It's interesting how the beginning of the article talks about photography, following lithography, was a visual way to keep up with speech. The cult value's peak of photograpy with portraits of loved ones,the dead ect. Then it mentions how captions have become essential for certain types of photography and how that differs from a title of a painting. How will the nature of photography and it's valuecontinue to become different in the future with the rapidly changing technology?
How do we challenge consumerism with a new perspective while living in a country that feeds off of it?

1. Can there ever really be a true replica because of an artworks "unique existence in time and space"?

2. Does the reproduction of an object destroy the significance of the original?

existenz and the making of earth

Museums & Theatre




Is the original work of art necessary in a time when we have so many forms of reproduction (camera, print, internet)? There are websites and image databases. There are prints and copies and reproductions. To see an original work of art, one would have to go to a museum. We spend an excessive amount of time at a computer and rarely visit museums.

Is theatre dead? Compared to the amount of money the movie and television industries gross, theatre is asleep. It has become a cultured, elite form of entertainment, but it is something that all can enjoy. Theatre is considered old and boring. The movie industry takes advantages of the masses. There are more plays written than movies and more movie venues than theatre. It is a war that can’t be won.

1. Isn't it sweet how Paul Valery predicted the internet and the magic of mouse clicks when he wrote "...so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign?"

2. And what about that whole switching sides on the "mechanical reproduction" issue? Benjamin spends unlimited time saying that reproductions destroy the AURA, and then straight up writes: "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art..." and things of that nature.

Walter Benjamin Essay

This essay addressed many of the questions I, myself, have been asking over the past few weeks. Will man made, individually produced products become obsolete with the new wave of media that has entered the art world? Although Benjamin addresses the idea that mass reproduction of a work decreases its value, the question that still remains is whether we will begine to value originality over flawlessness. Computer programs, like Photoshop and Illustrator, have given us the power to alter the reality of an image and create whatever we want from it.
Benjamin also address the social aspect of art. Is it art if it isn't intended to be and visa versa? The manifesto that accompanied the Benjamin essay had an interesting view from the commercial aspect. Is design art?

post about the essays

I thought that the Benjamin Walter essay presented a very in-depth look at the roles of the viewer and the artist in contemporary culture. I found it especially interesting that he viewed actors in films as mere props to present the bigger idea. It didn't matter who was used in these films, it was up to the person filming it to be able to portray the actors in the right light. I felt that the essay implied that anything can be an art and anyone can be an artist, because in contemporary culture, art is a mode of communication, and the art work is the dialogue of different ideas. The most important thing is to get the idea across in the most reliable, understandable and accessible way. It made me wonder, what role do aesthetics play in contemporary art, and if they play any role at all? Are contemporary aesthetics simply judged on the presentation of the idea, and not on the visual element in the work?

Walter Benjamin Essay

The essay discusses several ways art is impacted through advancements in media. One of which is photography. I feel photography influenced art's direction a lot more than the essay noted. As soon as people could take snap shots the need to realistically draw an image was lessened. Now with digital photography there are instant images available to everyone who can push a button. There is no one of authority who has been trained to use equipment and develop pictures in the dark room. Programs such and Illustrator and Photoshop also give people a chance to manipulate the image into a type of drawing they have created. Is this going to become a more practical way to convey a visual image? Is charcoal going to be abandoned?

The essay also mentions the way that an actor who is interacting with a camera is different from him interacting with a live audience and that all of his actions are conscious of the fact that it will be viewed by the public. Since the camera is a more indirect way of showing something to the public.. rather than doing something in front of people...I think that actors are given the opportunity to be less self-conscious although they are aware that they will be watched. This idea reminded me of a passage I read in an Andy Warhol book which he stated that no one really looks like what they see when they look in the mirror. People contort their faces to the way they find attractive. This makes me question the new fad of reality television more. Of course everyone acts differently in front of a camera just like people act differently in unfamilar surroundings but if this is one of the main ways people get to experience other parts of the world with out actually going there.. what kind of message does this send? What kind of message is received since reality can never be captured?

P.S. My user picture is my first self portrait I did in illustrator...cool,man.

is there room for an avant-garde in post-modern art or is everything trying to push forward therefore establishing a normality amongst the methods of art? art's vision has turned on itself and less on a social climate, so what are the next steps? how do we progress out of this rut, if that's what it could be referred to. Or is it a celebration of art itself. a thorough exploration of art, therefore raising it up and glorifying it, ironically while picking it apart. this brings up the role of the viewer to the artwork. if the viewer has no concept of art, which has been progressed excessively by artists, what then is their relationship to it. film, as the reading suggests, begins to resolve these problems and constructs a meeting point for the viewer and the art. will art make a sudden shift to the community? the gears have started to turn in that direction. will you be a part of this "progression," this shift? stop glorifying yourself as an artist. it's soooo passe to play the role of the enigmatic, tortured artist working out of himself to create something an audience can try to understand but only appreciate it as a manifestation of his own personal struggles. lets transcend ourselves and work for the community. celebrate humanity, for art is made by humans and should be viewed by humans. it's going to be a difficult sepeartion, i know. we'll miss ourselves, but there will always be time to make art out of ourselves in a basement. like kafka would suggest our tango with recognition and fame is distracting us from the true powers art can carry. act in the community and make vibrations, we've lost touch with the voice of our work. art can be more then trend, "the next big thing." if we examine this, we see that these glorifications are dictated by the aristocrats. they pick and choose out of our personal struggles to bring us into their illusive lifestyles. we can work from the self without the exploitation.

sooooooo go to the next pillow fight. be a part of it.

is there room for an avant-garde in post-modern art or is everything trying to push forward therefore establishing a normality amongst the methods of art? art's vision has turned on itself and less on a social climate, so what are the next steps? how do we progress out of this rut, if that's what it could be referred to. Or is it a celebration of art itself. a thorough exploration of art, therefore raising it up and glorifying it, ironically while picking it apart. this brings up the role of the viewer to the artwork. if the viewer has no concept of art, which has been progressed excessively by artists, what then is their relationship to it. film, as the reading suggests, begins to resolve these problems and constructs a meeting point for the viewer and the art. will art make a sudden shift to the community? the gears have started to turn in that direction. will you be a part of this "progression," this shift? stop glorifying yourself as an artist. it's soooo passe to play the role of the enigmatic, tortured artist working out of himself to create something an audience can try to understand but only appreciate it as a manifestation of his own personal struggles. lets transcend ourselves and work for the community. celebrate humanity, for art is made by humans and should be viewed by humans. it's going to be a difficult sepeartion, i know. we'll miss ourselves, but there will always be time to make art out of ourselves in a basement. like kafka would suggest our tango with recognition and fame is distracting us from the true powers art can carry. act in the community and make vibrations, we've lost touch with the voice of our work. art can be more then trend, "the next big thing." if we examine this, we see that these glorifications are dictated by the aristocrats. they pick and choose out of our personal struggles to bring us into their illusive lifestyles. we can work from the self without the exploitation.

sooooooo go to the next pillow fight. be a part of it.

I attended the workshop held last week by Ellen Lupton on how to create your own exhibition catalogue and I wanted to share some of the stuff I learned. She is part of the graphic design MAT program here and has written and published some books herself. She talked about independent publishing and the most economically efficient way to do that. She gave us some great websites for doing this. If you go onto her own website elupton.com you can access all of the info that she gave during the workshop. Another great website is lulu.com which is pretty cheap for publishing your own books. There are only a few options on the website, black and white or color, but they're good quality. If you want to publish your own book or catalogue or even other things you can do it on lulu; you have to develop the pages and work on photoshop. She also talked about the different copyrights available. If you're interested go to her website which again is elupton.com and then click on indie publishing and all the topics are available.

I have a few problems with Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" because of the way he goes back and forth between his ideas about the way film concerns art. He says that it's not art for a number of reasons but then counters that with reasons that film is art. I also don't agree with his idea that because the "masses" are crossing the line between artist and audience, writer and reader, there is some sort of "crisis." Why is there a problem if more people want to create art? Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to do this? If there is more art in the world then I don't see the problem. Also, if reproduction is bringing more art to people in the world then what is the problem there? A person can't experience art just became the original piece is not in front of them? I think mechanical reproduction has done a lot of wonderful things for the world of art; it has brought art to people and places that wouldn't normally have access to it.

1. The author says that with photography, the first process of reproduction, art "sensed the approaching crisis." Why is this a crisis if it gives almost anyone the ability to experience art? Yes, it's different than seeing it in person, but does that mean that only a person that has the ability to physically visit a work of art should see that work? And if that is true then does he only want art available for the bourgeoisie since they would be the only ones able to view these works without reproductions?

2. Does Benjamin think film is a work of art? He goes back and forth in that he says that film actors don't have an aura and that it has no cult value but then he also says that film offers a more significant reality than painting "...precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art." Does he think that film could be a work of art but film actors can't?

Walter Benjamin worte this in 1935, when he thought the "new" technology affected the place of art in the society. However, he had nothing on the techonology that we have today. Do you think that he would still hold the same position even with the advanced technology (e.i. digital reproduction)?
Do YOU agree with his whole argument that certain mechanical reproduced art loses its authenticity? After all,,,, it does feel a whole lot different when we actually go to galleries to see artwork than seeing them in magazines, internet, etc.

This Film is Not Yet Rated

The movie on Monday reminded me of a documentary called This Film is Not Yet Rated. It's about a man named, Kirby Dick and his exposé about the American movie ratings board. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) claims that all its members are "average" parents of children ages 1-18 years old. Dick hires a private investigator to track members of the board. You'd be surprised to know who's actually controlling the ratings for all films you and I see everyday. There is an interesting line drawn for what is rated R verses NC-17. For example, any scene with public hair, a female orgasm, or a gay sex scene most likely is always going to be rated NC-17.

I highly recommend seeing this film the next time you rent a movie...

The World of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Is film really the only form of art that can be duplicated without lossing its authentcity because one can experience this form in both time and space? Can't a duplicate of a painting do the same?

Does this article really apply to our modern day way of thinking? For example I don't know if I agree with the quote, "The uniquiness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition.

Headlines for 2029

HEADLINES FROM THE YEAR: 2029

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California . White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.

Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.

Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria and Lebanon ).

Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica .

Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.

George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.

Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.

85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.

Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.

Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.


Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.


Average height of NBA players is now nine feet, seven inches.


New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.


Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign account


IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.


Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.

I thought this was relevant to class because of our conversation based on modernist and post-modernist structure. Some of the "Headlines" really made me think about how technology and the emphasis on it in our society might effect the future.

the size of technology

at the rate technology is going, how small will things get? Cell phones and ipods these days are half the size of a potato chip, and theyre getting smaller. I think they will get smaller and smaller until we eventualy start to lose everything, and then they will get larger and larger, and then smaller and smaller, and it will be a cycle.

virtual currency

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/world/asia/05virtual.html?ref=world

-this article is kind of interesting and talks about the rise of interenet in China, and how it has even caused the governent worry that Tencent's (compariblel to our google) "virtual money" might potentially affect China's actual currency.

google earth

I suppose we all know what Google Earth is, but if you don't, it is a website that uses satellites, and you can look at anything on earth that the satellite can see. It is not a live feed. You can see your house or cars or people. I was have been thinking about this for awhile. This is a free resource on the free Internet. Anyone is allowed to use this, although you can pay for a better quality version. If such an expansive resource is available to the public, then what does the government have control of? What are they able to see? Just seeing my backyard on the World Wide Web is mind blowing, but I am sure that that is now calculator technology compared with what the government is using.

Did you know that the origin of the word Pixel comes from Lite-Brite! Strange but true.

cool video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t5YkTnl1RM

In a book on City as landscape: a post-postmodern view of design and planning (E&F Spon, 1986], Tom Turner argues that:

The modernist age, of "one way, one truth, one city", is dead and gone. The postmodernist age of "anything goes" is on the way out. Reason can take us a long way, but it has limits. Let us embrace post-postmodernism—and pray for a better name.

"Performatism" was coined by Raoul Eshelman, as a term to describe or replace the term "Post-Postmodernism". He goes on to describe it as "a new epoch in which subject, sign, and thing come together in ways that create an aesthetic experience of transcendency"...a place where meaning is created.

I think that in post-postmodernism, art is going beyond the idea of creating any sort of object to represent an idea, instead art is the idea itself. An example of this is the "Burning Man" festival, an annual event in Black Rock Desert, Nevada. Thousands of people gather there every year to participate in the burning of a giant statue of a human figure. The festival presents the current ideals of art- community, radical self-expressionism, and decommodification. Art has moved beyond the realm of the artist, the spectator, and the artwork. The line that separates the three is no longer there. It's about creating something that can transcend these boundaries, and not tie them to any one person or group of people.

On the topic of postmodernism I found it interesting that there are two different types of postmodernism, that of deconstructive postmodernism and constructive postmodernism. Deconstructive postmodernism seeks to abandon all modernist principles such as reason, truth and self-purpose. The purpose of constructive postmodernism, on the other hand, is to simply revise modernist principles that it doesn't agree with. Constructive postmodernism does not agree with the scientifc approach of modernism and seeks to change that, not necessarily the science of modernism. Constructive postmodernism wants a return to premodern thoughts, those before modernism. Although both types of different they still fall under postmodernism because they are open and not closed in as modernism. I don't really feel that there needs to be a distinction between the two because postmodernism has certain principles that are completely opposite of modernism. Even constructive modernism, which seeks to revise modernism, moves towards more premodern thoughts and thus not keeping modernism as part of its thought.

post-structuralism.


post-modern trends.
http://www.eyeconart.net/history/postmodern.htm

-interesting note on the richard serra sculpture towards the bottom of the page, it became a performance piece when he urinated on it every morning. post-modern art has become about a freedom of acting, in a sense of freedom among art. it is a constant reinvention of material. it was inevitable that modernism collapse on itself, it might not be a collapse but a setting free. it is often viewed as both.

My grandfather just sent me a letter that is pretty relevant to the class discussion. He is anti-modernist/postmodernist values (heads up): "Modernism deals in analyses and reductionism in things and motion: emphasizing the atomi and the void, seperation, discontinuity. The part is seen as greater than the whole. [Modernist] art becomes a cube, a dot, or an empty blank (a void). Poetry is free of verse. Music loses harmony, melody - even rhythm. Truth is always relative, changeable, and individual. All ideas are equal and none is privileged above the others. There is no unifying morality, meaning, or purpose; no intelligent design in nature, no telos. There is no God. There is decreasing organization [resulting in] increasing entropy and chaos. Truth is personal, individual, and self-centered...and Reality, it seems, unknowable."
I thought it was a good synopsis. Whatever.