ARCHIVE - Creating a Conceptual Framework for Images - Week 5

ARCHIVE - on manifestos

sanshe07 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:35:48 -0800

im going to start out with my least favorite manifesto and end with the best so here goes.

Cyborg manifesto-

in reference to paragraphs 1-5 we are not currently cyborgs but could be moving closer to that as the world progesses, which would suggest that we as humans are getting smarter, but i feel that this is not the case please watch idocracy. Cyborg world cannot help to have a genisis because it comes from the current world and there must also have an end; unless the aurthor is talking about a completely made up world in which case it still has a genisis.

in refernce to paragraphs 5-9 this not necessily true considering the cyborg is both machine and organic. What parts are organic? there in lies the flaw of the cyborg. This essay makes no sense considering the "cyborg" started out as fact and seems to be a fictional character. " many branches of femist culture affirm the pleasure of connection of human and other living creatures" -- what is she talking about wicca that is a religious/belife based practice not feminism. as far as animal rights we as people have a responisiblity to protect the earth and that includes the animals on it. Paragraph8- so cyborgs are notw animasl and machine? and why do they need partners of any kind male/female? paragraph 9 who builds the cyborgs? people? what happens to them? are cyborgs smart enough to fix themselves? then they would need brains from old humans there fore harboring old ideals and thoughts (especally since the author keeps suggesting compaininship of some sort) with this in mind cyborgs will not make anything better... unless you can make them with orgaic parts that don't have emotion, but that would be impossible of you want them to evolve.

ARCHIVE - plato's allegory

mcajul15 — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:02:41 -0800

Plato's Allegory of the Cave contains a lot of ideas that I've been mulling over lately. This is the first time I've read this, and it concisely paraphrases many many conversations I have overheard in Olympia (and on the Evergreen campus in particular). It seems that ascending into the light represents the life choice of the intellectual/artist/poet/philosopher/thinker (etc), while staying buried in the dark of the cave represnts the life choice of "other people" (you know, the people who eat at McDonald's three times week, don't consider watching "Surviv

ARCHIVE - artist statement?

motcar14 — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:58:35 -0800

I didn't know how to make a new forum topiccc???!!! Now that every one knows what we should be doing our artist statements on, lets post them!

“She will be another's. As she was before my kisses. Her voice, her bright body. Her infinite eyes………
because through nights like this one I held her in my arms
my soul is not satisfied that it has lost her.
Though this be the last pain that she makes me suffer
and these the last verses that I write for her.”-Pablo Neruda.

ARCHIVE - play-dough haha

lewkyl13 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:16:54 -0800

At first I was confused as to why we were reading the allegory of the cave for our photography class. I have read it many times in my philosophy classes but never with a photographic connotation. But then I wrote this next paragraph, so…

Photography attempts to shed light on the part of life that people might overlook when trying to conceptualize reality. Tiny coincidence or synchronicities that shed light on the dynamic reality that we exist in. many people overlook these kinds of tinny comical or meaningful moments of “truth” (I like to call them); just like the poor souls trapped in the cave (on a completely other level however) are condemned to accept there miniscule/unexamined life as “truth” because it is all they will ever know. That is…until the “enlightened one” or photographer (though many of us are far from such self-control most of the time, but, sometimes we see, and we capture the moment, thus, bringing the meaning or connotation to the forefront of society and humankind, for the benefited of us all. Hopefully bringing it with so much conviction that it inspirers the imprisoned individuals to break there metaphorical chains harnessing them to there conventional “tethered” belief system, and—even if it is just for a seconded—climb out of the dark cave and see that there are an infinite amount of colors and textures that cascade over the “true” silver gelatin print of really; and the only life they knew, was never the same.

ARCHIVE - HELP FOR ARTIST STATEMENT

hailau12 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:09:23 -0800

http://www.artistsfoundation.org/art_pages/resources/resources_arts_statement.htm

ARCHIVE - Week 5, Sharrett

shaste05 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:31:51 -0800

I need an alarm clock that wails me in the head and runs away so I am unable to shut it off...

Once again I am much more greatly intriuged by the variety of subject matter of this reading then many of the writer's vivid, yet unecessary allegories and metaphors. Most intriguing was the survey of sixities and seventies art and the idelogies challenged in these generations, it sort provided a baseboard for was has been achieved and what is still lacking in the art world today. If sixites established a "democracy of means,"and the seventies challenged the "'art' structure" then where are we left as a generation of artists and what did the eighties and ninties hold for "art," what ideologies were established and fallacies were destroyed; these are all questions I must know as an artist, not only to avoid repetition, but to know in what ways I can challenge myself and my "art" by challenging untouched notions. If all has been said and done about "art" itself that can be said and done, I don't want to discuss it in my "art", not primarily at least, I want to focus on what needs be said, perhaps because it hasn't, or hasn't been said in the most effective ways.

ARCHIVE - gestures

smieri24 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:03:00 -0800

Brian O’Doherty Pgs. 63-113

Eric Smith

When Brian O’Doherty claims that, “gestures are a form of invention,” he speaks to the idea of assigning value to an art (69). Of course it is true that when someone or an audience values a particular act or gesture, the ideas within can cause considerable movement in the grand arena of art. Transforming a gallery space while navigating around the existing art, as Marcel Duchamp managed in his 1942 installation Mile of String, seemed like a catalyst for movements in the world of gallery art and likely spawned the idea of art installation. However, I begin to question whether the Duchamp’s work is an original gesture, as O’Doherty has stated that “they [gestures] can only be done once, unless everyone agrees to forget them” (69). Is the building of a grand temple or pyramid not the ultimate art installation housing all the forces of Earth and God? Inside an Egyptian pyramid, all the services of nature are allowed to create their own works of art. Spider webbing in amazing forms, wind and water sculpting away at stone, bateria slowly decaying a dead leader…all lead to a long term art installation. But this is called something else, I suppose, because art installation is so very temporary in modern times. The impermanence of art and the perversion of art built by the meager faculties of the human memory are troubling to the purist. But what of the exploration of thought that comes out of rediscovering the gestures that resurface for exploration? I am constantly going back to previous work in hopes that I will discover the missing key to make that gesture more than a “young project” and more of a future entity with purpose and intrigue. In so far as O’Doherty seems concerned, I would be willing to speculate on the future that the art gallery will become no more than a place where consumers go to buy valued objects. The art that is young and invigorating happens elsewhere in space and time. Nevertheless, somewhere the gestures of thought will manifest and multiple to eventual die or evolve, and perhaps we will call these spaces which harbor these manifested ideas something else but resemble everything that came before.

ARCHIVE - "let sleeping art lie"

donand10 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:59:30 -0800

“Style in art, whatever its miraculous, self-defining nature, is the equivalent of etiquette in society. It is a consistent grace that establishes a sense of place and is thus essential to the social order.” Is it just me or has O’Doherty acknowledged, for the first time, that art is dependant on the esthetic and original qualities that we as humans make of it. Obviously content plays a huge role in why most of us can relate to and enjoy art, but I’d like to think that style is equally significant. Really, what would paintings be without the personality and stylistic techniques that we find so evident in, Vangoh, Dali, and many other great artists of our time? Would anybody have take the time to dissect a work of art that was absent of intrinsically pleasing value, in the first place? Another quote from the reading which explores this epic battle of esthetics vs. content is found on pg. 82. “Most of the people who look at art now are not looking at art; they are looking at the idea of art…” This must have been true for the critics and art enthusiasts of the seventies, but I also believe that the changes in art are less drastic then O’Doherty might think. I would have to say that in today’s art there is a happy medium between content and esthetics. Most artists these days are craftsmen among many mediums and ways of thought and as time and art evolves most artists have even become craftsmen of content. Therefore I would like to pose this question, would it be possible for a piece, in today’s art world, to be labeled as art when it is merely nothing more than content?

ARCHIVE - response to reading- WOW Factor, by Roan Edwards

edwroa20 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:57:34 -0800

In reading about Duchamp's 1,200 Bags of Coal I was reminded of something James Harris said to us in class. He said art, upon meeting it in a gallery should make you go WOW. So much of contemporary art is striving to just achieve the status of being "contemporary art"; to be included in the canon. But when something, whether it be a piece of art or a squirrel leaping from a branch in a tree, makes you go WOW it has suddenly sparked a curiosity and interest in the world around us. To be wowed means to be touched enough that we want to know more about it, to start inquiring about it. On page 67 Brian O' Doherty does just that, he starts posing questions about 1,200 Bags of Coal; "Who helped him?"," ..how could they be full with coal?", "Who helped him?" etc.. He seems excited to know more.

ARCHIVE - Week five: Dana Gillespie

gildan02 — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:47:30 -0800

"If the white wall cannot be summarily dismissed, it can be understood. This knowledge changes the white wall, since its content is composed of mental projections based on unexposed assumptions. The wall is our assumptions."(page 80) If the atist makes his/her art with this type of knowledge, does the artist limit themselves, does this knowledge hinder the possibilities one can express through their art? Maybe this knowledge imposes itself so much on the art that it loses something in the process. Should an artist approach his/her work first without considering any limits such as the "white wall"?