The first article, Big Ideas and Artmaking by Walker explained that there must be a bigger meaning behind the art. I think this idea is important because otherwise you just have paint on canvas which anyone could do. Obviously it takes a certain skill or natural talent to be able to paint a scene or draw the human body, but these basics can also be taught to some extent. Without emotion or an idea behind a perfectly painted landscape then you have nothing- it would be a very boring painting. The artist puts meaning into that invokes emotions into the person looking at the art.
The only issue I have with this article is the “What’s wrong with this Picture” paragraph. This section states that the student is wrong because she thinks Kandinsky’s work represent chaos when it supposedly does not. I have taken art classes before, so I know that in the art world there is a right and a wrong at what each painting is supposed to say—however if this girl thinks this painting says “confusion” I don’t understand why that’s wrong. Art speaks to every person differently
The second article, “Interpretating Visual Culture” by Terry Barrett brought up interesting points about detonations. I thought it was interesting that there were so many contradictions within each image. For example, the Destiny’s Child Rolling Stone cover conveyed sex yet girl power and was advertising the Dali Lama all at the same time. Another contradiction is that real bears are frightening yet teddy bears are the exact opposite. I liked how the analysis of the Ohio State and Michigan t-shirts went in depth. I never thought about how blocky letters could represent a lineman or scroll could represent academic excellence.
I think the conclusion was a bit of a stretch. I do not believe people “will be unwittingly buying, wearing, promoting, and otherwise consuming opirions with which we may or may not agree.” I think that would require images and advertising to be so obscure no one could understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment