Week 5

In Linda Nochlin "Why are there no great women artist?" she really dives right in with exploring what the "nature" of seeing women has been and how that is really having some light shed on it in todays world.  Nochlin really points out that the mane viewers and judges of art in history has been white males. That has a lot to do with the stereotypes of women in art and the art community. If white men really like naked white women and that is who dominated the art market then that is most likely the art that will make it because that is the art the is funded and bought. Slowly over time that did begin to change and the female body became a lot more then that and women got more and more to say about how their gender was being portrayed. 

I think before we ask why are there no great women artist we have to look at the current society and ask whats causing women to not succeed. From there you can then better figure out why there were no great women artists.

I choose this art work piece to use because of the historical benefit that the gorilla girls had on the movement of changing art and women and how the two were seen together. The gorilla girls stood for a lot and allowed the females to question how they were being viewed as just a body in the art world.  I think the gorilla girls movement had a lot to do with change and awareness as to how we have an issues with our society and the viewing of the female body and how we need to change that. 

Week 4

In Greenberg article the topic of weather nonobjective art is a means of imitating God, and I do see the point to that argument. If you think about the side of creation in terms of being a god, their whole angle is just to create thing in terms of beauty. Look at the animals for examples if it if believed that the animals were created by god, or the season, or nature in general then how can you argue that those are objective subjects? The creations by god are simply of beauty and function. Everything natural, and everything connected and in a perfect working system.  So I would agree that creating objective art is very human of us to create. I would say that if an artist is trying to create works of art that are nonobjective then yes they are attempting to imitate the creations of a god.  But I don't think that is what a lot of artist are trying to do by creating art. I think artist are always trying to provoke an emotion in humans and I think for the most part that is done by being objective. I think art that is objective does get more talk and attention, vs art that is striving to be nonobjective.  But that being said I do think that art that is nonobjective is timeless.  

I would agree with Greenberg that art did belong to the "ruling class" prior to the invention of the internet.  Back when new had to travel via press and the only way to really see art wast to attend a galleries than yes, the ruling class, they people that had money that were in power that had the means and access to these galleries were the targeted audience and they defiantly controlled the art market. But in todays art world an artist can create their work and share in among various platforms to reach all kinds of people with ranging economical levels. I think this changed the control of art dramatically.  Everyone now has access to art and various styles and now the audience of artist has been widened completely.  

Painting sourse: https://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/starry-night.html

I choose this art piece because it is an example of an art piece that is a representation of nature and it is fairly nonobjective an it is an example of a timeless piece of art.  

Week 3

 

In the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction by Walter Benjamin talks about the mechanical process and what that did to art. How with the mechanical processes of reproduction how that changes art makes it better or worse. Under the topic of arguing weather print making and film photography are the same I would have to disagree in the early stages of film photography. When the first kind of film photography came out it was simply a photo of whatever the camera was pointed at. While print making you had time to create the print. What ever the artist choose to make they were able to create and reproduce. Photography didn't have that freedom until it was further developed. With the tools of various chemicals and better knowledge to the use of light, film photography became a little more creative. From that era on photographers were able to take their photo are craft it in their own way.  Photography can be fiction and that was defiantly not how it was viewed for a very long time because of the inherent description of what photography does or was at that time.   

This also ties into painting however. The reproduction of film photography and painting are in the same situation unlike prints. With film photography and painting with each new copy the artist has to have a part in creating, each painting has a new brush stroke that is slightly different from the last painting, same is true with the combination of a chemical cocktail that helped the photo come to life. Each is different, the works are all like sisters not twins. But with prints after the original all are reproduced mechanically to create like works that are just like the next.  

In some ways, mass reproduction begins to devalue the original art piece. The experience an individual has with the art piece that provokes or targets a single emotion is the goal that each artist is trying to reach when they create something. That experience is special and happens when the work is seen but with the constant viewing of the work and that experience happening more with a work mass produced vs single production gets the viewer more exposed to the the work. Over time the work becomes common and devalued quickly as to a single painting that keeps that experience alive longer. Mass production gives the art work a shorted half life. At that point the original is no longer needed, if you have so many copies perhaps copies better then the original then why would you need the original. Asides from historic value the original would no longer have a value.   

The source of the art work is https://headsup.boyslife.org/what-was-the-first-movie-ever-made/

The image is the first film strip or series of photos to prove that a horse feet leave the ground when it is at full speed. This is an example of photography not being fiction.  

Week 2

Art can be used as a power struggle because it can appeal to those who see it that aren't educated enough to find the facts through reading. By the example of the church they can show images and painting to teach those who could not read. witch in that time was a lot of individuals, thus those who could paint could control the thoughts and power of the minds of those who could not find the true facts.  It was a took because those who couldn't pain couldn't spread the word of "truth" religious of political.  

Painting is like math or reading because it used a series of symbols to convey a message. the viewer has to see the symbols that of a math problem or of letters to make up words and put that all together to crate or understand the purpose of the art work.    

Painting can be a social act because you can control the thought of the viewer with the concept that you show thought that of the signs and symbols that you show within painting. It is not only a social activity can also be political but even then it can be neither.  

Artist engage in the world of signs by knowing the language of art and then taking that and reconstructing  that into there own message. By creating a new message or idea with that they then taking the already know symbols and compare or contrast them with something completely different. They can take those symbols and create there own formula or make there own poem. 

We need to interpret all works of art within different context because we are decoding the symbols that are created by the artist. We have to explore all the options and paths that the artist could be trying to explore with us as viewers. If we just taking the work of art based off of the first concept that comes to mind based off appearance we may be missing the majority of witch the artist is really trying to covey with their symbols.   

Every interpretation my have a point to it but not every interpretation is valid. Someone can easily be seeing the symbols and take it the wrong way that intended of the artist.