweater and a green skirt maybe I want the audience to know it's christmas time in my painting. This does not seem like a very good pice but you never know.
8. What does he mean by "
this way of making art?
I am not really clear on what he's saying but it seems that when he talks about the dots he is almost saying those artists were recycling shapes but not meaning anything. The artist are recycling something meaningless so every time it is does it stays meaningless.
8. What does he mean by "
this way of making art?
I am not really clear on what he's saying but it seems that when he talks about the dots he is almost saying those artists were recycling shapes but not meaning anything. The artist are recycling something meaningless so every time it is does it stays meaningless.
11. As an artist do you believe
audience? What's more
I like the way art school works. I like to hear they way people have interpreted my piece to see if I have successfully depicted a message. If not it is interesting to hear what people have though instead and why. Sometimes it is because of the relationship my palette or forms have with other things (recycling). I then get the chance to explain and sometimes convince people otherwise. But if I were to be an artist who did a lot of gallery work I think I would like to just hang my art and title it. The audience can ponder and make up their own mind about it. I feel like in that world, when there are no restrictions art seems to be open for more interpretation. In terms of my success as an artist I would hope that I can put my thoughts down but I would not mind if my art stood for different things to different people, if it started arguments and debate, or if people just didn't get it. Ultimately as long as I'm pleased with the result, enough to publicly display it, I'm satisfied.
12. Refer to the last page for this question. What do you think about Armleder's way, methodology, modus operandi of making art and the way he makes work vis a vis his audience. Do you agree, disagree, find it naive, interesting, condescending, irritating, arty, stupid, transparent, etc (what things do you find it to be)?
I am not gonna lie. I answered questions as I read and I answered number 11 before I got to the last page and I feel like he took the words out of my mouth but just made them sound smarter. So I will say I agree. But with out all that in mind I think it would be hard for me to say someones mode of creating something was stupid, dumb, easy, naive, etc. I think every "artist" does things for a reason and I wouldn't challenge that. I may not like their art but it is their art not mine. If I were to think differently than another artist I don't think I could call their way anything other than not mine, or different, maybe creative.
No comments:
Post a Comment