Pirates of the Smithsonian

Whose side are you on in this debate? Use examples and terminology from Chapter 10 in your Practices of Looking text to back up your argument. This should be a substantial post. It should certainly be longer than the typical 2 paragraphs to really present a comprehensive argument.

In regards to the Smithsonian exhibit, I have to say that I am against them showing it. Their mission statements don't agree with the scenario that was played out. Although I do believe the remains from the ship should try to be saved and put on display, I don't think the Smithsonian should be who is leading or showing the exhibit. In a society and world that now allows for the accessibility of art (via franchising and global sharing,) I think that there needs to be some dignity left. They have no business showing an exhibit that has no cultural relationship. I think if it were ran by Chinese or the Western Asian groups that have more of a cultural relationship toward the artifacts then toured the exhibit around the world, that would be appropriate. If global media was not what it is today I would probably be in favor of the Smithsonian showing the exhibit and promote it. But with travel more accessible not only physically, but visually, I just can't find myself in agreement with them showing the exhibit. If we keep this exhibit in foreign territory where it didn't originate, not only do we not stimulate the global economy, but we decrease the voyeurs experience of the art. Not to mention, the relationships between the US and other countries, especially in middle eat & asia, would be negatively influenced; more so than they already are. As a means of respect I think we owe it to our global community to set aside greed and glory and embrace and encourage not only the traditions of other cultures & communities, but by doing so, we give credit to the art that was made for the advancement of knowledge and understanding. 

Commodity Whhaaatttt?

COMMODITY SELF - the idea that we construct our identities in part through the consumer products that inhabit our lives. Do you agree with him? Are you the product of products?

I absolutely agree with him. Before even reading the chapter all I could think of was the bumper stickers on the back of cars that talk about their kids being on the honor system, how great obama is-time for a change, co-exist, and whatever else on earth people have. Bumper stickers are perfect- everyone wants to be defined or part of a cause. That's why everyone always wants name brand class- just by a brand you can be classified by a certain financial class even if you don't belong to it! 

I thought it was interesting to read how objects are made without meaning but by sticking advertisements on or associated with the product we make ourselves more ignorant- that is, we don't take pride in what we make nor do we acknowledge that every product is made with humane or safe conditions. It's irritating to think of and realize but it's true. Its no different than walking by the poor guy on the street begging for money- you don't acknowledge him, that would be cruel because you won't be giving him money- so you walk by and act like you didn't see he was standing or sitting there. 

To keep rambling- this subject kinda reminds me of American Psycho- ha i know- but where i'm going with that is Yuppie culture. Christian Bale is always defining the bands, or culture or eating at really nice restaurants that you need a 3 month reservation for...he masks who he is with material things = commodity fetishism. 

We have all these cloths, pictures, bags, accessories and more taking stands on serious topics but do we even know what we're doing when we're wearing or using them? We're all responsible for falling victim to this lifestyle. Even I'm at fault- just last week for earth day/my birthday my brother got me a starbucks mug (best gift ever I may add) but i used my mug on earth day to get free coffee on earth day because "i gave up paper cups-or am now using recyclable cups. granted i usually don't get cups very often and I get gallons of water and reuse them til  the jug is dirty and i need to buy a new one then i recycle the old one. but just the stigma i felt from "reusing and recycling." i mean, it's kinda crap. i try not to live a  lifestyle in which I pollute or make the world dirtier after i leave a place but I just felt so fake after I sat and thought about it. 

This is an epidemic that we're all responsible for and we all promote everyday.  

AbStRaCt ArT

So this weeks blog is about an abstract artist that I am interested in.
This one was pretty easy. Piet Mondrian. Piet is an abstract artist who painted from 1892 to his death in 1944. Piet was the eldest of five children who belonged to Pieter Cornelis & Johanna Christine Mondriaan, of Amersfoot, Holland (Netherlands.) His father was a an art teacher, his uncle a painter, and all his siblings were artfully inclined. When Piet was 8 years old, he moved with his family to Wintersjik; at 14 he began his interest in painting. His father encouraged him to go to school to be an art teacher, in which he earned two diplomas to teach. In 1892 he left his family and went to Amsterdam to attend the Academy of Fine Arts. He, in his early career, preferred still lifes, countrysides, and simple subjects; very naturalistic and impressionistic. From 1905-08 we see his beginnings in abstraction. He traveled a lot, while still maintaining connection with his family. He lived in Amsterdam, Paris, London, and Manhattan, where he died of pneumonia.
He was greatly influenced by Picasso and Braque. Cubism influenced him heavily from 1911-1914 while he was in Paris. He always tried to relate his cubism works to his spiritual side. He was very interested in Theosophy. From 1919-1938, he returned to Paris and strongly focused on his abstract works. In 1938 he moved to London and then to NYC a few years later.
The reason I chose Piet is because in high school, Tableau I (1921) was one of my favorite pieces of art. I was beyond obsessed with it. I'm pretty sure in my art classes I painted variations of it every year. I have a stronger connection to Piet's work, more so than I ever did to Picasso or other artists. I genuinely respect his work and thought it would be a great idea to share him with everyone. These are a few of his works :)

Harrell Fletcher

Art & Social Change. I believe any thing that allows humans to create is not only beneficial, but the impact it leaves on those who are involved is only positive. Music, visual art, film; all of these can have effects on cultures, societies, and individuals. The best part about Art is that it can be done anywhere, anytime, for anything. It has been going on for generations and centuries; I think it will be just as important in twenty years as it was yesterday. Sometimes, images mean more than words; the first original forms of communication were done by cavemen & drawings. To think that we aren't influenced by art in our society is naive.

Through reviewing and reading over Harrell Fletcher's projects, the one that caught my attention was Corentine's Turtle. Not only did he involve the community, he involved a young boy and his creativity, as well as nature. I was touched that he did an outreach project in a local community's park instead a traditional setting. I enjoyed even more that he used Corentine's simple and complex idea of the turtle sculpture and allowing Corentine to have a significant part in the project. Fletcher has not only shown the community the idea of one person and how they interpret nature, but he allowed Corentine to have a sense of creativity which he will undoubtedly spread to those around him and influence.

I think if I had the opportunity to start a community I would do something to promote the idea of either doing good for other people or something in nature and taking care of our communities (people and animals.) If I could engage the community I would try to think of a project that would inspire others to contribute and continually contribute; like the commercial where one person does something good for someone, then that person does the same, and so on, til it comes full circle and everyone is intentionally helping a stranger out of good will. Another idea I would try to do would be to take a park or development and make it a place to enjoy nature, the company of others, as well as a place for one to take their animals. Even if it were adding murals to buildings at local parks or decorating the tables, sides walks, railings. I think it would have some kind of effect (hopefully good,) on those who participate or attend.

PEEP CULTURE: Virtual Connection > Human Connection?

I just got back from Hal's Peep Culture symposium. Not only do I feel enlightened after hearing it, I am at a loss for words. To bring about a discussion I'm just going to list all the notes I took during the symposium.

People act differently when they are being video tapped/watched & know they are.


Have we polluted the word "friend" - facebook "friends"????


We need to LOOK COOL. do we try to act as fake/portray something else- does this come from our previous/current obsession with actors & pop culture?


Virtual sites promote & portray our broadcasts- but don't be the person who expels too much- you'll clog up everyone else's news feed. 


To use facebook & other virtual means, we SHOULD use them by a GOAL & OBJECTIVE means. we are shunned if we don't have virtual connections but they need to be portrayed and handled in an "appropriate means"


Virtual life creates a connection with low expectation


Virtual vs Real/Human life: which will we choose? How much time do we spend in each?


How do we use or privacy in real life vs virtual life?


If we could HARNESS PEEP for it's good - we could create & feed a persons drive to care & be compassionate about others but do we know how to obtain that?


how does virtual life affect our morals?


people have replaced their real life-human connections with virtual ones to fill the empty voids 


After all my notes.... I guess my question is how can we break this virtual connection & it's importance & bring back an emphasis on human connection- or at least find a balance. The idea of how anyone can replace real life with virtual makes me so sad. Who's going to be there when they die? or when they age? Can they trust the eHarmony husband that they get hooked up? If we make it to the next decade, is it going to be socially acceptable for me to call my nana or go to lunch with my parents & friends? Does anyone else feel that we're slipping away from the ways we were brought up? Are my kids going to be texting before the learn to write?! Are there going to be MORE Jersey Shores' that i'm going to have to put up with?? (LORD I hope not!) 


just a thought....


Connection with Low Expectation and the Search for Community in an age of Alienation.
This idea really bothers me. We, in my opinion, should all be happy with who we are as individuals and strive everyday to better ourselves. There will always be someone who adores you & someone who absolutely can't stand you; what gets you by is the social support you surround yourself with and the actions/morals you choose to live by. It is not human nature to alienate ourselves - we're social creatures - we interact everyday. I understand everyone has an alter ego or that we all have to behave in certain ways and can't always fully express ourselves but -again- thats why we surround ourselves with the support systems of friends and family. I think this is detrimental to us as a culture. I really can't see any good from this.

Why do you think there is a double standard when we look at gender in art verses in advertisements? Women seem to be idolized in fine arts while being exploited in advertisements and commercials.


The double standard comes from the influence of the patriarchal systems that were established hundreds of years ago. The stereotypes toward women have never seemed to disappear. In the Rhetoric book, it mentions how the feminists have always & can, trace phallic structures & meanings back to the bible. Due to the male painters & their male audiences, in my opinion, created the 'setting stone' and laid the foundation almost for the phrase "seen but not heard."There's clearly a fine line between what is tasteful of men & of women. A guy could pose naked for an ad with his hands behind his head & that probably wouldn't be taken as something sexual, but if a woman were to do the same pose it would probably be understood a different way. Whether its right or wrong - it's a thought. But then again, women are more frequently related to earth (i.e. mother nature) so, you could say because women are fertile, like earth is, they would be best used as models & subjects like we use nature as our subjects (like in fine art.) With advertisements though, emotions & thought processes are focused on more which is why stereotypes seem to catch our attention and mold our thought-its what we know. It's just like all those pictures and ads in the 60s and in the movie Pleasantville. Women are set in these defined roles whether they want to be in them or not. Guys can show a little skin and they get teased or nothing is said, but a woman shows some skin and they are frowned upon. I guess it just comes down to, fine art wasn't necessarily appreciated during its original time, but is today; advertisements are kind of the same- we frown upon it today but tomorrow we'll praise it.