Dynamic Art-Video

This is the only name I can think of to give this sort of art.  This video shows an interesting approach to the idea of a canvas, and constantly changing the art as it is being made.  The process of the creation of this art may be the most important part.  I believe this is a combination of painting, and video art.  It is nothing like I have seen before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZoWHW4EnbM&p=FF8498DD361F23E1&playnext=1&index=3

Sand Mandalas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H0TlXi868

Sand Mandalas are a religious work of art made by buddhist monks.  It is made entirely out of colored sand.  The image generally contains religious themes and symbols.  At times, even single grains of sand are carefully placed on the work.  The most interesting part of the process is that at the end of the days, or weeks of work on the art, when it is finally finished, it is destroyed to symbolize the impermanence of life.  This is a very interesting form of art that can usually only be viewed through photo reproduction for most people.

Tattoos: An Unconventional Medium

Tattoos have been around for hundreds of years, and been used for a wide variety of purposes.  They have been used for religious and tribal reasons, and now they are available to everyone.  Just as there are highly skilled, and world renowned painters, there are also world renowned tattoo artists.  The interesting thing about tattoos is that the average person can commission this type of artist to create a work of art, but instead of canvas, the body is used.  This allows for an interesting, and one of a kind art work that has much more of an effect in person, than through the reproduction of a photograph.  The other interesting thing about tattoos as compared to other mediums, is that the owner remains the same throughout the owner's life, but then the art is lost at the end of the owner's life.

The "Aura" of Music

Music, much like any other art, has an "aura" about it when seen in person.  I believe this aura is much easier to perceive to the common person than is the aura created by visual art.  There is a clear presence created by high profile musicians.  The interesting thing about this aura in music and in painting is that a lot of the aura is created by the media, and indirect contact with the medium.  For example, the Mona Lisa is an incredibly famous and "mystified" painting, but it is arguable that this painting would not be nearly as famous without reproductions of it spread throughout the world; this is the same with music.  Musicians are established by their recordings which are experienced by listeners, and then the live performance is even more special because people know about the musician, and the performance puts you face to face with something that was merely an aural experience before, creating the surreal "aura" experience.

Art Without a Cause

I believe that a lot of art is overanalyzed.  As we have discussed in class, some art is merely "mystified" because of the media's attention, and we ourselves try to find the "secret" meaning behind it.  I believe that it is very possible that a number of great and famous paintings may have been the result of an expanded "doodle" or a drawing that they may have mindlessly made, and perfected into greatness.  This is to say that not all art has a secret, and deep meaning or inspiration behind it.  My friend Alex Lievens is an artist who has made a number of great drawings, while in class nonetheless, and they all look amazing, but they do not have a deeply rooted meaning behind them, yet without a cause for its creation, this art, is still art.









All of these drawings were made by and are property of Alex Lievens.

Foucault, Las Meninas

This essay about Las Meninas by Michel Foucault is extremely interesting and thought provoking.  Before I read the essay, I immediately went to the end to see the painting.  As I looked at it the first time, I thought nothing of it, I didn't see anything special, but as I read through the essay, I saw that I had missed quite a bit.

Foucault initially talks about the painter portrayed in the painting.  This painter appears to be painting a picture of the viewer of the painting.  Foucault goes into much more detail with a sort of paradoxical rant about viewing the invisible, yet this is interesting because of the idea that we are looking at a fictitious painter who is painting something that is invisible.  Foucault goes on to talk about the mirror that is present, and glowing in the center of the painting.  It is thought that in this mirror, King Philip IV and his wife are portrayed.  This is thought to potentially be the subject for the painted painter.  

All of the information in this essay is very interesting and thought provoking.  I look at the painting in an entirely different way after reading the essay, different from my first glance at the painting, when I thought I had seen everything.

Artists and Media Attention

Who would you think this painting is by?  Monet? Renoir?  No, this painting is actually by a small, 8 year old boy from Britain named Kieron Williamson.  This is one of his paintings called "Windmill at Sunset."  There is an article about him here:  http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39932.  

This is similar to what we have been discussing in class about how media attention can create a huge amount of interest in certain paintings, or artists.  One of Kieron's paintings sold for about $235,000.  This brings up the question of whether it is the value and meaning of the painting that warranted this price, or was it the fact that the artist was 8 years old?  It is interesting because, now, the media has created a sort of "snowballing effect"  where the media attention to Kieron is compounded by the expensive purchases of his works, creating an increasing "mystification" surrounding him.  Whether or not Kieron's fame and success will follow him into adulthood is unknown.  It also remains to be seen if Kieron even wishes to continue painting into adulthood.

Reflection on Against Interpretation by Sontag

After reading "Against Interpretation" by Susan Sontag, I had a few opinions of my own on the issue.  There are a large number of very valid points brought up in this essay, including the idea that art has no meaning without interpretation and that the content of art has a large effect on our opinions of it, in addition to our interpretation of it.

In my opinion, art truly does not have any meaning without interpretation.  The only reason we could possibly enjoy/like any kind of art, other than it's "mystification" brought upon by popular media, is the fact that we can relate directly with it, and this requires a degree of interpretation.  Very few works of art, paintings in particular, have a clear cut meaning.  This ambiguity that the artist creates allows us to fill in the gaps and make it pertain directly to us, where, in some cases, we feel as if we can sense the artist's true intentions.  This ambiguity is a sort of "puzzle" that has no specific answer, except to the individual who interprets it.  As is said by Nietzsche in the essay "There are no facts, only interpretations."







The Mona Lisa has been subject a wide variety of interpretation throughout its existence, and yet, no one truly knows the true "secrets" behind it, if there are any at all.

Another topic brought up in the essay is the idea that the role of content in art has changed over time.  The essay brings up the idea that a work of art used to be defined through its content, yet it also addresses the idea that content can not even appear in some art.  Abstract art can arguably address an emotion or idea without the use of direct content, however complex ideas cannot be expressed through the use of abstract art, I believe that it is easiest to express the emotion of anger through abstract art, but only in the feeling's most raw form.