Up to this point we have looked at mediums, material usage, artists, Formalism, and a broad understanding of our current perception of art and how it is defined. The second half of this course will deal with more complex and specific frameworks that involve contemporary art. We will also be reading chapter 4 of your text to further help us understand how we, the viewer, come to derive meaning from works of art.Today we watched Janine Antoni on art21 and she wondered if the viewer would be able to pick up bits of the stories, that she felt were embedded in the materials she used. She talked about her work and the underlying ideas and symbolisms behind them. When we see objects like Ms. Antoni's "Eureka",which is actually a bathtub filled with lard that she made an impression of her body in, we often wonder...what is this?...why would anybody do this?...and is this really art?! But, hearing her explanation and how it is related to a story about Archimedes, we understand the piece more and also accept the piece as what constitutes art.
Currently in Kipp Gallery, just outside our doors, we have an installation by Alastair Noble. The work is unconventional by many peoples standards, but fills the gallery for the viewer to walk through and ponder. During my installation of this piece with Mr. Noble, I came to understand that almost everything about this installation is tied directly to the content. I would like all of us to explore this exhibition, think about all the elements that make this work up, and use it as a point of discussion on the blog and also for some carry over into our class. As we talked about today, meaning changes by the way we encounter art work, and for many of us, we only see art as images on pages or computer screens, so lets take advantage of this exhibition...please take the time to visit the gallery and look at the installation yourself and then respond to one or more of the questions below.
When you visited the gallery did you understand what the artist was trying to communicate, or what the art work was about...the content?
Does the written word add to the public's experience of art? What helped you in this specific installation? Is something written that accompanies the art work necessary?
Do writings, like an artist statement or explanation on a wall, limit our experiences in an exhibition? How?
Once you understood the content of the installation were you more interested?
What aspects of this installation did you find interesting...formal qualities?...content?...material use?
Did the exhibit appeal to you in an aesthetic way?
68 comments:
Honestly I have no idea what the artist was trying to communicate, but the title clarifies it a small bit. Babel III:Random Access seems to refer to the tower of babel, but with a technological overtone. Random Access yells computer at me for reasons I can't discern. I think the written part of the work is large part of it. To me it makes up more of the content than the actual installation itself. All the words relate back to the title Babel III.
This work did not appeal to me aesthetically at all. It was dull, the idea behind it required no creativity, and the main point was unclear. Honestly, I can even believe this work was acknowledged.
This piece didn't appeal to me in an aesthetic way. While walking through it, I wasn't emotionally moved at all. I also didn't understand the content. The written element of it was interesting, although it was unclear. The artist's statement did not make it appeal to me more. I enjoyed the aspect of being able to walk through and see it, but overall I was not impressed.
I think an explanation limits our thought process because while we search for a deeper meaning we are being told something completely different. The art work is either what the artist makes it to be or what you think it is. An explanation limits our imagination because we already have been presented the true meaning through the explanation. I think it's good to know the view of the artist, it's essential because only the creator totally understands it's meaning and value.However, a viewer of the piece also has a mind which wanders and trys to grasp what would have made the artist create this so yes an explanation places limits.
I like reading the artist’s statement because I feel that it can be really beneficial and in past experiences it has really enriched the work for me. I recently visited the Andy Worhol Museum in Pittsburgh and there were a few pieces by featured artists in the upper floors. One artist had an emu body with python skin stitched onto the body. After looking at the piece for a bit, I read the blurb on the wall by the artist and it explained that the point of the juxtaposition of python skin and the body of an emu was to challenge the question: can skin change the attitude of someone/something. He wanted to explore the concept that maybe if this emu were alive with this new skin would it act differently, more aggressively and with more power simply because of its external state. The artist’s explanation really made me take a second look at the work and ponder the ideas he was putting forth not only to the emu but to human nature also. This is not to say that I don’t also enjoy looking at art and deciphering my own interpretation of it. But on many occasions I’ve found that an artist’s words on his/her work, since it is such an intimate thing to the person who creates it, really helps to add something rather than take away my own understanding of it.
im not sure what the artist was tryin to communicate throught his art....im not even sure if i would call that art. anyone can write words down and post them up. im not sure what his point was that he was trying to get across. the artwork was not aesthetic to me at all.
I did not understand what the artist was trying to communicate. When I walked through the gallery, I was confused on what the artist was trying to convey. The artwork did not appeal to me aesthetically at all. I think I feel this way because I didn't understand the work of art. I feel if I knew what the artist was trying to get across I would like the artwork better.
As I walked around the instillation I understood only a few words, but I understood the piece to be telling a story of us, humans, how we all speak different languages around the world but we come together and make a unique piece of work. Our differences can make the beauty of the world.Yes, in many cases the written words explain or enhance the piece of work. In this particular piece the words are the art. They explain and express the artist’s emotions without them having to tell you.: No, they only expand the imagination in the ability to think. They cause the viewer to think more in depth.
Considering the fact I didn’t understand what all the words were, I didn’t find it as interesting as I probably could of if I would have understood it. This piece did not appeal to me aesthetically.
I like this, this is something that i would hang in my home. I admire the brooklyn bridge in the background, I love veiwing this scene in the night.
The art work did not appeal to me in an aesthetic way. I was not very interested in the art work because i did not understand what the artist was trying to communicate or even what it was about. I think if i would understand the content of the art work then i would be more interested. The art work would be more interesting if it was up against a scene, like in the picture the Brooklyn Bridge is in the background. To me that scene makes it more interesting. However, i think it was interesting we got to actually look at this art up close rather than just in pictures.
I really feel like this piece did not appeal to me aesthetically either. It was put together really well but to me it was kind of boring. It really just didnt entertain me at all.
I honestly didnt get what the artist was trying to communicate...I dont think the idea required creativity...I was not really enteratined...But i Guess it was good...in its own way
I actually really liked this work of art a lot. I just loved looking at it and it did appeal to me in a aesthetic way. Something I really liked was the Brooklyn bridge in the background. It just looked like a place where I would want to be or visit. I think all art is different and unique and some may not seem like Art but it is and I feel like we should give everything a chance once.
I really didn't understand what it was that the artist was trying to communicate. I am sure that the words that were used in the work had a great meaning for the artist but I just found them somewhat confusing. Nothing about the work stuck out to me and because of that I had a difficult time portraying a positive emotional response to it.
The artistic work did not appeal to me in an aesthetic way.It was a very differnt and unique art of work, but it wasn't anything that catched my eye. It just looked too orginal to me, but then again it looked like it was a lot of work. On that note I wasn't too much enthuse with it.
This kind of installation work didnt appeal to me very much and it was a little confusing but after reading the artist statement helped a lttle bit to understand. I personally dont like this kind of work and would rather see a picture or image with colors and shape and not all text. However, this is what some people like and it doesnt limit what is art or how someone see's art either.
The artwork itself seemed a little bizarre to me, and I left feeling a little confused. And in regards to the question, "Do writings, like an artist statement or explanation on a wall, limit our experiences in an exhibition? How?", I think that writing limits our imagination and our ability to connect with the art in our own way. It makes me feel like the artist is telling you exactly how to feel about the artwork, and if you don't agree with what is being said, then you can't feel much of anything about the artwork.
The piece didn't appeal to me in the slightest bit. It wasn't a piece that jumped out at me and left an impression. I understood some of the french words but it was hard to understand what the artist was trying to portray. I'm not sure what the words meant, but maybe he was revealing one common message, but how it is portrayed in different cultures, can affect the meaning. The interpretation can vary. Overall, I found the work to be bland with not much creativity.
i thought that the art gallery was a little confusing because i thought that we was gone to be color pictures nad other thing, but i also thought that it was different. i like the way the words was put together and how he wanted us to look at the word in see what we got out of it in what it ment to us and are own words.
I did not feel the piece appealed to me in an aesthetically way at all. I was very confused on what the artist was trying to portray or mean in his words or sayings. I thought it was boring and did not show much creativity or uniqueness, however, it did seem like he put a lot of work in his pieces. Overall, I did not really enjoy his installations.
So far, there has been some really good comments about the installation by Mr. Noble in the gallery. The questions on the post do pertain to the installation, and not the image on the post. However, it is interesting to note how more favorable the comments are reguarding the image with the bridge. The image puts the artwork in a very real and concrete enviroment with objects that people can identify with right away. The installation within our gallery challenges you to just see the work in that particular space, and without a saftey net of familiarity. Some of you are doing a great job with "digging a little deeper" in order to discover the content, and that is what I would like to continue to see...reguardless that the work is apealing or not to you personally. There is an artist's statement about the exhibition and his interests in what he wants to communicate available...take a look at it...you might find it helpful...then again, a couple people made very valid points in this comment page about how it limits their own imaginative connections when viewing the work. Go, see for yourself...and keep writing!
I thought this work of art was dumb. I didn't understand it and i felt that it had no meaning what so ever. They were random words, and i didn't even know what the words meant let alone what the art work meant! I am confused to why it is known as art and i was not impressed by it. Anyone could do that.
An artist's statement does limit our imagination and our own experiences of the art. What we can learn and take away from the exhibit is limited to the artist's statement. Art is not necessarily supposed to portray a specific emotion for everyone in the same way, art is special because it creates different emotions in every individual, which is another reason art cannot be defined. I did not like the exhibit, I found it boring and unstimulating; but since I just mentioned everyone reacts differently to art - as they should, this exhibit very well may mean a lot to others.
In the Kipp gallery I noticed that the words used were all the same. Some written in a different language, but all the same words. Was the artist trying to say that their is one meaning just a bunch of different ways to say it? Aesthetically it was blank. I use that term in the sense that nothing popped out at me and caught my attention. The color, or there lack of, was gray and white, very dull colors.
Steve K
I don't really get what the artist is saying but for my opinion i think they are expressing their life using words.
This work did not appeal to me aesthetically. I didn't really understand what the artist was trying to do, or comunicate...so therefore I didnt really enjoy it al all.
When i first looked at i had some kind of idea what the artist was trying to communicate...i figured he was trying to say something about the world since i saw various languages such as french, english, and german. I actually liked the work of art, maybe some people didn't like it because they were in the gallery with so many people around but i was by myself so i think i got more out of it. Although the main point was unclear, i still enjoyed the piece
When I went to visit the exhibit of Alastair Noble the work didn't seem to appear to me in an aesthetic way. When I went to see it I had a hard time identifying the main idea of his work. It seems as if it was very complex, and I had a hard time trying to comprehend it.
The art work was not aesthetic to me at all. I think I would like this art work if the words were in some bolds colors that would jump out towards you. Also the words didn't register with me like I thought they would.
This piece was not aesthetically pleasing. I was not exactly sure what the artist was trying to say with the piece either it was if the thought behind the artwork was just not there. I was not emotionally moved by it at all it seemed like an idea that just anyone could have done, so to me it had no special meaning. If i was able to understand the work better i may have liked it more.
While visting the art gallery I found the art done my this gentlemen to be really interesting. I knew that in some way the letters, words and sentences told a story, that in many ways was important to Mr.Noble. Eventhough I didn't quite understand what Mr.Noble was trying to say i still beleived it was interesting and different. Everyone is used to the everyday art like paintings,drawings and shapes. I think this is art also but in a totally different way. This was not one of my favorite works of art but I found it to be really interesting because it told a story.
Overall i have no idea what the whole point of this type of art was. It was very unclear to me what the artist was trying to say. I do not like this kind of art at all, it does notaesthetically appeal to me. I think that these kind of writings to limit how much you could do with art because not everyone likes writing.
The piece of art did not display in an aesthetic way to me. I thought it was hard to understand and confusing. It was pretty boring, every piece looked the same to me.
I feel like this is art. In the class we learned about the definition of art in undefined, meaning that a person is not able to decide what art is. If an artist creates something even using a bathtub, she is trying to express herself and tell the viewers something to me this is art.. I feel like after hearing her story that we can use everyday object or what ever material in order to express ourselves and tell a story to the people around us. To me expression defines art.
Just by seeing the artwork in the gallery I couldn't understand much of what the artist was trying to say. After reading the artist's statement I was able to understand alittle bit better. Not seeing it as I went through let me make my own interpretation first, but then having the artist's statement helped me to better understand the artist's point of view.
This is in reference to the question about does written word add to the public's experience of art. I don't think the writting does anything and honestly some of this stuff that i see in class and in the videos is amazing. Amazing that people get paid for it that is. Some of these artists are jokes. Throwing some words together and calling it art. Its just amazing to me that people even care about some of this stuff.
I think that the artist statement can help provide clarification of the work in some instances. I prefer to see the work and form my own opinion on it, but if it is still confusing, or even to see how I see it differently it is nice to read the artist statement. Post modern work can be really weird sometimes, and for people who have no experience in post modern art, an artist statement can help shed light on it.
After having looked at this artwork i really could not find the meaning of this art. It is not really art that is too appealling to me. However, after looking at this art i did come to realize that i practically forget ALL of my spanish and i am kinda rusty with my german. Its been awhile since i spoke the language a lot.
This work did appeal to me aesthetically. I love the simplicity of black and white pieces, and the words gave it a sense of meaning. However if i was to purchase a work like this i would rather obtain one with words that meant something to me, i was unsure of the meaning behind this piece. But overall i love the idea of this.
This art work did not appeal to me aesthetically. I personally did not care for this piece because I barely understood what the artist was trying to communicate. This peice also became very boring, very fast and I did not care to look at it after a while.
No, I had no clue on what this guy was trying to say, I was looking at all the words, looking for a common theme or maybe see what he was trying to get at, but in the end I was unsuccesful.
Greg Fleming
I did not understand what the artist was trying to communicate. Although if i did it would probably have more meaning to me. If i were to have made this art and used words i wanted to use, i think i would have liked it a lot more. It had a good layout, but i couldn't really find a purpose to it, so the meaning was absent to me as well.
I think when something is written, instead of adding our own meaning to the art we are in a way limited to the words they are using.
The current artwork in the gallery is quite interesting. I look at it everytime I walk past it because there are so many different parts to the piece. I really have no idea what the piece is about, nor do I really want to actually know. I like it how everytime I see it, there is something new that pops into my head and a new idea of what the meaning would be behind this. I think that this installation is kind of boring in the sense of color and the way it is preented.
I thought the work was very cold. The light gray and the clean cut of the flags made the piece feel a very modern. I guess the artist just wanted the viewer to read the words and think. If he had colors and crazy shapes there would have been no way the viewer could actually digest and process the words on the flags. One sentence really stood out in my mind though. "No man survives articulo mortis." I didn't even know what articulo mortis meant at the time. (moments before death) This is most likely what the artist wanted to leave the viewer with: a sentence stuck in their head.
I have visited the work two times and both times did not understand it. I felt very confused and i wanted a translater. I admire the artist for the fact that the art is susposed to be contaversal and he displayed it. when we lose that freedom it takes things from us, however I have no clue what he was trying to say. If i had been able to go to his lecture mabey he would have been able to clarify, and i belive that at times an artists veiw of their own work is very important because it gives you insight into what they were thinking, but it should not change yours because you have your own thoughts. just as we are learning, art can have many meanings to many people, just as words on paper are just words, when read together they develop a meaning to a person,two people may get two different things from those same words, when spoken the tone that they are spoken in can give those same words many, many different meanings. these words bring confusion and a lack of undersanding to me. I does not mean i do not like it I just do not have the knowledge of it.
I do believe that an explanation of a piece of art does limit the viewer in a way. When I first walked into the installation I had my own thoughts on what the meaning was. Because I did not know exactly what the artist was trying to express this encouraged me to really try to find the meaning. I searched for my own deeper meaning. However the meaning that i came to was not what the artist was trying to convey. This being said, I am really unsure if it is more important to view an art work and know what the artist is trying to say, or to come up with your own personal meaning. Is there a right or wrong way to view art? I don't believe there is. Coming to a meaning of a piece on your own can make you have a stronger personal connection with the art. But, this can also upset an artist. For example, the flower that we looked at in class, many viewers thought the meaning had to do with feminism. This upset the artist because it was not what she was trying to show at all. All together I do believe having an explanation to an art work can limit the viewer. But, this factor also brings up the argument of an artist's work not being seen for what the artist wants it to be seen as which can cause a few problems.
I thought the art in the artwork gallery was unique in the sense that it wasn't using colorful shapes or any sort of a pictorial image to convey a message but just words instead. I didn't find the artwork aesthetically pleasing at first but I was interested in what the artist was trying to convey and I believe using words and letters to convey a message can be just as compelling as using a pictures specially if it’s done in unique ways.
To me this type of art work did not appeal to me one bit. I'm not into looking for the meaning behind an art work, I would rather have it in front of mean clear as day. The artists statement really did not help me understand what thy were trying to communicate. As i first walked in the gallery I felt confused and when i left i was just as confused as i walked in.
I absolutely hated this piece. From the moment i walked in the room i did not understand what the artist was trying to express. I think writings in a an artwork such as this one do limit our experiences because it takes away from the imigination of each individual that looks at it. Art should be assesed on a personal level, and words and text take away from that most of the time.
The artwork does not appeal to me very much. It could just have easily been put on a piece of paper the fact that it is on sculptures is supposed to make it different but I just don’t agree. I think that sometimes an artist’s explanation can be helpful for certain works of art such as this one but for others it is a hinderance as you may want to find other meanings specific to the viewer but this specific piece definetly needed the explanation. I guess I was a little more interested after I read what it was about but still I did not like the piece as a whole, not much interested me overall.
When I visited the gallery I was very unsure what the artist was trying to communicate. After reading the Artist's statement it became slightly more clear. However, after attending the lecture given by Noble himself the meaning was easy to recognize and I became more interested in not only the piece that we have in the gallery, but also on much of his other work.
I think it is nice to have a written explination about a piece of work because the artist knows that his/her reasoning for doing the piece is clear. However,I think that having the writing does in a way limit us to only seeing the work in one way instead of finding our own meaning in the piece.
Personally, I didn't really see the point of the gallery. Mainly due to the fact that I didn't really understand what the underlying meaning was behind it all. If there was any underlying meaning in the first place. But, I did like the way it was set up and the way the exhibit actually makes you think, instead of spoon feeding meanings to you.
I'm not really sure what the artist was trying to say, but my first thought was that he was trying to make a point about how we all speak different languages but all connect with the same type of art. After finding out what this work was about, I found it no more interesting than I had before. It just didn't appeal to me in an aesthetic way. I guess I'm more interested in the colorful/pretty picture paintings, because not only was this just words that I didn't really understand, it was a very bland color that didn't attract my eyes to it. I just wasn't a big fan of this work.
Aesthetically, I didnt feel that this peice was appealing at all. I understand that the artist was trying to get across some sort of message but I couldnt pick up what it was. It just wasnt enjoyable to me in any way whatsoever. If the artist possibly added fun colors it may have been a bit more exciting.
I didnt understand what the artist was trying to communicate at all. The art was not aesthetic to me at all, if that was even art. I can take words post them, and say its art. It just didnt interest me what so ever.
I walked through the gallery with Josh in hope to leave with two opinions that would explain what the artist wanted us to feel or get out of seeing his assemblage. When Josh and I went through we had identified several languages, English of course being one and and another,Latin. But by just reading the English part we could not settle on why the artist chose to arrange words as he did. They didn't make sense! The writings on the walls though, i feel do not limit our experience. As we were trying to put the puzzle of several languages with different sayings together for ourselves, we were overloaded by the many things the artist was trying to communicate. Therefore, I assumed he was trying to say several things and we would understand what we could and that was that. The material use was not so appealing to my eye but the assemblage and the way the artist had placed his stands to produce a maze, I thought was clever. Unfortunately the art did not appeal to me in an aesthetic way. The art brought about confusion and though after reading the pamphlets at the small table to gain a better understanding for what the artist was really trying to communicate, i felt the same.
The installation by Alastair Noble completely lacked aesthetic appeal. It appeared to me to be bland and did not catch my eye. I was confused as to what it all resembled but once I was clear on the title of the work it all made more sense. In my eyes I do consider it to be art, just.. really really boring art.
When I walked this installation with Rem, I tried to put together why the different languages were on the same parts of the three-way structures placed around the room. Like Rem said, we identified a few, but couldn't put together what the artist wanted to convey by doing so. After walking it again on my own, with a little more information about the artist kept in mind, I came up with the idea that I think he wanted to put together the kind of labyrinth of words that you find in books, into our everyday lives - tied with technology, this makes for some interesting art.
But though this art was interesting to me, it wasn't aesthetically appealing, nor did I necessarily like it. I liked the fact that I could walk around in it, and as I was concentrating on the text, I would (for at least a second) have to ask myself where I was.
So, I can say that I see why this artist is famous, though I'm not a huge fan.
The intent or message that the artist was trying to convey was a bit muddled to me. As I walked into the installation, it was like a silent cacophony of written language, nothing particular jumping out and defining itself.
I do not believe written word is a necessity in a work, it is all about the context in which it is used to complement the artwork which makes important. Words (such as a statement or explanation) can be limiting, however, if they are giving the viewer a preconceived notion of what the work is intended to be by its creator. To me, an artwork is what you determine it to be. An artist may guide you through his work, but to outright tell you what you should perceive when viewing ones work takes the joy out of enjoying art.
While written word IS a powerful form of art, the artwork itself was not particularly aesthetically pleasing, but I do not think it was intended to be. To me it seemed to demonstrate the power of language and its ability to perplex as well as enrich ones mind.
Im not too sure what the artist was trying to communicate in the work of art. Just a bunch of words isn't really art in my eyes. I need to see something with a deeper meaning than just some words. If the artist would've maybe described the work or gave you some hints to what it was supposed to portray then I would have enjoyed it better. This work did not appeal to me aesthetically.
I personally was not a fan of this installation but thought it was well done. When I first saw it I immediately wanted to know what it meant and just drove my self mad trying to think about what it could be. I think that i would have enjoyed this piece a lot more if I had known more about the artist and what he was trying to convey. I found the piece to be really interesting. When i was in the exhibit i found myself just being drawn around the room just by the thought of finding something i could understand. Also I liked that you could see through the screens the words were printed on. The way he moved you around the room in such an un-orderly fashion i thought was executed really well and contrasted the way you would usually walk around an exhibit which would be very linear and structured.
aesthically, These kinds of pieces do not appeal to me. Although I am not a skilled artist or critic, I know what personally is "Good" to me and this does not pass the bar. I respond well to visual pictoral descriptins with limited text. I am sure this is art to some, but I do not get it.
I want to conclude the comment run on this post by also chimming in on the questions and the installation. There were many well thought out comments posted here both pro and con about the exhibition...and thats all I really ask, for your comments to be thought out.
This is a challanging exhibition in that the artwork does not come in the neat package that we are accustomed to seeing. It lacks color, does'nt hang on a wall, and is not simply an object to be contemplated. In fact, there are no pictures! But this installation is firmly rooted in postmodern art and uses the formal qualities of art elements and principles to lead the viewer on the path to deriving the content.
First let me address the subject of "something written to accompany the work". I, like a number of you that posted comments, do not always want a written explanation of what a work is about. I like mental exploration and discovery based on my own perceptions first, but when faced with a real challange as to what if anything a work is about, I do like having the option to be educated on the piece via an artist statement or catalog. I believe that Mr. Noble's installation in our gallery is a piece that does require a written component to the work...and we have that in the form of an artist statement and a catalog that was produced just for this exhibition. His statement about his work and interests help the viewer come closer to understanding the installation. But, its the essay within the catalog that illuminates all aspects of this installation from the very specific configuration (hexagonal)of the standing elements to the authors of the fragmented texts. The essay also points out key concepts that we have recently been talking about in class that are associated with Postmodernism...fragmentation, content shifting with the viewer's encounters,context,importance of language, and pluralistic thought. The catalog for this exhibition works in partnership with the installation.
Aesthetically the piece is clean and lean. It allows for the viewer to wander in and out of the work. It has a great sense of chaos but at the same time, order. My favorite detail of this installation is how the light reacts on the surface of these panels. The light seems to charge the fragmented text...some opaque and some transparent.
Having spent plenty of time installing the work as well as visiting with Mr. Noble, I was able to gain a greater insight into this installation and from that a deeper appreciation as well. Sometimes good art is not easy...
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein
Matthew Eller.
When i first walked into the gallery before I even looked at the words i thought it looked pretty good. The pieces that the words were on really appealed to me. After reading what they said I honestly didnt understand what the artist was trieng to say. From my own opinion I was thinking that maybe there are so many different languages and people in the world that somehow they come together and have the same meanings for some things. I dont know if that really has anything to do with the artist was trieng to say but that was my interpretation of it.
I feel this work of art really shouldn't have been in the gallery, it was boring and not aesthetically pleasing. I was a very upset that words printed on flags is actually acknowledged.
While we were watching the video of Janine Antoni in class I first thought that she was very strange and thought her artwork was somewhat weird and unusual. I went to her website and looked at her works and found that her works are very different and unusual, but that’s what makes her a unique artist. Her rope project title “Moor” I think is very creative. I feel this way because she all the items of clothing and fabric she used in it had a special meaning to her. This is what I like so much about it because she kept the things that were close to her and combined them together to make a unique piece of artwork. Her other piece titled “Saddle”, I found very strange. When I first saw it in the video I didn’t think that it was hollow because when u look at it, it doesn’t seem that way. As Janine told the story of how she created it I thought it was strange but unique and different. It’s a unique piece but I’m not in to that type of art.
Post a Comment