Faculty Art Show

I went to the opening night of the faculty art show, here at UT and had a lovely time. I always love going to art galleries, especially when they feature pieces that either use newer technology, or are about more modern subjects. It is not that often that I get to see shows that feature animation and other forms of art that were created on the computer (I think the refractory exhibit last year was a huge exception. And clearly electronics alive, but that is not my point.) I rarely get to see "graphic design" in galleries, so I felt quite at home when I was there.

It is a little bizarre being at an exhibition where you know almost every artist. In a way, I feel more awkward writing about the pieces, having taken classes with the artists.

But as I was saying before, I enjoyed being able to see the more current subject matter. For example, Doug's RoboChrist (not sure if that is the actual name) is something that I saw last year. At the time I was very much in awe with the single frame that he had printed up from what he had completed so far. His animation work and ability to create something realistic were phenominal. I'm not sure why, but the way he portrayed Christ viusally really brought out the meaning of his piece. This year, being much farther along with the animation, I was able to see the last scene of robochrist bowing to a clapping audience, which turned out to be very powerful. I think that the topic of worshiping technology could end up being cliche. However, I think Doug executed the idea really well, making it more original. As a viewer, I felt really drawn into the scene, and I think his work has the ability to make one see that subject matter in a way that is somehow different than how one was seeing it before.

Santi's work about homosexuality had a similar impact. Since Santi created the piece and will likely read this blog, I will go less in depth. But I will say that homosexuality is something that, even today, is extremely controversial. The poem that was chosen for the piece was beautifully written, and the visuals took it to a whole nother level. I was quite impressed with the camera work and the way the man was portrayed. The work was good enough that even some still shots from the film could have a stong impact if displayed by themselves. It really took a subject that might make some viewers uncomfortable and forced them to consider the position of a homosexual. I prefer work that is to the point, but in depth enough that one can spend time thinking about the work's meaning and its impact, and I think that both pieces that I have mentioned so far have that impact.

Valle also chose subjects that were more current (such as portraying people like Lady Gaga, Paris Hilton, and Michael Jackson superimposed with older religious paintings.) His materials were of course very different, being a painter. Using materials, like gold leaf, and shellac gave the paintings a very distinct feel. His were also intriguing, due to the many layers that his paintings had, making the viewer move closer to them, trying to see the many details that blend into the whole. I think that his work also has the sameto the point, yet in depth attribute.

Breaking away from the more "edgy" artwork, I figured I should mention some of the ones that were a little more traditional as well. Santiago, your photography was absolutely beautiful. It was a little unexpected to see those photographs, when I am used to your work being more intense and contraversial. But they were truely incredible. Another one of my favorite "traditional" pieces was one of Chastain-Elliotte's. Much of her work consists of landscape paintings. I have to admit that I am not normally a fan of landscape paintings. I've noticed that she has a way of giving each painting it's own distinct characteristics. She does not stick too much to a style so that all of here paintings look the same, except in different locations, which I think some landscape painters do. I loved her Park Snowy Scene (if I am reading my handwriting correctly.) It had a really intense beauty and feeling to it, with the contrast of the dark trees to the scenery behind them. When I first looking at the painting, I imagined an entire landscape in my head, and what it must have felt like to have been there. I was a bit surprised when I went closer to further analyze it, realising how simple the painting was. If I remember correctly, the painting basically had about four colors. The trees were painted almost as silhouettes. Yet with the painting's simplicity, I find that I would much sooner buy that one than one from an artist who paints landscapes that look almost photographic. I'm sure that she has the capability of something incredibly realistic, but I am glad that in many cases she lets the painting speak for itself.