It is interesting how when this exhibition in 1992 wouldn't of been possible a few years prior to the opening. When the exhibition first opened people weren't aware of the terms and how far technology could enter their lives. Today these terms are widely used and understood across cultures and generations. It is interesting to see how meaning changes through time, when the exhibition opened it was an advertisement or precursor for what is to come, now looking at it, it is a record of how far we have come.

I think that although this gap seems to be getting smaller, I can still sense the tensions between the disciplines. Last week my friend ( an environmental science major), was claiming that she does more work then me and my major was 'easy'. I think people in art history and other creative art majors feel the need to constantly defend the rigor of our discipline because we think that outsiders see us as lesser. I think this mentality of art being easy has been present for awhile and it will take some time to bridge the gap between art and other disciplines.

By recognizing the limits of a discipline we can then outsource, and ask help of experts in other areas, working interdisciplinary. I think that sometimes we get caught up in these 'clicks' (art students only spending time with other art students..ect..) when we should be focusing on utilizing everyone's strengths. When art historians work with environmental historians we can find some really interesting results that wouldn't of been discovered if these two disciplines didn't work together.

In my tourism and heritage class we talked about how culture is more subjective and has different meanings for members of the same culture. These differences have always been present in culture and fluctuate. I think globalization and technology may have made these 'rival interpretations' larger, as there is more excess to these competing perspective. Today everyone loves sharing their opinion on the internet and it can be easy to fall into stereotypical portrays of cultures.

Indeed the rapid commercialization of culture is shifting the power of control over cultural production from members of that culture to the consumers. I think globalization has good and bad implications on culture but if done ethically it could help improve poor economic conditions.

This to me is what makes the art world a fast paced, quickly changing environment because museums and galleries have to constantly update to stay relevant and attract visitors. I can see how it can be frustrating or tiresome to be always trying to discover the next big trend in art.

The 'white cube' can be a restricting way to display art works. We have gotten so used to showing art this way that it seems almost impossible to think of new and innovative ways to enjoy art. I do think that new ways need to be thought of but I think this is already happening, art fairs, and pop-ups are great ways to break out of the white cube. I agree galleries run the risk of becoming cliche trendy places where you go to take a selfie but I also think the art community is constantly looking for ways to change the status quo.

I find this interesting because a fair environment is similar to that of a flea market where people are expected to barter and negotiate for a lower price. This could be because buyers depend and expect the seller or to be informed, pricing fairly. They could also be afraid to offend the artist. I think that art fairs should work similar to open air markets in the idea that since I'm buying it at a traveling vendor instead of buying a work from the actual establishment it should be somewhat less expensive.

This is a great way to explain how Art fairs are an immersive, fun, colorful experience as I imagine discos were like. I sort of got a taste of this experience on our field trip to SOWA, the art district of Boston (I think). It was a strip of galleries that were all open late for First Friday and I felt like it was an experience not just a gallery opening. I can see how this type of way to display and sell art is so appealing, its an inclusive event that gives visitors variety.

Art only becomes a weapon of the revolution and a revolution begins when a government limits, censors or controls the public's ability to express themselves. Taking away basic human freedoms will in turn cause the people to create art that exposes injustice. Propaganda art becomes less of a serious message when you know the artists were told what to make instead of being an honest representation of the current public opinion.

This reminds me a lot of what we talk about in my tourism class, often times tourism is thought of as colonialism because richer, larger nations will visit these small countries for tourism purposes using their resources and leaving. This also forces the smaller nations to turn there culture into something that can be commodified. In Art, cultural producers struggle between making products that represent them selves and creating works that tourists will buy.

I see contemporary artists and artists in general as cultural agents that voice the concerns or emotions of the public or expose the injustices that have been inflicted to them. In this way they are as important to society as politicians are, voices or reason and advocates for change.

I'm surprised that the MFA hasn't had an exhibition similar to this. I feel that New England lacks a strong international relationship to the art world and exhibitions that celebrate other cultures and educate are needed to show the diversity of the world and not just art of the region one lives.

Harris words this really well, culture and arts are so important not only to us as individuals and as a group but its also a form of therapy. There have been numerous nations whose culture has been under attack including the Palestinian culture. These violations have cause artists to make art to work through the injustice they've faced and in some cases raise awareness to these issues.

I can see how globalization is a double edged sward, it can be damaging as well as beneficial. If done ethically, with an efficient system in place, globalization promotes tourism and the importing and exporting of goods, giving people jobs and boosting the economy. When done with out any regulation or respect it looks a lot similar to colonialism, exploiting other nations resources and damaging their culture.

I feel like this has become increasingly popular I;m seeing more and more 'super flat' type art, movies, and series including anime. I wonder if this type of art will grow even larger.

I think it is interesting that the addition of one tiny signifier changes the interpretation of the painting. The act of adding in the ballpoint pen behind the ear changed the man from peasant to respected architect. Its interesting that this little change was all that was needed to make it politically correct.

I agree and disagree with this, I think it makes more sense to make art that expresses your individual beliefs, struggles or values which others will then be able to relate to because they live in the same time and society as the artist. The individual art becomes art for the people because it would be an honest reflection of the time compared to an inauthentic representation of it.

"...translation thus cooks up something different, something hybrid."

Translation cooks up something different because of the untranslatable words or phrases, but instead of trying to translate this into your own language why don't we try to understand it in terms of their language, culture, and customs. By tying to take another cultures language and make it somehow fit into yours is like saying, that language isn't valid and you should change it to fit mine.

"...beyond absolutist notions of difference and identity, beyond the reversible stances of 'self and other' in which the Eurocentric gaze fashions itself as the other,.."

In my Cultural and Heritage Tourism class we have discussed the sense of otherness and difference. In tourism people are interested in visiting other places simply because of difference, to see something new. The issue is social difference is something we created its not preexisting, which leaves room for people and cultures to be misrepresented and we can easily fall into stereotypes.

"In this sense, these art works are not only representations of global political and economic realities, but their existence is also an effect of those conditions." pg.282

Art works such as McQueen's Western Deep, are examples of globalization, of the mixing of cultures and blurring of boundaries but at the same time they are products of this process. Making works like these authentic representations of these global realities.

"...an avant garde tradition of using the devices of art to highlight contradictions of reality: contradictions that it is the work of mass culture and ideology to conceal." pg.280

I was drawn to this quote because today the world is full of contradictions whether political, social or economic. Its the artists job to be able to recognize these contradictions and express them thoughtfully to the world. By exposing these ideals we can change them.

'Relational art' is interesting because it is disrupting the individual inner interaction between viewer and art work. This causes question of authorship and forces the work to be created collectively. These relational art pieces are almost a combination environments, happenings, and performance pieces.

It seems that reinventing the white cube has been a contemporary mission since the white cube was created. I think finding a new and unexpected way to display art in a gallery could have a meaningful impact on the way art is perceived. As mentioned later in the article displaying art in a studio form arguably causes the work to hang in an unfinished limbo. I'm not quite sure of this but rethinking the white cube is a noble endeavor.

Art, and more specifically contemporary art is often intended to make the viewer uncomfortable. Although some may find it be awkward this feeling is meant to force the audience to make connections and ask difficult questions.'It makes you think', contemporary artists are able to create temporary conditions, such as Lincoln Tobier's radio shows, that reach a wide audience and causes a wide scale conversation.

Later in the same paragraph Collard states "it takes two to make an image" meaning the artists intent or creation is just half of that art work, the other half happens when someone else views the work, taking that 'condensed' emotion and relating it with their own personal perceptions. This makes a work that is completely different from the artists intent.

Mapplethorpe is really making the viewer think after the shock dissipates, is this bad or good? I think most of the time the answer depends on the viewers personal values and past experiences. For me I think Mapplethorpe wasn't trying to continue the perpetuation of these stereotypes but instead looking these deep rooted ideals straight on and displaying them in a very unbiased way. Allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

Robert Mapplethorpe succeeded in this endeavor, the controversy surrounding his works I think is a good thing because that means more people talked about why it was offensive or why it wasn't. This conversation is vital in getting everyone to accept differences. I think that these images served a great purpose in showing African American men as real people who have the same body parts as everyone else. Why can a female be painted or photographed nude and it be labeled as amazing art but a black male is photographed nude and it becomes 'obscene'? If the work wasn't shocking then he wasn't doing it right.

"Senate amendment that would forbid the funding of 'offensive', 'indecent' and otherwise controversial art.."(pg. 224). By cutting funding of this type of art you are silencing citizens voice and opinions, labeling them as wrong, but who's to say they are wrong? Good art should make the viewer think, and a large part of that is being controversial because it starts a conversation that then leads to change. Art is used as an outlet to express concerns or emotions about what is currently going on (in politics or in personal life), thus you cant control what art people are producing.

".... wanted the NEA to end its sponsorship of 'morally reprehensible trash' and he wanted new grant guidelines that could 'clearly pay respect to public standards of taste and decency'."( pg. 223). The problem with this is it is impossible to draw a clear line where public standards are. Every individual or cultural group has their own set of standards which is why we have the freedom to express ourselves in different ways. If you don't approve of the work then its simple, don't go look at it.

By denying arts power to change the minds of the many but excepting it as a consumer good you are lessening the emotional value and impact it has people. Those ideals further perpetuate elitist stereotypes in the art world thus limiting the audience it reaches.

This statement really struck me, Although art is a commodity there is also another layer to art that some forget about. Art is expression and a lot of the times it has an important political or social message behind it. This connection is what makes art have an impact. Its not only their to raise money but also raise awareness thus changing deep rooted misconceptions.

"painting is a high art, a universal art, a liberal art, an art through which we can achieve transcendence and catharsis."(last page first paragraph) This is why I think painting will always be considered a high form of art and why people will continue to hold it to a higher standard than other forms of art. Since painting is so personal, everyone has their own hand, we can all experience it in our unique way making it a perfect vehicle for self expression.

In the last paragraph on the first page Crimp discusses the paradox of a museum. One wants to leave the norms behind and seek other ways of showing their work but how can people see your work if you don;t display it in a museum. But its important to remember that artists today often use social media and technology to show the public their work which could pose other problems such as authenticity and aura.

I love this statement, photography can be misleading because we assume it to be true since it is a photograph of reality. That is why I think photography is an interesting medium and takes more planning or skill then most give credit. It takes knowledge to plan a shot and it takes even more rigor to trick the viewer into believing your version of reality.

I don't agree with this statement, although the author goes on to explain that this is not completely true I still disagree with this pessimistic tone. Today art exists in a larger context and is not "insulated from the real world". With the internet we can look at works of art across the world and compare them with others. There is more purpose to making art then just as decoration and although it seems as though originality is impossible its not. There will always be "art for art's sake".

In the last paragraph on page 8 Wood talks about how minimalism "occupies an unstable position". This was interesting because I never thought of it as a "violation" of the conventions of modern art. I think minimalism is a great example of modern art because it aims to go against the grain or the norm by stripping the work to its bare form. (pg.8).

Here is Jules Olitskis Instant Loveland in color. After reading Jules statement "Color must be felt throughout" I immediately looked for a color version of the work. You can definitely feel the color throughout the work, a blush pink or purple blends in and out. The sprayed effect causes the color to look solid or like it was printed out. The yellow - black line at the bottom grounds me as I look at the work.

Here is a 21st century version of an artwork with shoes as the focal point. Since contemporary art aims to recreate or reinvent the past I thought of Kelly Shimoda's work for a show in 2009. It was an unconventional material exhabition focusing on clothing. For more of her work here is her website. https://www.kellyshimoda.com

Millenarianism was a word I haven't come across before, further research lead me to understand it as the belief in the christian millennium, which is a thousand years of happiness explained in the book of revelations. Today it means more of the belief in a future utopia which is not necessarily religious.