Beatniks

The term "Beat Generation" came about in 1948. It was introduced by Kerouac and was meant to describe the underground, anti-conformist youth that were in New York at the time. "Beat" was slang for "beaten down" or "trodden down" at the time, although, he also was thinking of a spiritual connotation, as in "beatitude." The term "beatnik" was first used by Herb Caen, who added the Russian suffix "-nik" to the term beat, six months after the launch of Sputnik I. Ray Carney, a Boston University professor, wrote that "Much of Beat culture represented a negate stance rather than a positive one. It was animated more by a vague feeling of cultural and emotional displacement, dissatisfaction, and yearning, than by a specific purpose or program [...] Beat culture was a state of mind, not a matter of how you dressed or talked or where you lived." (I thought it would be better to quote someone, since I know nothing on the subject.) The "beatniks" were often described as being "countercultural" or "anti-materialistic." This kind of reminds me of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, who often described people as "phony." I guess this makes a little sense, since the book came out in 1951.

Joseph Beuys

The most interesting aspect that I find about Joseph Beuys is his philosophy on art and his intentions behind his artwork. I find the idea behind his 7000 Oaks Project quite beautiful, and I love how he created a work of art that involved the entire community and had a very set purpose; to get people to plant trees. When I think about it, I can almost consider people going together to plant trees on Earth Day a work of art, even if there is no artist behind it, because it is such a simple, yet beautiful act. I love his philosophy that "everyone is an artist" and how he tried to let as many people into his art classes as possible and to be less exclusive as a teacher. I think that, because art is so subjective, no one can actually say who is or is not an artist. And I think that art is something built into us, albeit some more than others, so it is impossible for someone to not be an artist to some extent, just as it is impossible for someone to never experience any emotions. I find that encouraging people to create art and acknowledging the art that is created is important. There have been times at college or even high school that I have seen students create works of art that have been better than many works of art that I have seen in museums (at least according to my own taste and what inspires me.) Of course, these people do not have the "credentials" or the "prestige" in the art world to be worth as much as a famous artist, who may have a lot of acknowledgement, but also may not be as good. This is why I think it is important how Beuys tried not to exclude people in his classes, as long as they wanted to learn. I also think that, even if someone may not be a "good" artist (although, I don't think one can ever confidently say whether a work of art is "good" or not) I think it is still important to let art be something that reaches out to all. Whether it be a career or just a hobby, art can be life-changing, not just to museum-goers, but to the artists themselves as well (which is one of the reasons art therapy exists.) Even if someone's goal is not to become successful, but to simply partake in art, I think they should be given an equal chance to learn it. And thinking about this gets me to question myself; if an amateur is creating art purely for art's sake, without other motives, such as a professional's motive to sell a painting or sculpture, then wouldn't it be possible that the amateur's work is even "more" a work of art? Contemplating this subject is why I think it is so interesting that Beuys said "everyone is an artist." Although I do have to say that the possible fictitiousness of parts of his autobiography are definitely odd. And I also found it odd when reading about him, that none of his artwork seemed to touch upon WWII or the Holocaust, even though he was a German soldier. He did submit a proposal for a Holocaust memorial, although, that really doesn't seem all that much when he spent so much time fighting that war. These are both mentioned by one of Beuys's critics, although I disagree with the other criticisms that he had of Beuys, since I do not find his artwork lacking in other regards. I found it interesting when Beuys said, "The silence of Marcel Duchamp is overrated." I agree to an extent; I generally think that artwork should try to provoke something or say something to the viewer. However, I also think that to an extent, the "silence" of Duchamp's work speaks on its own. Duchamp, whether he meant to or not (although my guess is at least to some extent, he did) still gets people to think about what art consists of and the importance we have on placing artwork in the gallery, when a urinal can be placed in a gallery and accomplish the same thing.

Scopophobia II (as done as it will ever be...)

Contraversial Art

Surprisingly, only one of those works of art was new to me (the one with Saddam Hussein.) The only one that I actually find offensive is the shark in the formaldehyde. As a vegetarian/animal rights activist I do not like to see animal displayed in that way. I do not know whether or not the shark was killed in order to create this piece or if he somehow got ahold of an already dead shark. However, I do not think this really matters. I do not like the fact that a dead animal is put on display instead of giving it the respect and the chance to rest in peace that it deserves. It's fairly morbid and I do not support some of the values/meanings that it could potentially represent.

Besides that, I either liked all of the other works of art or at least found them interesting. My favorite was by far Erasing de Kooning. I thinks that it provokes thoughts that few other works of art have done. It gets you to think about something that was there in addition to what is there. I think this can lead to many questions. While most people think of art as creating something, can destroying something be a work of art as well? Is the original still a work of art, even though it no longer exists? Is it really worth it to stare at a blank piece of paper? Why do we give said sheet of paper so much value? Clearly, it is due to what used to be there, but why does what used to be there matter? What matters more, what existed or what exists? What artist would want to sacrifice someone else's art? I think that no matter what the answers to these questions are the work of art is no doubt creative and something few have matched.

Pixels

So here are my comments on the blogs of others.

Hessa: I saw yours on your blog. I thought it was both simple and beautiful. I like how some of it is left empty and kind of transparent.

Luis: I loved the tiger! It was a very interesting view of the eyes and it ended up coming out very detailed.

Sebastian: I remember playing with those things (or at least similar ones) when I was a kid. Brings back memories. It was a good idea for a grid project. I like how the grid is technically made out of circles, since most of the class did very traditional, square grids.

Danielle: It was interesting how you chose to sew flags into the plastic grid. The fact that it was sewn gives it the feel of a human touch, which is a good thing, since mostly everything we see today is more mechanical. The subject involving the flags seemed very personal to you.

Emily: I like the use of m&ms a lot. The monkey came out quite cute. The contrast of the orange and yellow with the brown made it very colorful.

Francesca: Obviously, I love everything that you do. The shark is awesome. It was made primarily out of cards, but I like how the eye was a poker chip, adding in a different material, which is something that I think only you did. Also, the use of the different shapes in the grid made it quite interesting.

Jon: I actually liked how you decided to choose a three dimensional grid. It put an interesting spin on the project. Of course it would have been quite difficult to accomplish filling in every one of those space, but I liked it as you turned it in.

Roy: Haha. That is an amusing elf. I like the pose that he is in, getting ready to strike!

Hannah: Gorgeous dog. I actually considered using a dog on mine as well. The use of bubble wrap was quite creative. I never would have thought of that. I also like its transparency, which added to its visual interest.

Sarah: That is a very pretty, colorful grid with an interesting design. You should display it somewhere. Good luck getting it off your floor!

Amanda: Yours was so cute! You were the only one to use light in your grid, which I found quite interesting. It would be great for someone who is a fan of that character.

Steve Jobs

I found Jobs's speech truly inspirational. Many commencement speeches are repetitive and all of the addressers say the same things. "Always work hard, cherish those around you, and follow your dreams." While Jobs's speech did touch upon some of that, I thought that his was somehow different. It was one of the only commencement addresses I have heard that I didn't want to fall asleep during! His very personal story made what he was saying seem real and not some cliché, scripted speech. I was a little surprised that he mentioned typography during the speech. (Seriously, what non-designer credits typography as a part of their success??? A lot of people don't even know what typography is.) But after he said this and especially after watching the video about the nerds (which I got my boyfriend, Corey, to want to watch :-) ) it made sense to me why Apple was so successful. So many times, at a liberal arts school, you hear non-art majors complaining about the one art class they have to take. While this annoys me, since I have to take classes with these people, and I often feel that they are watered down because of them, Jobs proves that there really is a reason for the University of Tampa to make students take an art course (although I think this goes over the majority of those students' heads.) Jobs focused a lot on the design of the Apple. This clearly shows, since when I have the typical fight with Corey over whether Macs or PCs are better, my main argument against PCs is "But they are ugly. I can't use this." (He doesn't understand this. He claims that if they work then it doesn't matter. Pfffft.) Using my Mac is so much more pleasant, since it is visually pleasing and I can use it with ease. But I think Jobs's calligraphy course taught him even more than just design. Taking an art course teaches you how to be creative. While Apple is a computer company that needed programmers to be successful, Jobs attributed a lot of its success to the fact that many of the programmers there were also artists, musicians, etc. When programming, creativity will give you ideas that you never would have thought of. It gets you to think outside of the box (although I despise that term.) So having a team full of people who were in some way creative probably gave Apple very innovative solutions to the problems that they encountered along the way. When Jobs found himself or his company stuck in a corner, he probably let his right brain take control and come up with solutions that most people use the left brain for. When I think about his speech, I can only hope that art has also taught me how to solve those seemingly impenetrable obstacles. I hope that I have allowed my typography to influence my everyday life.

Mark Stock

This is an amazing artist, who, after seeing him at Electronics Alive, has still left an impression upon me today. I find it rare for someone to be extremely intelligent both mathematically/scientifically and artistically. This is not to say that there are people out there who are both (I consider myself fairly in the middle), but usually, someone leans towards being either more left brained or more right brained. The extent of how much more left or right brained someone is depends on the person, of course. With Stock, I find it difficult to determine what he leans towards, from hearing him talk (I would actually be curious to hear his response to what he thinks of that question.) He works in a scientific field, and the work and programming that he does is extremely brilliant. However, he also uses that knowledge to create art on the computer that very few would be capable of replicating. It is rare to hear of someone who is so strong both scientifically and artistically. My favorite work of his art is the one that involves images of pages with his computer coding, combining into a huge mess. It is fascinating that he would even be able to come up with some sort of code to get the coding to be displayed in that way. I also find it amusing that he chose to display the coding he did for his thesis that way. I cannot help but think of it as a way to express his state of mind after completing each and every one of those papers.