the idea of visual arts being unified reminds me of the ideas behind japanese "super flat"

this makes sense that these things happened behind closed doors. i am surprised that i have never heard about any of these things happening in china during this time, it sounds absolutely horrible.

this is an example of the government trying to censor what art is made. by promoting realism, cultural figures were trying to tell artist what type of art to be made, basically using the artist as a tool to promote the kind of messages that they wanted to get across.

i think the term super flat is in itself a very interesting way to describe this trend. i associate the word "flat" with having little depth of meaning. however, in this case it is described as many different layers forming a collective new layer which is a big concept in globalization.

"beyond the reversible stances of 'self and other' in which the Eurocentric gaze fashions itself as the other"

this reminds me of the discussions in class we had about globalization and how in America we view 'our' contemporary art as the baseline by which we compare art to other countries. This is an example of how traditional art history can be problematic and how the canon tends to leave out non western art, therefore perpetuating the idea that non western art is "other".

i think both image and structure play an equal role in producing a relationship.We respond to an image internally and respond to structure externally by having to physically examine a structure. the combination of both internal and external contemplation creates a whole experience and interpretation

this idea is very different that traditional art and the way it is "supposed" to be viewed. its comforting to me that these artists are not conceited to the point where they need their work to be seen. Instead, they are using their art as a tool to bring people together with the goal of improving the human condition and creating community.

it is comforting to hear that an artist is doing this type of work to create community, but how is cooking dinner for people considered an art installation? it does follow the theme of relational art by directly engaging the audience and creating a level playing field between the artist and the public. from one point of view it is just dinner, but from a more abstract view its the relationships that are being formed through the act of sharing a meal that is the "art"

this reminds me of the contrast between art installations that were happening during the AIDS crisis and art today. On the one hand, art during the AIDS movement was made to educate people and its goal was to improve the human condition. While on the other hand, I have seen street art displaying images and text about hope and love which appeal to the idea of "learning to inhabit the world in a better way"

i had never thought about the role the internet played in globalization but this quote led to some contemplation on the matter. Before the internet, you could only have access to the art that was around you and in your community. However, the internet is a platform for anyone to see whatever kind of art they want. I could google "african art" and get a plethora of information about its history and context without having to leave my desk.

the mention of "artist as designer" is something that i see with my friends who are artists and many artists that i follow. it is more rewarding for the artist to curate their own show because it is entirely their own. in Museums, most of the credit is given to the curator for picking the art and putting on a show while the artist is just a spectacle of that show. When an artist designs and curates their own show, they encompass all of what is means to be a creator and an artist, it reinforces that the art is actually theirs instead of art that is manipulated by someone else.

again and again i am noticing that a trend of contemporary art is about accessibility and relate-ability. the idea of the "white box" seems uninviting and only appeals to a certain kind of audience, while on the other hand, the "laboratory" is less intimidating and inviting to people. instead of a museum, people are invited into an artists workspace which provides and entirely different perspective on art and how to view it.

i can see how this type of relational art could not have existed thirty years ago. the art world has gradually broadened as time has gone on. it is no longer to be viewed just by the elite and the educated as it was in the past. the art world is evolving and assimilating into the world at large instead of just the "art world"

i fell like today non-availability is not as concrete of a concept in terms of social media. lots of artists have instagram pages that are open to anyone. any installation that is open for a "limited" time can easily be looked up and viewed on the internet. people are always taking pictures and posting them to the internet which makes art today even more accessible.

art is no longer being made for just the artist and their own need to express, but for the viewer and their need to relate to the world around them.

the whole idea of relational aesthetics make me question if "life imitates art"or if "art imitates life." the argument about relational aesthetics being made here is that art is what imitates life. Art is made to make a statement about something in the world, and it is through that image or installation or whatever it may be, that people are invited to either disagree, agree, or question that statement about the world.

the viewer is just as important as the art itself. art would be "dead" if there was nobody to view it and make interpretations of it. So in this argument, art does not exist if there is nobody talking about it and debating its meaning and purpose. this idea reminds me of the question "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it still make a sound?"if nobody is talking about art and experiencing it, then the only real benefit is to the artist.

the way we view art has changed a lot. instead of just looking at art, viewers are encouraged to experience and participate in art. I wonder about this trend and why artist feel that having interactive art is so important. do they feel they cannot get a message across without engaging viewers? are artists losing confidence in their art so much that they need people to feel and experience what they are feeling through interactive installations? or has this trend just come about because of the way our world has changed socially? participation bridges the gap between "artist" and "viewer" there is no longer a "viewer" but a person participating in the art in the same way the artist had.

this photo forces viewers to confront their own stereotypes and why they have them. its a nude like any other nude but because it is a black penis it becomes shocking and distasteful. if it was a naked white man the reaction might be different.

this reminds me of the discussion we had in class about Mapplethorpes privelage as a white male artist. Is it right for him to be making art glorifying the black male body when he himself is a white man? He may be the only one with the platform to do so on such a scale but it can be argued that he has no right to as a white man.

cutting funding for art seems like the government is trying to find loopholes to end things that they, as white conservatives, dont like. Art reflects culture and trying to censor these artists is a way of discrediting their culture and the messages they are trying to convey through their art. i feel like if this were happening now it wouldn't be as affective. if an artist looses funding then there are so many other ways their art can be viewed because of the internet and social media.

"do not dishonor our lord" this makes me wonder about the seperation between church and state. when the government tries to censor artwork and refers to it as dishonoring "our lord" it makes the assumption that everyone in america is a catholic. Jesus is not "everyones" lord and people should be able to make whatever statements they want about religion. this kind of censorship is almost unconstitutional because it discourages people from making their own statements. its not the governments job to monitor what people have the say about religion.

i feel like this rings true for any type of activism art. when people are not educated about an issue then nobody cares.

artists were producing very different types of art during this time. public installations forced information onto the public who were passively donating money. the role of AIDS art in a museum functions completely differently than a public installation. it says it right in your face, "you cannot ignore this anymore"

again, this quote reminds me of the possible guilt these people who were donating were feeling. the idea of donating to make themselves feel better rather than donating because they actually genuinely care about the cause.

this is an example about how people respond to stigma about AIDS and homosexuality. during this time people were very afriad of the disease and associated it with gay men. this idea of redemption through art was a way for people to feel less guilty about their stigma. "he was a gay man with AIDS and i would never be his friend but he was an amazing artist"instead of remembering those who died for the people that they were outside of the art world. its pretty dehumanizing in my opinion

in the first paragraph the author talks about how the work of art is frightened by the world at large. when art is isolated to just a museum of a gallery it looses that sense of accessibility and direct relationship with the viewer, we feel removed from it and therefore it is harder to relate to and appreciate it in the same way we would a public installation that is in clear view of the community. Museums put art into its own little safe world and its only viewers are people who feel confident enough to enter an art museum

i think its interesting that the author juxtaposes "bad" and "fun" to describe this type of art. art that "has no meaning" falls into the category of a hobby and artists just experimenting for "shits and giggles." but isnt that what all artists do when new styles emerge? all art is experimental

what is the point of creating art if it only stays within the art world? it creates this border and a seperation from the "elitist" art practitioners and the general public.

this reminds me of a discussion i had in a class about the difference between real art and "craft" i do not think that painting is a craft, but who says that people can't paint for fun. artists shouldnt have to be making art for the critic or the art historian. the idea of meaninglessness is hard to decipher. i believe the artist is the most important person when it comes to what they are trying to get across and i dont think that any art is meaningless

andy warhol's diamond dust shoes reminds me of the "waning of affect" that has to do with postmodern art and the flatness of postmodern art. another article makes a comparison between Van Gogh's shoes that directly speaks to the condition of the person wearing the shoes whereas Warhol's use of the same subject doesnt really say anything at all, its just commercialism.

i could see how people could get confused by modern art, but once they do reach the "heart of the installation" it becomes something much bigger. the whole point of modern art is that it engages viewers and forced them to think abstractly and make their own interpretations

the quotation about painting being possessed by structure reminds me of formalism and how other mediums cannot really be viewed through the lense of formalism as easy as paintings can.

this reminds me of the discussion we had in class about Serra's artwork and how it has no real purpose other than to be seen and experienced. it forces people to look at it wether not not their reactions are positive. Any publicity is good publicity!

I like this definition of contemporary art. no matter what medium, contemporary art sends a message about human condition and what it means to exist in this world. it is more reflective on the self and the world

contemporary art is about the viewers relationship with a piece-getting to know the artist and what went into the piece. also a piece that forces you to experience it the way richard serra did with his sculptures. i enjoy this type of art, backstory makes it easier to relate and make connections to the art.