From Taste to the Aesthetic

by

I found this article very interesting because it described how the audience should view art has changed over time. The way the audience views art has changed how the artists portrays his or her artwork. Before 1780, most operas and symphonies were about storms and battles because those sounds could easily be heard over the audience’s chattering and the conductor’s stick tapping. After 1780, when audiences began to quiet down, opera and symphonies began to reflect more on human emotions and feelings than storms and battles. I found that very interesting because in a way the audience influenced how music has changed throughout history.

In addition,I found the phrase “taste requires sentiment in heart and precision in mind,” very interesting. I agree with this claim because in order to reflect on an artist’s work, you have to put yourself in the artists’ shoes. That requires the audience to be empathetic and try to decode what the artist is trying to say through his or her work. I believe in order to do that, the viewer must have a keen eye for details. Little details can be the key to decoding the artist’s story or message.

I thought the connection between aesthetic and morality was interesting. I would never consider beauty to reflect on the human experience or morality. I think this is something to consider when I’m working on my sequence project.

An idea that I got from this piece for my sequence project is to show how maybe art has changed through time. Perhaps, how we view art has changed through time. I may not go with this but just thinking about how I alter what I choose my viewer to see based on time can change how my project is perceived to the audience.

Memento

by

I’m still trying to fully comprehend Memento. I understand the true story but the way the director filmed it, using sequence, there’s multiple stories within the actual story. In the beginning of the movie, you believe Teddy is the bad guy who raped Lenard’s wife. At the end of the movie, you learn that Teddy is actually the cop that worked Lenard’s case.

This movie just made me really reconsider how I can approach my sequence project. I can try telling a story backwards or maybe alter what actually happened by placing the photos in a different order to create my own personal narrative. This movie helped me see this sequence project in a new light.

One thing that I thought was interesting with this movie was how similar Sammy and Lenny’s names are. Just how they’re both nicknames for full names that contain the same about of letters. I don’t know if the director or writers did that on purpose to make it more believable that Lenny made up the story about Sammy or not.

I like how Lenny wrote little reminders about the people he met. It makes me think about how I could possibly incorporate text into my own sequence project. After watching this movie, I have a better idea of what to do for my sequence project.

Dan Phillips: Creative Houses From Reclaimed Stuff

by

The thing that I loved about Dan phillips’ work is that he’s pushing boundaries. His houses go against “the norm” for what society sees as the typical dream house. He uses materials that are perfectly fine to use but people just throw them away. People are so concerned about perfection, getting the latest thing, or fitting in that people just throw away things they don’t want but are still useful.

I thought it was interesting how he applied gestalt principles to his designs. He talks about how he uses repetition to create harmony among his designs. I love how creative he gets with what he uses to build houses. For example, I would have never thought to use licenses plates as a roof top. I thought that was really bold and cool. I like how he uses materials or structures that are common in “American Dream” homes but applies them in an unusual way. For instances, he uses pre-panel glass that would commonly be used as the front door. Instead, he uses the glass as a window. Little changes like these, makes his houses unique.

I have to disagree with his perspective on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Phillips is saying that we’re putting vanity before our basic needs: food, water,and shelter. I disagree with that because not everyone is concerned about how their house looks. Ultimately, if someone is starving, their priorities are going to shift from “how does my house look to others?” to “how am I going to be able to afford food for this week?”

Overall, I thought Dan Phillips’ houses were very unique. I noticed that he uses a lot of wood in his houses instead of bricks. I think that’s interesting because most homes are made of bricks, but those made of wood are not made the way Phillips’ houses are. Phillip uses the wood in unconventional ways. He incorporates different colors of wood to make a certain pattern. I think Phillips’ is changing what the typical “American Dream” house is.

The Medium is the Massage

by

I feel like the biggest argument that I got out of this article is how we perceive or interpret media. In order to understand how media works, we have to have experience analyzing other media. If someone is refusing to look at media and is told to interpret a piece of media, how can they fully understand the message? We can choose what we see by closing and opening our eyes, but we cannot choose what hear; we cannot open and close our ears. Perhaps we should look at the world the way we listen to the world, openly without a filter.

As in terms of visual media, we seek uniformity, continuity, and connectedness. We seek media that is informative yet visually pleasing. We have trouble believing things without seeing them. If we hear something, we investigate what could have caused the sound but if we cannot find the culprit, we assume it was all in our mind. We need visual proof that something exist or that something is occurring. For example, it took awhile for the world to realize what was going on in concentration camps during the Holocaust. There were rumors of the awful things that were taking place in the concentration camps but not visual evidence. People can misinterpret what someone says and then the message is miscommunicated to others, but with visual media the content stays the same. Everyone can interpret a picture a different way but the media itself remains the same.

I feel like people are selective on what they choose to look at. Everyone likes to look at things in their comfort zone, things that are appealing to them. People don’t like to look at things that make them think, that make them confused, or make them feel any sort of negative emotion.

I feel like media is just an extension of something else. Like McLuhan said, “the book is an extension of the eye.” I feel like media is an extension of our thoughts, older techniques of media (writing as opposed to printing), and an extension of how we perceive the world.

Schindler’s List Reflection

by

Schindler’s List is perhaps the most graphic holocaust movie ever made. The purpose of this film is to show the world what the holocaust was really like for Jewish people. Spielberg, a jewish man himself, knew that if he were to make a movie about the holocaust, he would have to do it brilliantly and accurately. This is why he used actual survivors of the holocaust to play most of the Jewish people in his film. He had the children who experienced the Holocaust play their parents in the movie while the survivor’s children or grandchildren played their parents or grandparents. The casting for this film was done so well that when one of the survivors met Ralph Fiennes, she was trembling with fear because he reminded her so much of his character Amon Goeth.

Spielberg made sure every detail of this movie accurately represented how gruesome and tragic the holocaust was. In the beginning of the movie, you see soldiers making fun of a Jewish man’s payot or side curls. When the jews move to the ghettos, you see the little girl throwing stones at them yelling, “Goodbye Jews!” As the film progresses, things become more graphic. You see people being killed for stopping to tie their shoe. However, the audience does not just hear the gunshot and see that the gun was pointed to a jewish person. Spielberg shows the jewish person’s reaction to being shot; he shows the puddle of blood formed around the person’s head; he shows how all of the other jews are forced to keep walking and not be upset by this tragic spectacle; Spielberg shows what it was actually like to experience the holocaust from a jewish person’s perspective.

One thing that I loved that Spielberg did was how he showed how filthy and inhumane the ghettos were. He shows Schindler’s luxurious new home and then he shows the jewish family walking into the ghettos. Schindler is seen smiling, amazed at how beautiful the house is. The jewish family is in complete shock as they walk into their apartment. There’s a few families already living there; the apartment is overcrowded; their new “home” is filthy. Then the audience sees Schindler laying in his bed, smiling, saying to an officer, “it could not be better”. Right after he says that, the scene changes to the wife of the jewish family saying, “it could be worse.” That dramatic comparison happening simultaneously really showed the audience how unfair and inhumane the whole situation was. Imagine living in a nice home and then one day the government says this home isn’t your home anymore. They tell you that you have to live in this crappy apartment with three other families. And why might you ask? Because of your religion. Because of who you are.

I think Spielberg did a brilliant job directing this movie. I think it was wise of him to use a true story for this movie, because it really resonants with the audience that the events taking place actually happened. If the story wasn’t real, the audience may say, “oh well that didn’t really happen” or “oh it may have happened but probably not.” They won’t fully understand the meaning behind the movie. I like how Spielberg chose to have some parts of the movie in English and some parts in Polish or German. I think it helped make the audience feel what it was like to actually be there. I think Spielberg considered every detail of this film. He chose to do it in black and white instead of color because black and white helped establish the depressing tone of the movie. He made sure to have the actors use certain phrases in the movie to reveal how inhumane the situation was. Instead of the solider saying, “we do not need him”, he says “you’re not essential.” The negative connotation of the phrase makes the audience realize how the Nazis didn’t see the Jews as people. They saw them as equipment or materials. They saw them as things they can dispose of. How can a human being not be essential? How can someone rank someone as not essential? What qualifies as essential? Just the context of the phrase shows how grim the whole situation is. Every aspect of this movie had thought and purpose behind it. It truly is a masterpiece.

Strive to Fail Reflection

by

After reading Strive to Fail, I felt that Lisa Le Feuvre’s argument was that no one can critique a piece of art and classify it as a failure. Only the artist can justify his or her work as a failure based on what their intentions were for a particular piece. For example, an artist may find their sculpture a failure because they could not make what image they had in mind, but the audience could see it as a masterpiece. Sometimes artists have intentions on what they want to make but cannot produce these because they feel like they don’t have the skills to, so they create something different which ends up being better than their original idea.

Failure does not mean that someone is a bad artist or that the piece they made was necessarily bad. Failure for an artist can mean that they were unable to make something from their imagination successfully. However, the audience may not know the artist’s original intentions and may think that their work is a masterpiece. No one can really claim what art pieces are successes and failures. It depends on the person’s interpretation of the piece itself.

As an artist, I think you shouldn’t be afraid to fail. Failing is good because you learn from your mistakes and take the audience’s negative critiques to make yourself a better artist. No matter how talented someone is, there will always be room for improvement. There will always be things that could have been done differently that could make the piece more appealing.

However, an artist should be able to explain their purpose for making something. If the audience knows the purpose of an image or piece of art, it can help them analyze your artwork in a new perspective. They may be able to understand why the artist chose to use certain elements in the piece as opposed to others. For example,”In [John] Baldessari’s Wrong (1967-68) – a technically ‘wrong’ photographic composition, in which the artist stands in front of a palm tree so it appears to sprout from his head…” (Le Feuvre ). From a technical perspective, the photograph is not a good photograph because of the placement of the tree. However, it could be the artist’s intention to take that image that particular way because it could represent something drastically different than what the audience is thinking. This is why it’s hard to justify whether or not a piece of artwork is a failure.