Project 3

Homework 6

PART ONE:


Ryoji Ikeda, "Test Pattern 100m Version" 
In this video piece, Marclay initially requests that it be viewed in a certain fashion in order to be enjoyed in a certain way. This automatically suggests that the artist put a lot of thought into how they wanted their art to be presented and how time affects the piece as a whole. Christian Marclay I said to have coined the technique of piecing together fragments of film, this video is a mere three minute excerpt of a video the span of twenty-four hours of fragments of 70 years worth of film history. In this excerpt, Marclay uses a variety of films that take place in a variety of time periods, settings, and genres. Just when you start to feel comfortable in a clip's world, the clip changes and suddenly you're transported into another world. Not fully understanding the context on a single clip fragment, I personally felt automatically engrossed in the world each clip put me in, even though I didn't fully understand what was actually happening. I'm not entirely sure if this was Marclay's intention when he was assembling this piece, but that's definitely how it made me feel.   

Christian Marclay, The Clock
In regards to the formal part of this piece, someone would initially take into account the medium through which this piece is done. It's an audiovisual installation piece, that heavily relies on the participation of an audience that interacts directly with the piece itself. The piece itself consists of two long walkways made up of video-screen panels that are constantly flashing various black and white barcodes. With music playing in the background (also composed by the artist), large groups of people were able to walk along the walkway as they pleased and interacted in the piece in their own unique way. Since the images displayed on the walkways flash repeatedly, it almost creates a strobe-light effect in the space and allows the audience to play around with the environment that Ikeda creates. Some of the patrons simply sit down or stroll along the walkway, just enjoying it. Others dance around or take photos of themselves, trying to become a part of the piece in their own way. I think the reason Ikeda's piece is so successful in getting the audience involved, is because of the scale and composition of his installation. It's consumption of the whole space results in the people participating feeling small in comparison, it's seems more like a playing-ground than art.  
After doing some research on the piece itself, Ryoji Ikeda's intention was to translate the "digital data that surrounds us in everyday life" through the barcodes on the screens. I think he was successful in his intentions, but also resulted in creating this sort of other-worldly place that people can step into and feel completely removed from the real world. 

PART TWO: I commented on Ashley's and Nicole's projects. 

Project 2

"Busy Bodies"

I wanted to focus on the concept of 'busy bodies' personified through bodily function--most importantly the brain. 

Homework 5

An appropriation artist is someone who reworks another pre-existing creation in order to make something new; whether or not that new art is given a new look, purpose, or commentary. Appropriation, at least in art, is seen in virtually every creative medium possible: visual images, music, literature, film, fashion, etc... it's become such an engrained concept in the creative process that it will usually so unseen or unnoticed by the audience. I believe that today, most artists gain inspiration from something or someone that has proceeded them and will sometimes put certain elements of that work into their own, either as a commentary on that work or to simply enhance something that is completely un-related.

I do believe that the artists appropriating art today are working on a different playing field than the artist who appropriated hundreds of years ago. These days, the conflicts that arise from the rightful earning of monetary profit and recognition. Art is mostly pretentious at a 'professional' level and success is more often defined by money rather than influence or value of expression. Although its more universally seen in music, sampling/appropriation of other artists and songs is a common form of popular music--and this goes far beyond the concept of doing a simple cover. Now, artists have the sense to take anything they want from the world around them and converting it into a type of art they feel should exist. Lyricists take from classical literature, musicians can take an old song and completely change the genre it was written for, artists can take techniques and allusions from film or even technology to create a visual allusion, artists today have the whole creative spectrum to draw inspiration and influence from. I believe artists today see the art world with a lot more freedom, most likely because the mostly unrestricted content that can be obtained through the internet. Also, I feel like as a whole, artists are now less inclined to make art as commissions but more for themselves or to push themselves. We live in an age where internet recognition and public approval is sure-fire way to success and popularity. 

I do think Kelly's "Black Star Press" work has more taken away from it due to the artists race. Not to say that there's anything stopping him from creating any kind of artwork he feels like creating, but just because everything has the potential to be appropriated doesn't mean everything should. Even though the piece is not a commentary on race, his commentary on the circulation of certain images makes less sense and honestly matters less due to subject he chose to focus on in relation to what race he is. I think Miranda Lichtenstein has a point when she says that everything can be 'appropriated'. Mostly because, everything has happened in the past, whether it's a creative work or not, can be repurposed by someone and turned into something else for this time. 

The artist I wanted to research from the article is Sara VanDerBeek. She is a Baltimore, Maryland native and is known for her photographs sculptures and 'three-dimensional still-life assemblages' that she destroys right after using. VanDerBeek appropriates from classical sculpture that she studied and observed while traveling to different art museums across Europe. VanDerBeek is also best known for creating these photos with the purpose of showcasing these statues' relationship to the space they are placed in. I chose this artist because her purple-hued photographs of classical sculptures really caught my eye, and it seemed like her work is best appreciated in a three-dimensional and physical space (she makes very good use of installations). 

Homework 4

To begin, I believe appropriation art is about sampling or reworking either another object or creation that comes from different source and incorporating it into one's own work. However, there is a fine line between appropriating something and downright stealing someone else's idea and claiming it as their own. Appropriation is present in everything from music (covers, remixes, and just straight up sampling), visual art and video art (either visually universal motifs or specific works from someone else), and virtually every artistic medium in between. When it comes to the term Fair Use, it provides a bit of freedom for the public to use someone's work without the need of notifying them or asking for permission. In regards to the relationship to Fair Use and artistic creations, I don't believe they are either friends nor enemies, because Fair Use does not allow the amount of freedom that would allow them to 'get away' with anything; at least in terms of creating new content. Fair Use is mostly about letting people use small excerpts from other works, usually for educational rather for commercial purposes; and usually if that work is no longer in print.

I was already familiar with Richard Prince's appropriation art before reading this article. His 'Cowboy" pieces were taken from photographs used in magazine advertisements and resulted in similar courtroom disputes. Whether or not Prince's art has meaning, it doesn't detract from the fact that is a form of appropriation. Artist's will always change other people's work to varying degrees but how to decide how much alteration is enough to not get someone into trouble is no small feat. Although I will admit that appropriation in art is much more obvious in visual art than it is in literature or music. I feel like are more instances than not the work visual artists appropriate from will get them into trouble. However I don't want to fall into the category of people who believe art always needs to have some sort of meaning. The artist may have no reason to make a piece of art, but the audience will always place meaning there if it has none, that how it works. Now when it comes to the internet and the circulation of visual media and how the public consumes, there's almost no way to control who sees it and what they chose to do with it, artistically or not. That's the risk internet artists take. Visual art isn't even the only thing that is appropriated daily on the internet. I feel like in this digital age, it's as easy as ever to trace back art to it's original creator, so even though people may appropriate other's work there's a much smaller possibility that someone else can take credit for all of it. There's also the issue of appropriation art being for profit, and whether or not the original artist will even care about it unless it jeopardizes their ability to make money off of their work, or if they don't get a portion of the money they think they deserve.

I think Richard Prince knows how to make money. I honestly think that's his goal and he found that appropriation was an easy way to do it. However, he's not the only one. There are thousands of instances where individuals or corporations have profited off of appropriation--whether in art or not. I don't think we can decide on whether or not he's a real artist or not because there's a very vague notion of what 'real' art is----it's very subjective. Whether or not I agree if he's a good artist or not, he accomplishes his goals, but that isn't to say that people who find his work problematic or even illegal shouldn't criticize him for it--they should! In regards to how I see appropriation--I think it can work and sometimes it shouldn't even be messed with. It really depends. If someone were to appropriate my work, I'm not sure if I'd be upset or not. It would really depend on the nature of that artist's work. However I am a firm believer of giving credit where credit is due.