Reading response 4

Roberta Smith’s article “Who Needs a White Cube,” begins with a statement I found very interesting. “…Reassert the process and mind set of art rather than the product.” I consistently thought of art in a gallery or museum as a finished product of the artist. With out this product there would be no use for galleries or museums. The art fills the white space, giving it life. Working in a gallery now, I am accustom to the repetitive process of finding artists to show, getting them installed, having an opening, and then uninstalling, week after week. Luckily, I’m constantly introduced to different art so the redundancy of the market it less daunting.  Don’t get me wrong I absolutely love it. But I am recognizing the pattern that is taking place in the system. Lately, it has been refreshing to see that artists are finding alternative ways to show their work without being confined to a white cube. Gallery owners are straying away from traditional, static, white walls, allowing artists to take control of the space or let the space speak of what it is or use to be.

In the article “Among the inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance is Bliss,” Erica Goode talks about the ego with in people and what it allows us to see and makes us blind to. I found it extremely interesting that highly conceited people do not realize that they are, causing lower egos to label them ignorant. I can think of many people like that. They are so confidant that they do not realize their own pitfalls. I find it tricky to be a cocky, ignorant artist. Sometimes I wish I were though. It is one thing to be confident in your work and be able to carry the message of it through to the viewers. It is another thing to think that you have the best work of all mankind and all your viewers find it to be complete bullshit. Granted, I know there will always be a combination of these people; maybe being overly ignorant saves from hurtfulness.  It has already been discussed that sometimes in the art world, we have to think we are the best artists out there so other people will believe we are.

The exclusive KUNSTMARKT 67 introduced in Christine Mehring’s “Emerging Market,” spawned an innovative way of seeing, buying and selling art. KUNSTMARKT 67 allowed the “who’s who” of artists and dealers to attend. This art fair created smaller fairs that coincided with it and spread like chicken pox. I can relate Miami Basel to this easily. Seeing that much art, from so many different places, by so many different artists, was mind blowing. Without fairs and festivals like this some people may not have the luxury to see what gets shown. 

Reading Response 3

         The definition of a metaphor is, “a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest resemblance; an emblem.” Daniel Chandler’s article, Semiotics: The Basis: Challenging the Literal, talks about the relationship between metaphors and our physical reality. Metaphors apply to the language we speak, and the language we see in art. I believe that each individual has their own individual reality, giving each their own individual interpretation on some metaphors. In art, if a viewer is looking at a piece where the content is deliberately non-literal, what ever the interpretation, the viewer will have different connotations of the metaphor. Culture, family, races, immediate environment always come into play with interpretation of any language. It’s the “baggage” of the viewer.

            In the article “Transaesthetics”, by Margot Lovejoy, the issue of technology becoming the new medium in art arises. Lovejoy talks about the two sides of technology that people, not always in the art world, gravitate towards. There is the side that sees technology as Satan. And the side that sees it as God. The Satan side is filled with skepticism and resistance while the God side embraces technology and engages in a positive interaction with it. Technology as a medium in art brings a question of the artist hand in the work. How much is the artist actually creating and how much is the artist allowing technology to create the work, or simply be the work. For example, I am a painter, so my hand in my work is extremely important to the creation process and the finished product.  When I use imagery in my painting, which is rare lately, I do use the technology of the computer to reference images. I also use it as far as documentation and publication of my work, research of other artists or historical references, or communication. As far as creating my work though, technology is not Satan, but it is far from God. For me, technology is a tool, not a medium. I think that technology is viable as a medium to anyone that can utilize it in a way to create successful work, whether that be video installations, manipulated two-dimensional imagery, or machine made sculpture. “Definitions of art alter with historical and technological change.”  

            Claire Bishop’s article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,” talks about Bourriaud’s writings of “relational art work seeking to establish intersubjective encounters rather that private individual consumption of the art.” Relational art can be designated to performance, installation, and interactive art. It utilizes the space and the audience. The artist creates a different reality or community, a synopsis of the concept for the viewer to experience first hand.

 

These make great paint containers.

:]