The first two videos I watched on the interviews on Greenburg and Pollock I must admit were hard to pay attention to. The monotone voice ruined it for me. The first video tells us that writing on art is very hard, It is much easier to write about topics such as music instead. Greenburg supports modern art but he is very specific in saying that not every modern artist has proven themselves. He was very adimit on saying that he did not want to generalize every modern artist. I thought this was interesting because it not something you hear everyday, a person admitting there are some flaws in what they beleive in. I didn't really feel that there was much i could both from this video for art critiscm.
The Pollock video was a little easier to obtain information. He talks about the emerging of modern art and the fading of traditional art. He talks about the shift from tradtional aisle painting to the mural paintings explaining that aisle painting is dead. One think that I thought was interesting in this video was the fact that they said there is no explaination of what really makes a painting a sucess. I must admit sometimes there are artworks I look at and wonder what people where thinking yet they are extremly famous.
I thought the video on the Reniansance was interesting because it was done through story telling and it was something different. This video was very factual and I learned a lot about the different Reniansance artist. While I could read Giorgio Vasaris, Lives of the Artists to obtain this imformation, I prefer the video. My favorite artist this movie talked about was Giberti. The artwork that he does on the door panels in outstanding. The attention to human detail is amazing. I did not realize that they took 21 years to create, I imagined it took a great deal of time but that just seems like forever.
The next video I feel can be used in the project because it has o do with critiscm. Many critics pick to write about what is poluar in mainstream and I think to be a successful art curator you may have to pick something that would appeal to people coming to visit your gallery. I liked also how they compared critics to reporters becuase in a sense they go with the flow and the demand. Unfortunately critics pick items that would appeal to the masses over some uncommon topics and if you are one of the ones who like the rare topics there may not be that much information for you.
The next video caught my attention again because it dealt with history. In the video we learn how the French had such power and influnce in its art, that it was able to creat steritypes for the African and Arab culture. The mad people think that African from the Dahome area were violent, nieve and barbaric. They made the Arab women look very sexual and exotic and in a sense gave a negative image to them. One thing that we touched base on in the last videos was the studying of indigenous people. Inthe previous movie they too claimed that they were studying bodies for sceince. The part that differed in this video is that the people they were studying were alive and that they were naked and exploited. This video can be used as a lesson that the artworks you pick for you gallery with give the audience a certain tone in the back of their mind about the topic and you should take that into consideration when picking your art works.
The last video again was an interview that couldnt really catch my attention. It was on Jackson Pollock the father of modern art. He is famous over the contraversy in his painting Lavendar mist. It is said to represent human beings. My mind is not open enough to intrpret spaltter paint to a human being.
No comments:
Post a Comment