It Is What It Is.

A few weeks ago in class we did a conceptual project based off the artist Sol LeWitt. Each person got a square to hang up on the wall, which was illustrated with a design we picked out of a hat at random. The end result was a 3x4 panel of our combined squares. I enjoyed working on this project and liked the basic idea of it. The active involvement of the viewer used in this project made the piece mean more and made it of more interest. It just wasn’t a piece of work thought up and made by the artist; it was something that you, yourself had helped create and were a part of (hands on art!). Another dimension was given to the piece due to the fact that each time it was made, even though it was the same basic idea, the out come would be different. The putting together of many different pieces into one big final presentation, in my opinion, captured the essence of conceptualism. It didn’t matter what the final visual outcome of the piece was, the idea surrounding it was what was important (the coming together of all of these randomly placed designed squares into something as a whole… Like us humans on earth; a very strong existential undertone).
Although I find the notion of the idea taking precedence over the outcome good (things don’t always come out the way they are intended, so the concept being the main focus is a nice way of looking at it) it leaves room for some concern. Conceptual art begins to cross a line, much like performance art, which leaves you questioning if it should and or could considered art. If the artist doesn’t actually make what you are viewing or what they claim is ‘their’ artwork does it really count? One conceptualist, Stanley Brouwn, declared that all of the shoe stores in Amsterdam constituted as an exhibition of his art. In conceptual art that could work, since it is the idea which matters the most but can that really be considered artwork? Conceptualism is a slippery slope for the art world, making it so artist only have to have a central idea to create something-they don’t even need their own materials/work.
My final evaluation is, like with all things, it depends on the outcome and how the piece is executed. An idea or concept isn’t artwork, it is the beginning in the process to creating art but it shouldn’t be the sole characteristic on which a piece is judged.

A Morning in the Life of a Performance Artist

I hate performance art. However, since we’ve started our section on performance art I have become a little less critical and more accepting toward this form of art- it makes me laugh and even think a little. Today I took part in two acts. The first was a silent card-building task, created by Ashley Sullivan. My objective was to build a 3-story card house-much easier said then done- without speaking, for a whole 2 minutes-also easier said then done. I failed in the act of building anything more then 3 cards loosely leaning on each other but I accomplished the silent part. The second act I took part in was about a morning routine. Person one went about their normal morning routine while person two, myself in this act, acted as the utensils needed to complete the morning routine- i.e. shower, toothbrush, comb-sound effects included.
My own performance, which starred Tyson and Kayla, was a verbal progression into physical movement. Both started out by verbally playing the word association game ‘Dog, Bark, Tree.’ After a few rounds of verbally playing they were required to stop using words and only movements to convey what their ‘word’ association might be. Their movements led us to death, walking in place, rising from the dead, and brain-eating zombies (Tim Anderson makes a quick guest appearance as the man getting eaten).
We rely on the use of words everyday to get what we want and need. My piece explored what would happen if those words were taken away, how well we could communicate and understand each other. This scenario isn’t as far fetched as one might think, ‘when will we ever lose the use of words?” you may scoff, but just go to another country where you are not familiar with the language. See how far your words get you then.
Click Link to View Video:

Gutai Performance Art

The Guati Art Association was formed in 1954. The founding member, the one who financed it, was a Japanese man by the name of Yoshihara Jiro. Others in the group included:, Shimamoto Shozo, Kanayma Akira, Murakami Saburo, and Shiraga Kazuo. Translated into English Guati means 'embodiment' or 'concrete'. The group of young artists surfaced after World War II and their “activities of the Gutai group in the mid-1950s constitute one of the most important moments of post-war Japanese culture'. They blazed the path for later forms of performance art such as happenings, performance and conceptual art. Challenge to the Mud performed by Shiraga Kazue is the most known and celebrated act of the Guati group. Performed in 1955 it consisted of the artist rolling around half naked in a pile of mud. The group did other mediums of art, revolutionizing them also as they went. Murakami created a series of paintings in which he soaked a ball in ink and then threw it at the paper. Throws Of Color was made by Shimamoto, in which he threw glass jars filled with color pigments on his canvas. This type of new art was obviously directly effected by World War II and the after effects.
"Gutai art does not alter matter; it gives matter life... In Gutai art, the human spirit and matter, opposed as they are, shake hands... My respect goes out to the works of Pollock and Mathieu. Their works are the cries uttered by matter: by oil paint and enamel themselves." (Yoshihara, Gutai manifesto, 1956)

Sources Used:
http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=130
http://www.ashiya-web.or.jp/museum/10us/103education/nyumon_us/manifest_us.htm
www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2003/10/20/31466.html

Shadows in the Parking Lot-Exchanging Movements

I'm just going to throw it out there-I am not a fan of Performance Art. I've seen it and knew someone who did it seriously as part of there career and I'm still really not a fan. The Kaprow activity, to me, was nothing more then just amusing. It brought me back to third grade when the popular game on the playground was Shadow Tag. The activity was a lot more physical then I expected it to be. I spent most of my time trying to step on Pavalos's shadow or trick him from stepping on mine. Because of that there was no meaning or emotion behind what I was doing...it had no purpose. After the first 3 minutes the game..er.. 'performance' I found it became very boring and repetitive. I find that some of the best art is made when the artist is moved by something specific and then attempts to convey what moved them or the feeling from it . This activity lacked that direction, I had nothing to try and convey through my shadow therefore giving my performance no meaning or substance. Ultimately I just felt silly. If I had to describe this activity (and performance art for the most part) in one word it would be: superfluous.

Logos

I picked this logo, not only because it's humorous but because it is the perfect example of an image that is designed to be easily recognized. It takes an image we are all familiar with and then puts it in its simplest form, making it instantly recognizable.
Sign- Indicates something, conveys a message
Symbol- Represents something. Usually something historic.
Logo- Represents a product or company.
Icon- Representation of an image.

(http://cuzoogle.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/trojan-sales-drop-in-texas/ : 10/18/07)

Oh My Love Gasoline

I found listening about Duchamp and viewing his art interesting. The fact that he finds it important to combine words and images gives him more dimension then other artists. Most artist speak through their pieces, giving no other explanation for viewers, making it a little odd that Duchamp felt the need to give his viewers a play by play instruction booklet on his piece. The picture, however, is so abstract that it was nice to have such deep insight to what it is representing (but is it really abstract then if you know what it is about?). I find Duchamp a lot less pertinacious then I would have without an explanation. Abstract paintings are like inside jokes; you want to like them and get them but don't and end up just finding them slightly irritating. Having an explanation let me in on the joke and helped me appreciate the piece more. I liked The Bride more with the commentary. There is so much humor and satire in the picture that would be lost without Duchamp's explanation, and would be a shame. On a whole, I find that there is more depth in this picture once it is explained. Although, I did not like how in his explanation he included plans and ideas which he did not use in the piece; it was confusing. Once explained I found the mechanical representation of men and women, marriage in general, very entertaining and smart. Ducham emphasized the importance of veiwer interaction, which, with the combination of words and visuals he achieves.

Better Late then Never With Gestalt

"ge·stalt: A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gestalt).
Above is the deffinition of 'Gestalt' from dictionary.com. In laymen terms, what I think they are saying is that a gestalt is an image-physical, biological, psychological, symbolic..anything really- in which the pattern is so unified that one can only see it as a whole, not the individual pieces of said pattern or image. Maybe upon closer inspection they could but at first glance can not.