Molly Parker Smith

I chose Molly's piece because it really popped out to me. It wasn't really colorful or shocking so I'm not sure exactly why it popped out at me. It may have been because it looked alive with the way the babies were "rolling" around. The mom figure had a distinct face that kind of drew me in. I feel like the piece possessed all the elements of art except for maybe value. The colors were pretty straightforward. The "animals" in the piece were very soft looking and had two basic colors: red and white so in a way the piece was aesthetically pleasing due to it's simple color scheme and the seemingly innocent scene it portrayed. Ironically, even though the piece was pretty soothing in my opinion, Molly was inspired by her fascination of watching animals, in particular deer, decay. She said her fascination with death and the idea that we don't quite know when it's coming mixed with her vivid imagination sprouted her work. You can't really see it in the picture, but the "babies" have visible rib cages and the mom has a very bone-like spine that she said was also inspired from the deer carcass.



Billy Fry

Again, I'm not completely sure why this piece drew me in, but it did. I can speculate it is because the color scheme, the style of painting, the eyes of the dude in the picture but I'm not completely sure why I found it more interesting than the others. It could have also been the look in the guy's eyes. Very serial killer 'esque, so whether I wanted to look at it or not, it still had a very memorable look that I thought was cool. It's safe to say this painting had all the elemental qualities of art: line, shape, texture, value and color. The piece was very aesthetically pleasing because of the color scheme and the look in the eyes of the guy. This was actually a self portrait of Billy, the artist, himself. When I found out it was a self portrait it scared me that someone looked like that on campus and I feared for my life, but after seeing and hearing Billy I was no longer afraid for two reasons.
1. The drawing did not really look like him and I think it was supposed to be a little overexaggerated which was relieving, and
2. He was a really nice guy who did not seem like a serial killer.
Billy said he wanted it to be shadowy and he liked how the red modeled things. He said the colors: red, white, and blue ironically were not meant to be patriotic but were meant to represent confusion and frustration.

The two works were pretty much completely different in their meaning and layout: one being a painting, the other being an actual 3 dimensional scene. They both used red in their work. Reading the explanations also answers the question of how the works are similar and different.

Chapter 4 - Why is Art Really Valued

"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be."

This was a quote from Walter Benjamin in the chapter that really caught my eye. With the emergence of the printing press in the mid fifteenth century images could finally be reproduced and recreated for the world to see. This was positive for the people because it allowed those who would not have been able to see the original work before to see it in a re-created format. However, like Benjamin said, this created a new argument for artists with the question of authenticity. Before mass production and the internet artists did not really need to worry about authenticity because chances were if artist A made it then they probably did not steal the idea from anywhere. Nowadays, with the vast amount of information available to an artist the public may worry about whether an artist's work of art is really that good or if they stole an idea from somewhere else.

The Benjamin quote really reminded me of our discussions about Pollack paintings specifically. Obviously, Pollack was well known for his almost "childlike" paintings with spattered paint randomly thrown on the canvas, but his paintings are pretty much priceless today. Chances are if I did a 'pollack' style painting and tried to sell it in an art museum it would not sell for much. This is because even though I could pretty much replicate the paintings he did it does not have that aura around it that Benjamin talks about in the chapter.

I think the aura, the story or the meaning behind the work of art may make it more marketable rather than the art itself. That is why child prodigies or artists who have become rather myth-like (i.e. Van Gogh) can sell their paintings for so much money.

Scott Adams Quote Response

I think the statement means that if you do not take chances you will limit your own creative ability. Taking a chance involves risk, so giving yourself the option of failing can unleash your creativity. It kind of makes me think about the evolution of music. Imagine the first person to ever play the guitar or drums. They probably did not worry about making mistakes and screwing up and throughout the course of history think of all the creative guitar riffs/ drum solos. The second part of the statement means that after you have experimented and allowed yourself to make mistakes the positive of your work is the art of it.
I definitely agree with the first part of the quote that creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. I think if everyone was set to a rigid standard and guidelines no one would be able to think differently. However, I disagree with the second part of the sentence to a certain extent. I think in some trades/professions the second statement applies (the art of brain surgery), but how does one define mistake? Since art is such a broad and ambiguous term and means so many different things to people I think making a mistake in art could also mean different things to different people. You hear the phrase, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. One person may view something as a mistake, or trash, and another person may see it as treasure, or true art. It really is all a perspective thing.

Am I a Voyeur?

Yes and no (sorry to be that guy). You are a voyeur watching almost any film/show because the people in the film aren't supposed to know you're there (unless it's something like The Office where Jim looks to the audience at times). However, the actors themselves know an audience is going to come watch the movie so since they know an audience will be watching them eventually it makes us not voyeurs in a way. Watching a movie where I'm a voyeur doesn't make me feel embarrassed because it's not weird to watch movies even if the actors don't know you're watching them. It's not the same as if I was watching someone in real life out of my window. If I was doing that I would feel creepy.

Chapter 3

The power of the gaze in art is one of the most important aspects to a piece, or work of art. Most of the famous works of art that interpellate the viewer draw them into a gaze. When an artist discovers how to draw a viewer/spectator into the gaze they have developed a special skill that will undoubtedly make their work (at the least) more entertaining and most likely more popular among spectators. It was interesting to read about the history of the gaze in western art. Even in the earliest years of western culture women have been revered as objects of a man’s gaze. The book portrays several paintings proving the validity of that statement. As art progressed the portrayal of women as the focal point of the gaze in western culture still held firm. Today, this is STILL the case. Think about how much art has changed the past 300 years of western culture with computers, breakthrough techniques, etc. and one thing has remained the same: the allure of woman in art, advertisements and visual media. That really struck me as I thought about it. And I don’t think it will ever change. Obviously women are not the only thing in art that are used to draw viewers (especially males) into a gaze, but they are the most prominent in our culture. One thing that has changed about the gaze and sexuality is that the male, who was once seen as only a physical being in art, is becoming more feminine in his portrayal. Pictures like the cologne ad in the book are evidence that males are striking more feminine poses because of the changing viewers and society. The book talked about the cultural aspects that affect the gaze and what kinds of social anomalies artists are beginning to target. Artists of the future will begin to analyze the cultural aspect even more and implement both men and women as sexual figures in their art to draw the audience into the gaze.
Not only is the figure in the art a focal point for artists but so is the setting. The picture of the models working in the fields was supposed to have an exotic flair to it for the clothing company which in turn is supposed to draw viewers into buying the clothes. For men, I think the women in the picture are enough to be drawn to this particular clothing line. For women, however, the exotic location may show a unique aspect to the clothing company that they desire. Often times I hear people talk about how the way something is advertised does not affect them and that they in fact buy on pure unbiased impulses. Despite what they believe I think the way something is advertised and if the viewer is drawn into a gaze is highly influential in their decision whether they know it or not.