1. What, if any, are the similarities/differences of a slow,
meditative medium such as drawing/painting compared to an instant
appropriation tool such as photography? Would you consider a
photograph an object, as you would a painting/sculpture? Yes, but at that same time it’s more of an image than that of a painting or such.
2. What is the “message” of a photographic record? To be honest I’m not sure.
3. Would you consider “amateurism” when using a medium, an advantage
or a disadvantage, while producing work? For example, is
photo-realistic drawing the top of the heap? Does that
knowledge/technique get in the way of some-sort of innocence/potential
for inspiration? For me it seems to be half and half, and I also think that it has to do with the situation and who you’re making the work for whether it’s you or someone else.
4. In the film, The Blood of a Poet by Jean Cocteau, what
images/sequences of voyeurism appear in the film? Does this have a
relationship to photography as appropriation? In some form yes.
5. What does it mean psychologically when the theatre party applauds
the death of the card shark? What does it mean, when viewing it as an
artist? Not too sure.
6. At what time does a highly personal, private, disgusting or elegant
moment or event, becomes a spectacle? (Please refer to # 4 & #5) I guess when it get out of control.
7. (Made in 1930) Jean Cocteau uses several surrealistic motifs
throughout the film, which is simultaneously intermixed with personal
iconography. What about my work is self referential, and at the same
time referencing the time in which we are living? For me, it would be the images and people that you use in your work.
8. Over the past two years, I have produced an extensive archive of
images, with 35mm film only. What do you consider to be the
differences between shooting in a digital format, and any sort of film
format? It seems that digital has better quality as to a clear image but sometimes images that come form film can look just as good and I guess it also depends on the person and what you’re looking for.
9. What are your observed advantages for me using photographic processes? To be honest I don’t know much about photography, so I don’t think I have any.
10. How hot is Lee Miller? Literately or figuratively?
1. Is the author of this book being overly simplistic? I don’t think so at all.
2. Is the author being overly cynical? Maybe to some point, but not too much.
3. Can you be cynical and paranoid and still be correct in your assertions concerning matters that are highly subjective? You can, but I think that it’s rather difficult to do so.
4. Since "group think" is not only entrenched in the art world but the real world, should it not be encouraged in art school ? Well, if its everywhere then maybe it should.
5. Does the fine arts department at Ringling College of Art and Design represent a microcosm of the Art World? I guess it could.
6. As stated in the reading "does privileging words over visual expression encourage a narrowly didactic approach to art making?" I think it does to some extent.
7. Is Automatism or any other intuitive approach discouraged in contemporary art academia? I think it is a little.
8. Do you believe my work would have been better served had I not attended art college? Probably
9. Do you believe my work to be self indulgent? I guess it could be but I don’t see it that way.
10. If all art is self indulgent to a certain extent, should I not embrace this approach? To be honest I think you should.
11. Does the "it's all about me" approach to my work alienate you the viewer? No, if anything it gives me more insight.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Elkin’s stance on art education? Explain? Yes, in all honesty I think that artists teaching artist is like retards teaching retards, it just doesn’t work.
2. Explain your understanding of Elkin’s definition of “taught”. Well it seem that art cannot be taught if anything it can only be guided.
3. How does structure within academia foster or inhabit the creation of art? To be honest, I think that if there is structure it constricts that amount of freedom one has to create a piece.
4. Do you think that art can be taught? Do you agree with the weak view of nothing can be taught, pgs 101-102? I think that many things can be taught, art is just not one of them.
5. Do you feel Ringling has prepared you for when you’re working outside of a structured academic setting? Why? Nope, because I’m so used to structure now, when I first get out of Ringling I wouldn’t know what to do with myself and all the free time I have because I’m so used to having someone so far up my butt barking assignments at me.
6. In relation to “Why Art Cannot Be Taught”, do you think that my work could have been made during a more traditional style of teaching? Does innovative teaching lead to non-traditional work? No, and yes sometimes it does.
7. Do you think that compared to your peers in this academic setting that you are successful? What about the academic setting do you think has caused a major shift in my work in the last year, i.e. more freedoms leading to faster advances? Nope, and I don’t know what but I do know that your work has shifted greatly over the past year.
8. Do you think that art practice being taught through an academic setting which is structured by materials (painting class, sculpture class, printmaking, etc) helped or hindered my using non traditional mediums to make art objects, ex: candy? Why or why not? What about in your own work? What would you like to alter about your academic experience? To be honest I think that it both hindered and helped in ways that I can not fully understand but for myself I wish that I knew what I was getting myself into, because if I did I would have not chosen to put myself in an academic setting for art because I have only struggled here, and all that I have learned is new techniques to use in my work noting else.
No comments:
Post a Comment