Movie Response

The relationship between Modigliani and Picasso was a mix of appreciation and criticism. As individuals, they are two completely different people. In the very beginning of the movie it's obvious to tell that Picasso takes himself more seriously than Modigliani does. Modigliani is confident, but not arrogant. Also in the beginning you can pick up on a sense of competition between the two. At some points during the movie you would think they were the worst of enemies. Picasso crossed two major lines with Modigliani; he painted his lover, Jeane, and painted over one of his pieces. Every time Modigliani tried to succeed Picasso somehow got in his way. Modigliani often made a fool of Picasso. When they were driving together, right after Picasso threatened him, Modigliani put on his hat and began to mock him.
At first it seemed like Picasso had a serious problem with Modigliani. It seemed like Modigliani was just joking around a majority of the time while Picasso purposely crossed several lines with with Modigliani. However, as the movie progressed, it seemed like Picasso a great deal of respect for Modigliani. Picasso drove Modigliani to see Renoir, an artist that influenced both of them. Also, near the end of the movie, Picasso submitted a portrait of Modigliani for the final art competition. At the very end of the movie Picasso was shown at Modigliani's funeral holding the hand of Modigliani's hallucination (Modigliani as a small child).
What I find interesting about their relationship is how they both inspired each other. Since Picasso was already a well-established artist he had an advantage over Modigliani in some situations. Picasso agitated Modigliani in such a way that he actually worked harder to prove Picasso wrong. By competing with Picasso, Modigliani was able to prove himself as a worthy artist to others, which caused others to gain a sense of appreciation for him and his work. Also, of Picasso didn't have at least some sort of respect for Modigliani, I don't think that he would have introduced him to an artist like Renoir.
I don't know if I can call their relationship a friendship, but I believe that they were far from enemies. Neither of them did anything to seriously harm the other. In a way I think they depended on one another. At some points Modigliani really needed the motivation that Picasso provided, even though it was less than conventional. Also, Modigliani posed as a threat to Picasso in some ways, which in turn kept his ego in-check. Their relationship may be complex, but I think they both had a positive influence on each other in the end.

Final blog response

The Human Race Machine by Nancy Burson. This machine allows an individual to see themselves as a different race, or several different races. Burson believes that race is a socially constructed concept rather than a genetic truth. She also believes that her machine will help individuals look past the issues tied to race. What I believe she is trying to say is that there is no such thing as acting according to one's race. She is saying that identity is not based on genetics. She created this machine to give us all the chance to see ourselves as another race. She's making the statement that we all could have been any race; she's making the point that race is not a determining factor in human beings. When she says "sameness" is the fact that, through her machine, we all can get a sense of what another race is like (in regards to physical appearance).
I agree and disagree with Burson. I do believe that race is a social construct more than it is a genetic, in some aspects. Race itself is a product of genetics. However, what we view as "racial differences" are a product of society and environment. Also, this brings up the idea of racism, another social construct. Our identities are not determined by our race; identity and personality are shaped by things such as environment, experience, and up-bringing. There is no such thing as acting black, or white, or Asian, or Hispanic. There is also no such thing as speaking or dressing black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. There are characteristics of every race that may hold true in some situations, but not in others. African American English (AAE) serves as an example of this. One of the characteristics of AAE is the removal of the final "g" in "ing" words. This is a generalization. Not all black speakers drop the "g" of of "ing" words; speakers of other races are just as capable of dropping the "g" off of words as black speakers are. And this is just one example! Race is just one of the many ways for one group of people to claim superiority over another. Racism is derived from the idea that one person acts, thinks, or speaks a certain way because of their race. This way of thinking also creates sterotypes.
I disagree with Burson's second point because of issues like stereotyping and racism. Her machine may give individuals the chance to see themselves in a different light, however it probably won't change an individual's thought process and perception, or at least in most cases. If someone is set in their own ways it is probably going to take more than just a digital image to make them re-evaulate how they think, act, or percieve the world. This creates a "sameness" on the outside, but not necessarily on the inside. Personally, I think the machine is a great and interesting device. However, I don't think everyone will think as deeply into as she did. Some may consider the implications she is making with the creation of this machine, but others may see simply see it as a cool way to use technology. I think she deserves a lot of credit for creating this machine, but it is incredibly difficult to create a sense of "sameness" in a population so diverse. Societies are developed over large periods of time, and the development is constant. It's taken years and years to get to the point we are today. Who knows how long it will take to develope a new way of thinking? I personally don't believe it, but I guess it is possible that we will never completely overcome the idea that race is what sets us all apart.

Ad Reversal Project

Belvedere Vodka Ad

Believe "That There Is a Sophisticated Way to Get Drunk"
a) This advertisement depicts your average bar scene. This picture takes place in a bar or club setting. Judging by the year that this advertisement was published and by the apparent styles in the piece, the advertisement is sent in present day.
b) The subjects in the ad are three white women and one white male. They all appear to be relatively young, probably in their late twenties or early thirties at the most. The ad doesn't make it quite clear exactly where these subjects are from, but the brand suggests that they are from an upper-class location. Also, it could be assumed that the subjects are in Poland, going off of what the label of the bottle states.
c) In the very forefront of the piece, in the left corner, is a large bottle of the product. This image takes up the whole page. Next to the bottle, in the center of the ad, is a martini glass containing two olives.
d) One of the four subjects in the scene is wearing a blindfold. The blindfolded subject is a female. The three other subjects, two women and one man, are standing behind the woman with a blindfold on. The three subject behind her are watching her intently, all three of them smiling and laughing. The text in the ad states " Believe. Trust your instincts." What can be inferred from this ad is that the blindfolded subject is put into a position where she has to choose an alcoholic beverage. She is standing behind the bottle and martini glass, which implies that she "trusted her instincts" and by doing so she was lead to Belvedere Vodka. Also, the ad suggests that by drinking this specific brand of vodka that you will have a good time and be surrounded by other "fun" people. The martini glass in the forefront sends the message that this brand of vodka is not your ordinary vodka. Martinis are commonly associated with a high-class type of lifestyle. Stereotypically, martinis are intended for aristocrats and business professionals. So, by picturing a martini glass, this ad sends the message that Belvedere Vodka is a high-end product. Also, since the product itself is associated with a certain type of lifestyle, it can be assumed that the individuals in the picture conform to this type of lifestyle.
e) This ad was made in 2009. I found this in Cosmopolitan Magazine.
f) The subjects in the ad are all faced forward, however none of them are looking straight ahead. Their three individuals in the background are focused on the blindfolded woman in the front. The subjects in the background are positioned in a circle around the woman in blindfolds. The woman appears as if she is in the middle of a crowd. The ad is set up in this way to give the illusion that the audience is a part of the crowd that surrounds this woman.
g) Since this ad was placed in Cosmo, it's safe to say that the primary audience for this ad is women. The purpose behind Cosmo is to give advice to woman on "womanly" issues; Cosmo gives advice on how to improve a woman's appearance, sex life, finances, and social life. So, in this context, the ad supports the idea of self-improvement. The type of audience this ad targets are women that are striving to improve the way others see them. By drinking expensive alcohol, like Belvedere, a woman can give off the impression that she is classy or sophisticated.
h) Belvedere a reputation for being a high-end brand of vodka. This ad isn't intended to attract a new audience. This ad was placed in this type of magazine in order to maintain their reputation.
i) This had contains markers of race, gender, age, sexuality, and class. Three of the four subjects in this ad are female. All of the subjects are white, and seemingly around the same age. All of these subjects are "attractive." The idea of class is implied within the product itself, which is pictured right in the front of the advertisement.
j) The text in this ad follows the same color scheme of the product (blue and white). Also, the text in the ad is in the same style as the letters on the bottle.
k) This ad both pictures the ad and promotes a type of lifestyle. The product is displayed in plain view, while the lifestyle is implied.
3) Personally, these type of ads always make me laugh. I am not a drinker, so this ad isn't really targeted towards me. However, the idea of "high-class alcohol" is somewhat funny to me. There is one general purpose behind alcohol, which can be accomplished with any form or brand of alcohol. Essentially, this as is trying to say that there is a fancy way to get drunk. This idea just seems silly to me.

Schick Quattro Ad

"Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil"
a) This advertisement is set in present day, in a backyard of sorts.
b) The main subject in the ad is a sculpture of a woman to the right of the picture. The sculpture is a copy of an ancient Greek sculpture.
c) The other subjects in the ad are three planters fixed on the ledge with the sculpture. In these planters are three sculpted trees; one tree is sculpted into the shape of a cube, one is in the shape of a sphere, and the last one is a small upside-down triangle.
d) The purpose behind this ad is to sell a razor that acts a regular razor as well as a bikini trimmer. The planters are lined down a cement ledge. The planter with the square-shaped tree is first, followed by the sphere-shaped tree, and then the upside-down triangle. What makes the picture is the fact that the upside-down triangle is positioned directly in front of the sculpture, as if it is a part of the sculpture. Particularly, the tree is positioned right in front of where the sculpture's crotch would be. This advertisement takes the idea of hedging and applies it to the act of shaving. This advertisement illustrates how the Schick Quattro TrimStyle can be used to get a close, precise shave; specifically, this ad shows how the product can also be used in a woman's genital region.
e) I retrieved this ad from US Weekly. This was published in 2010.
f) This picture, unlike the Belvedere ad, is not designed to "trick" the audience into believing that they are a part of the scene. This ad uses a less complex technique. This ad simply displays the product and illustrates what it accomplishes. So, the role of the audience is to look rather than "participate."
g) This ad is specifically targeted towards women. The maker of this ad relies on the assumption that women are concerned with their appearance, even in that region of their bodies. This ad isn't so much about hygiene as it is vanity.
h) The makers aren't trying to attract a new audience. The ad is made purposely obvious as to what type of audience they are attempting to draw in.
i) In this ad there are markers of both sexuality and gender. The gender marker is very clear in the ad. The sexuality marker is less obvious; a sense of sexuality is implied. This ad promotes the idea that a woman must maintain herself. A woman maintains herself for her own satisfaction, but this ad also implies that she maintains herself to satisfy others. In correlation with this idea, this ad suggests that a woman puts herself on display, or at least banks on the fact that she will be viewed by others. So, in other words, this ad suggests that a woman should always look her best. The idea of hedging comes into play again; different designs can created in order to make the object more appealing.
j) The text in the ad uses the same colors as the product's package (pink, turquoise, and white).
k) The ad focuses primarily on the product and what it does. The product is featured twice at the bottom of the picture.
3) This ad shocked me when I first saw it. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but the ad seemed pretty blunt, almost crude. I guess I'm just used to ads being a little more subtle. However, this ad does reflect how nonchalant our society has become. Everything in our society is provocative, from advertisements to television programs. I'm not offended by this ad, just a little surprised. I know this type of advertisement never would have been accepted years ago. I don't use this type of razor, so this ad doesn't necessarily apply to me personally, but if it was a product I would consider buying this ad wouldn't stop from purchasing the product. This ad just seems extreme to me.

Gallery Blog #3

"Untitled" by Michelle Anderson

"Otis College Art and Design" by Vedrana Misanovic

Vedrana's piece was the first piece that caught my attention in the gallery. What first attracted me to this piece was the use of color. Normally I'm drawn more towards black and white pieces, but this was the exception. However, I think I was drawn to the color in this piece because of the nature of the pieces in this gallery. Most of the pieces in this gallery were centered around advertising, digital media, or graphic design. In regards to graphic design or advertisements, I usually prefer bright colors and captivating images.

On the other hand, I was drawn to Michelle's photograph because of its lack of color. Also, something about the man's tattoos and how he was standing really caught my attention.

The reason I chose these two pieces is because they represent two completely different ideas.

Verdrana's concentration is digital media, which is the complete opposite of photography. The main focus of her piece is the actual image. Her image is similiar to an ad; the blotches of bright color jump out at the audience to immediately lure them in. However, the image is relatively simple without the color. The palm trees are the only subjects in the piece aside from the text. There is no hidden message behind this piece; there is nothing to infer from this picture. Verdrana was explaining to us how she portrays her subjects realistically in regards to detail and form, but she usually colors them in with unnatural hues. However, no matter how accurately a subject is portrayed, digital art is not intended to capture a moment in time or to show a real-life subject.

Photography is used to capture a moment in time. In Michelle's piece there aren't any blotches of bright colors to jumpout at the audience. Unlike Verdrana's piece, information can be inferred from this piece. Michelle told us that she doesn't show the heads of any of her human subjects or title any of her pieces. She doesn't show the heads of the models in her pieces so the audience can focus on the other aspects of the human body. She explained that the face is usually the first thing that anyone looks at in a picture, or even real life. She also explained that the human form is one of the main focuses in her artwork; the human form is composed of much more than just an individual's face. She doesn't title her pieces because she doesn't want the audience to be looking for anyhting in particular in her pieces. She explained that she avoids titles because they can sometimes hint at what the meaning behind a piece of artwork is. So we, as the audience, have to approach her artwork with an open mind, free of any assumptions. Since the piece is in black and white, it is less harsh on the eyes that Verdrana's piece (not that her piece wasn't appealing, just in a different sense). The softness of the picture reflects the soft form of the human body, which Michelle commented on in her talk. The picture also reveals every detail of this subject's body because it is so close up; you can see the creases of muscle, read what the tattoo on his chest says, and trace the outlines of his viens. However, I do find it interesting the reason she doesn't create titles for her pieces. Without a face or title to gain any information from, my imagination takes over the piece. I found myself creating my own image of what this person looks like. The subject itself provides a certain set of assumptions; anyone viewing this piece could conjure up an image based off of the build of the subject, how his lips are positioned, and the type of tattoos he has. I'm not trying to create an identity for this piece, but I am curious to who the person in the picture is. I actually imagine him to be a marine or a firefighter. I'm not sure if that was her intention, but it does go back to the idea that information can be inferred from this piece.

In this gallery it was interesting to see art that was more focused on digital technology. It was nice to be exposed to the different forms of art. Also, it was nice to get insight to what type of processes are involved in the various forms of art.

Gallery Blog #2

"Bald Man with Coffee Mug" by Kate Varney

"Martini Diver" by Elizabeth Cramer

These two pieces were my favorite from Wednesday's gallery. Once again, both of these pieces are in black and white.

In Kate's "Bald Man with Coffee Mug", what immediately attracted me to the piece was the man's eyes. She drew his eyes in a way that made him look like Igor (or at least that's what he reminds me of). I'm not sure how accurate this picture is compared to the photo that inspired the piece, but I'm guessing that Kate somewhat exaggerated his facial features. She made his eyes small, and didn't give them too much detail. Also, the skin around his eyes seems sunken in. The rest of the portrait is very detailed and realistic. I like the contrast. Everything in the picture, aside from his expression, is so precise- the shadows along the creases of his shirt, the wrinkles above his eyebrows, how she gave depth to the coffee in his cup. It all seems ordinary until you look up at his face. Perhaps she didn't do this intentionally, but the expression on his face really struck me.

Elizabeth Cramer's Piece "Martini Diver" also grapped my attention because of how different it was. The diver in the middle is realistically portrayed, just as if it were from a photograph. However, the images on the sides of the piece are what make this piece somewhat unusual (in a good way, of course). What I notcied immediately was the large monster on the right side of the piece. The fish/monster is my favorite thing about the picture. When you look at the diver in the center of the piece you can see how Elizabeth used a combination of texture and color to give the piece depth. Focusing on just the diver, it almost seems as if the viewer is looking down at the diver as they are swimming up towards the surface. The martini glass and the monster seem more flat in comparison. These two objects are facing eachother; the space around the monster and the glass doesn't give them a lot of depth. What I enjoy about this piece is how Elizabeth combines three seperate objects into one picture. These objects don't even have a direct correlation with one another.

From listening to the gallery talk I noticed that both artists gain their inspiration from other pieces. Elizabeth explained that she created "Martini Diver" by tearing out three separate images from National Geographic, putting them together, and then painting the images in her own style. Kate did the same thing in her piece "Bald Man with Coffee Mug". She told us how she saw an image in National Geographic and reinvented it using her own techniques. I would like to see the original images, just to see how much they both really changed. Personally, I like how they modified these images in a way that steared them away from "normal". Both of these artists took common images and tweeked them slightly, causing the viewer to take a second look. The man's eyes in Kate's piece is what sends the message (to me, at least) that there is something different about this picture- this isn't your everyday portrait. In Elizabeth's picture, the combination of the three images turns is what makes it unique- you wouldn't ever see this type of situation in real life. That's what I like about these pictures. In class we discussed the idea of appropriation. We asked the question "how far can an artist go before they can no longer claim their art as their own?" These artists may have been initially inspired by someone else's art, but the modifications they made to the images gave their pieces a completely different meaning. So, in this sense, they can still rightly claim the art as their own. Honestly, if I saw the real images, they probably wouldn't be significant to me what-so-ever. But these two pieces struck me in a way that a photograph from National Geographic ever could.

Blog Assignment 4

Stuart Ewen's- Commodity Self - we are the product of products.
This theory suggests that we create our identity through the products we buy. So, in other words, we choose certain brands or styles with the idea that they will capture the essence of our personalities. This theory suggests that on an everyday basis we are being watched or judged on some sort of level by the people that surround us. If no one looked at us, or cared, then there wouldn't really be any reason to care about our appearance, right?

I agree and disagree with Ewen's theory. I'd like to think that there is something unique about me, whether it be my physical appearance, my personality, or my style. I wouldn't consider myself to be vain, but I do like to be regarded as an individual. However, having said this, when I set out to purchase anything, I do not base my decisions on the idea that whatever I buy will make me appear unique. I buy what I like. Brands and styles don't make a difference to me. I own a collection of different, contradicting brands. I mean, what do brands really say about our personalities?
I drive a Honda Civic.
My favorite drink is Diet Dr. Pepper.
I smoke Kools.
I wear Hollister jeans and Hollister perfume.
I use Chapstick Brand chapstick.
I wear mostly shrift store shirts, or t-shirts I steal from my best friend's little brother.
I own one pair of shoes currently, which are Sketchers.
I have a Dell laptop (it's yellow, if you're wondering).
I use Bed Head pomade, Aussie hairspray, Tresseme shampoo/conditioner
Would anyone really be able to conclude anyhting about my personality from this list? Probably not, my style is somewhat ecclectic. I'm not really partial to any specific brand, except for Kools and Honda. But, in regards to apparell I'm not really too picky. But, I know some people are more loyal to certain brands then I am. Also, I am aware that certain brands do come with a set of associations. Some brands are associated with the idea of money and high status. Some are associated with the idea of practicality. Others are associated with the idea of comfort. The list could go on and on.
What I don't like about this theory is the fact that it is derived from the idea of labeling. By labeling someone, you are essentially making an assumption about something as complex as a human personality based on something as simple as a clothing brand. Of course, this is a pretty extreme statement. I know that the majority of people don't think in this way. However, there are people out there that do think this way. I can't tell you how many times I've been misinterpreted or "mis-labeled". My best friend and I laugh about this now, but in high school I was always seen as the steotypical rock/party girl- sex, drugs, and rock & roll, the whole package. Some people thought it was cool, other people were pretty disgusted by it. The reality is that I never was any of these things. I'm a pretty "play by the rules" type of girl. However, from these assumptions people made, I was treated a certain way. I was either excluded or discredited, or I was immediately roped into uncomfortable situations that people just assumed that I could relate to. It's probably pretty clear that I still have somewhat of a complex about this. But honestly, the concept is really distrubing to me. It's not fair to some. Also, it creates a power struggle of sorts.
So, Ewen's theory is both true and untrue, depending on who you ask. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm a product of products. I'd like to think that I'm not what I wear or buy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that personally, I don't want to be judged by the type of products I use. For me it's not about what you buy, but rather what you do.

"Battery Low" and "Robert Frost" by Billy Fry

Billy Fry's pieces were my favorite of all the pieces in the gallery. Specifically, I liked his colorless potraits. These two paitings above were my very favorites.

These two pieces are similiar in that fact that the artist avoided the use of color. However, the first piece, "Low Battery", is painted in walnut ink, which is a lighter, sepia color. Also, the first painting doesn't show a lot of shading. In the second piece, "Robert Frost",ery obvious. This piece is also much darker due to the type of ink he chose to use. There isn't a lot of empty space in the second piece. The figure occupies most of the paper. The space that isn't consumed by the figure is shaded in. The second doesn't have as much depth as the first; the main focus of the second piece is the figure, which is large and in the very forefront of the piece. The sidewalk and trees in the first piece give the illusion of distance. Also, the objects in the background are smaller than the figure in the forefront, which shows distance. However, despite the differences, both figures in the two pieces share a similiar facial expression. From both pieces there is an underlying theme of isolation and separation.

I think I am drawn to Billy's pieces the most because of the message it puts across. Also, I like the fact that he doesn't use a lot of color. I love the simplicty. In both pieces he only focuses on one individual. It almost reminded me of Edward Hopper's pieces, espicially "Battery Low".

However, I really fell in love with the two pieces after hearing Billy explain the motivation behind them. He explained to us how the combination of his two majors, English and Art, played a huge whole in his artwork. IN his artist statement he described the meanings behind his art as "Constant dialogue between the two disciplines." In his statement he also claimed that he uses his art in order to tell a story. The main themes in his art are peace, isolation, and the rigors of modernity. The inspiration behind "Robert Frost" stemmed from an experience he had while sitting in on an art class. During his sit-in the students were asked to sketch a nude model. What interested him was how the teacher, rather than displaying a nude model standing motionless, set up an entire scene for the model. He titles the piece "Robert Frost" because while sketching the model he was reminded of a Simon and Garfunkel song (Dangling Conversations, I believe). In "Battery Low" he wanted to illustrate how today's society is completely dependent on technology. The figure in the painting is alone and holding a dead phone in his hands. He also explained that he tried the make the picture look old by using the sepia-colored walnut ink. He wanted the story to be new, but the actual picture to look old. He got the inspiration for this piece while drawing during a Shakespear class. While he was drawing the class was going over the play Henry V. He explained that he often mixes literary themes into his art. Also, he explained that sometimes he imagines a specific character and draws them according to what he believes the characteer would have looked like in real life. He also described his work as figurative.

Personally, I just loved all of his pieces. As an English major myself I can definately appreciate how he gains the motivation to create these pieces. I also enjoy them on an aesthetic level, especially the facial features of the figures in the pieces. I'm really glad I got the chance to see these pieces, as well as hear the actual artist's perspective.

Blog Assignment #3, ch 4

"Vision is a process."
Through reading the chapter, what interested me the most (surprisingly) was the concept of Claude Monet's impressionism. Also, from impressionism stems a variety of different theories and point of views. The basis behind impressionism is to present an image that represents the ongoing movement of light and color. This type of art introduces the idea that art doesn't have to capture a moment in time, like a photograph would. Instead of portraying a specific instance, an impressionist piece focuses on the action of sight. This type of art makes a statement about the process of looking. Claude Monet, in particular, created several paintings of one specific scene, only in each painting he portrayed the scene in a different context. He would paint one scene at different times of the day, or at different times entirely. Examples of these paintings included his scenes of water lillies at the Rouen Cathedral, scenes of the Gare St. Lazare train station, and scenes of the garden in Giverny. By painting the same scene at different times, Monet shows how a scene can be affected by light and weather. Also, specifically in his paintings of the Gare St. Lazare train station, Monet captures the frantic pace of a newly-industrialized town. From his pieces a viewer can gain insight to how complex human vision can be. This concept is closely related with that of Cubism. By presenting different vantage points in one painting, Cubists were sending the message that the human eye is always in motion; the eye never rests.
During Monday's class we were discussing different influential artists. One of the artists we discussed was Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh had a very specific, yet unique style of painting. His signature style consisted of heavy layers, distinct swirls and brush strokes, and vivid color. What is unknown is the motivation behind his works. One theory suggests that he was trying to capture light and movement in his pieces. That theory definately makes sense, but it seems almost too simple. As everyone knows, there are several myths regarding Van Gogh's mental state. From those myths, another theory was introduced. If his mental health was as bad as some myths suggest, it seems possible to suggest that maybe Van Gogh pianted his portraits according to how he percieved them. Though we only discussed this theory briefly, this idea really stuck in my head. Some could say that Van Gogh's pieces are products of hallucination. Personally, I'd like to think that his unique perspective was a result of an over-active imagination. When we talk about influential artists we often discuss how they were the first to introduce a certain style of art: artists such as Picasso and Braque, Warhol and Pollock, Da Vinci and Michelangelo. We admire these artists not only for their artwork, but also for providing us with anternative ways to look at the world around us. In this sense, we refer to these artists as advanced. In some cases the artwork itself doesn't seem advanced; this arguement is often used against Warhol and Pollock. However, sometimes an artist creates a "simple" piece in order to convey a specific message without any distractions. So, in regards to an artist's thought process, isn't it possible to see Van Gogh in the same light? While I personally feel that the work of Van Gogh is more complex than that of Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol, Van Gogh still has a bad reputation amongst some critics. Maybe Van Gogh was insane. Maybe he was brilliant. It is just an interesting way to look at things. Maybe the works of some artists serve as representations of how they view the world. This idea definately questions the concept of realism. The imagery in "Starry Night" may not be how we see the world, but maybe that is how Van Gogh saw it. It's a stretch, but maybe Van Gogh painted according to his other senses, not just according to what he actually saw.
As both Cubism and Impressionism illustrated, vision is a process. In a way, Van Gogh is making a similar statement. By using such heavy texture Van Gogh brings life to his portraits. In "Starry Night" he gives the illusion of movement. It is so vivid that one could easily imagine the scene changing right in front of them; this is the same idea behind Monet's paintings. Scenery is subject to change. Real life images can't stay the same forever. It first glance, the works of these artists seem simple. Picasso and Braque's artwork may just seem weird at first. The work of Monet and Van Gogh may be simple described as "pretty". However, the complexity of piece lies beneath. Underneath the piece lie the hard questions. What is the message behind this? What does the artist want us to focus on? What do we see in the picture?
And maybe, most importantly, "Is this what our world really looks like?"

Blog Response #2

"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep."

I do agree with the statement this quote is making. Creativity doesn't come out of control, or from having rigid guidelines of "perfection". Sometimes a mistake can be a way to learn. Other times a "mistake" can expose you to new things; sometimes you realize that you like something new by initially making a mistake. Creativity, in itself, means to stray outside the lines. To be creative means to do something that isn't routine, or traditional. Creativity means taking a different approach; this new approach may be something that no one has seen or heard before. Having said that, it can be deduced that an individual would be able to gain a new perspective through someone else's creative expression, or even their own. Also, to make a mistake, one must stray from what is customary to them, or it wouldn't be considered a mistake. So in that sense, it is concievable that in some instances creativity and making a mistake are directly related.
Another way to interpret this quote, in regards to art, would be to consider a viewer's perspective. The work of Pablo Picasso, for example, was highly criticized by those in his time. Even though his style was completely deliberate, some disregarded it as art just because it didn't fit traditional guidelines, or didn't look anything like the type of art they were used to viweing. Some of his critics during that time could have said that he made a mistake choosing to display that specific style of art. In this context, mistake takes on a different meaning. His mistake, according to his critics, could be that because of his unique style of art he wouldn't be appreciated as an artist. So, in this situation is mistake isn't related to the art really, but rather a mistake in regards to the social aspect. As history shows, he was able to prove these people wrong. Also, his art or "mistake" influenced other artists to work with other styles and variations of art, which paved the way for modern art.
Along with simply agreeing with this staement, I can apply this quote to my own life. I am a writer, or at least try to be. Some times I'm more of a writer than others, and vice versa. The way this quote applies to my writing is slightly different from the ways I mentioned above. How I use my mistakes in my writing is to actually write about them. As writer, for no particular reason, I gain my inspiration from the troubled times in my life. You will never seen any writing from me about good times, because when I'm in a happy period I'm out enjoying it rather than writing about it. I didn't choose to write this way, but it just seems that my inspiration is rooted from some sort of conflict. So, have confessed that, if you were to read any of my poetry or short stories you would see heavy descriptions of "mistakes" I've made, or how my reactions to the "mistakes" of others. Now, to give myself a little credit, that is not all my writing is about. However, it can be detected in my writing. So, in response to the second part of the quote, I write about the mistakes I chose to keep, or the mistakes that have meaning. Some mistakes may be considered trivial, but there are some mistakes that can be learned from. Sometimes a msitake can shape your personality or your outlook. While, it is possible for mistakes to have a negative impact on one's life, it is equally possible for some mistakes to have a positive influence. Personally, that is what my writing is about. My poetry reflects and soemtimes describes very clearly what type of person I am. Also, in addition to that, it outlines my experiences, my personal growth, and the things I've learned throughout my years. Also, on that train of thought, the second part of the quote can be translated as "knowing which ones to own up to". I don't believe that everyone has to admit to every little fault they have, or every little mistake. However, if a certain mistake has shaped someone's life in a positive way, he or she may not mind telling about it in order to illustrate the change that has come because of it. This is also seen in my personal writing. That is why this quote is meaningful to me, and also how it is applicable to my life.
So, this quote, for being relatively short, actually has a lot to say. It takes a little unpacking, but once it is internalized, the meaning behind can be somewhat profound (or at least I find it to be). For me, this quote is reassurring in the sense that others see that msitakes aren't all necessarily bad. It's just nice to know that others don't regard mistakes so harshly. In a way, the ability to make mistakes is one of the most human qualities a person can have.

Movie Response

I do agree with the theorists that suggest that Hitchcock was trying to create a mataphor with this film. It makes sense. When we watch a movie, especially in a theater, we are both figuratively and literally in the dark. In a literal sense, in a theater we actually sit in a dark room. In a figurative sense, we are "in the dark" in two ways. If we are seeing a movie for the first time, we are "in the dark" in regards to how the movie is going to play out, what the characters are going to do or say, and how the the movie is going to end. Also, as some theorists have suggested, we sit in the dark and watch the characters on the screen. It is obvious that the characters would not be able to see us, and that is the point. This symbolizes a sense of voyeurism. And in this sense, yes we are all voyeurs.
So yes, I will agree. I am a voyeur. And I don't really believe that there is anything wrong with a little voyeurism, as long as it is innocent, without any bad or perverted intentions of course! To me, voyeurism is a way to find out a little information of what is going on around you with out being detected or exposed. This could be a stretch, but it is possible to consider it a form of research. Hitchcock presented a great example with his film to support this idea. It's not everyday that you witness a murder in your neighborhood, bit there are everyday activities that go on within your neighbor that can give insight to the type of people that live around you. Personally, I think, to a certain extent, it is ok to notice what is going on around you or the type of you live around. For parents, a little voyeurism might help them gather enough information to ensure that their kids are safe roaming the neighborhood. Following along with that idea, voyeurism could potentially help anyone in gathering enough information to ensure their own safety and well-being. Voyeurism doesn't necessarily have to mean prying into the life of others, but simply being alert to the world around you.
So, in response to the statement, I don't mind admitting that I am a voyeur. I do not have any bad intentions, but I will admit that when I'm out, I do look around me, or "people watch". I am not embarassed, because I never look so far in depth into other peoples' lives to be considered perverted, nosy, or creepy (unless I detect that something seriously wrong is going on). In some ways, voyeurism can make things safer, as well as more interesting. And there isn't anything wrong with that!

Blog Assignment #1- Interpellation

Interpellation is a form of manipulation intended to interrupt a procedure in order to pose a question. In art, an image is created in order to convey a certain message. An artist could have several different motives behind producing a piece of art. Some artists create a piece of artwork in order to make a political statement, or in order to expose a certain social issue. In the advertisement industry an artist is hired to create an image that can be used to sell a product. Regardless of an artist's specific motive, the purpose behind art is to provoke contemplation. To be interpellated by an image is to realize that a piece of artwork is meant to be understood by those who view it. In simple terms, interpellation refers to how an image captivates a viewer's attention. To fully understand a piece is to take into account the medium the artists chooses to use, the environment in which an image is viewed, and the context of the image. It is implied that, in order to understand these aspects of a piece of artwork, an individual must agree to be an active spectator in that piece of art. Being a spectator involves more than just looking at an image. Being a spectator is a multimodal activity, that ivolves all five of the senses. Also, to be a spectator an individual must understand a piece of art in its full context, as well as understand himself or herself as a human subject. Not only must the spectator rely on his or her five senses, but must also use his or her own knowledge human society, experiences, and memories as a reference. A spectator's most useful tool in interpreting a piece of art is his or her gaze. Gaze, or the field of gaze, in this context, refers to the engagement in the activity of looking. In the field of gaze a spectator considers the social and historical context in which an image is created. Also, in the field of gaze, a spectator considers the notion of power and the idea of institution. The purpose behind art is to convince a viewer to do more than just look at an image. The purpose behind art is to invite an individual to actively participate in an image. By becoming more involved, an individual not only gets a better idea of what the piece of artwork is about, but also gets a better idea of who he or she is as a social human being.
An image that has greatly impacted me is the above promotional poster of the movie Remember the Titans. Naturally, I love the movie that this poster advertises, but the image itself sends an important message, just as the movie does. At a quick glance, this image contains a close-up of one man (the movie's protagonist, Denzel Washington) and a small clip of a running football player to the right side of the poster. The poster is dark and blurred around the edges, putting all attention on the center of the piece. From this, it is clear that the movie is about a football team. However, the clip of the player is set to the side purposely. In the very front of the image is a large close-up shot of one of the protagonist. What this tells me is that the person I should be focusing on, in both in the image and the movie, is that character. Thinking further on that notion, without even watching the movie, it can be assumed that this character is someone important; it could be inferred that this character is has both great potential and the obligation to make something of this potential. Also, the expression on his face supports this theory. The look on his face is disgruntled, implying that this character in faced with a stressful dilemma. However, even though he appears to be under some sort of pressure, there is a strong sense of determination and confidence in his expression. Another aspect to support this theory is the fact that he is not looking directly at the camera, but rather looking past the camera. His stare is directed almost outside of the picture, as if he were looking out on a landscape. This gives insight to his attitude, his sense of character. To me, this suggests a "me against the world" mindset. Only he doesn't seem scared, or swayed at all by this situation. From these signs, it can be inferred that this character is facing a serious issue; it suggests that maybe what this character is up against is something out of the ordinary, something momentous. Going back to the theory of expectations and potential, these hints also suggest that this character is a man of great capability.
The reason this poster holds such meaning to me is the overall meesage it sends. This poster promotes hope and motivation. This image promotes the ideal that individuals can make a difference. This represents ambition, strength, and the belief of positive change. From this picture I get a sense of reassurance; this image supports my own beliefs and my own desire for improvement. It's cheesy, I know. Regardless, this image has completely interpellated me. Through this, I am given a little insight to who I am, or who I would like to become eventually. Idealistic? Yes, very much so. But then again, so am I.