Gustave Klimt "the kiss"

The Kiss is arguably Klimts most famous work. Like alot of his work this painting signifies the erotic, romantic love between a man and a woman. They are locked in an embrace, a kiss and surrounded by an aura of gold light around them as they are encased in the shape of an erect phallus.

For my piece I wanted to play with the idea of taking one of the most recognizable works of erotic heterosexual love and turn it into that of same sex love. I tried to keep my cover as close to the original, making it so that the only apparent difference was that it was two women, instead of a woman and a man. I even tried to make the new woman appear similar to the original man by keeping her hair dark and her clothing with similar ornamental decor. I found the outcome to be intriguing. I am not sure if it is the expressions on their faces, or the position of their bodies or what, but when I look at my cover I question whether the love is that of romantic relations or of a nurturing, sisterly love. I question if this outcome is related to the similar reaction to those of same sex relationships. You question whether they are friends, sisters and then maybe lovers. I think something that does add to the ambiguity in my painting is that the kneeling woman has almost a sorrowful expression on her face (unintentional) which gives off the feeling that the other woman is merely comforting her. All in all, I found this project enjoyable and I liked being able to cover one of my favorite artists. I like how my piece turned out and feel like I should cover it again to see if the outcome differs from the first.

Working Through Objects reader response

Susan begins her article by introducing the Freud museum implying its rarity and importance by comparing it to other spaces that artists normally have to work in. She states that it has layers upon layers of meaning even in the present that is based on the collections that have been preserved in his actual family’s home that has been turn into the museum. Susan brings us into her experience working on an art installation in the museum introducing her first obstacle, the large vitrine. She then decided to limit herself to confining her installation to the oversized vitrine. She believed that the vitrine was actually a great opportunity to bring in the viewer and have them be more intimate with the work. From this set up she ended up with viewers that had detailed responses to each of her boxes present in the vitrine. She sums up that that a conscious configuration of objects tells a story. She says that there are at least two possible stories. The one of the story teller (the artist as narrator) or the other of the listeners understanding. Each box in the vitrine is set up in a process that is very dream like. She has a word with each box, an object and an image. These three things create a relationship and thus a story.
Working inside the museum she started to draw connections between herself and Freud, such as ethnicity. Besides personal connection she started drawing similarities between their collections. She concluded both dealt with mortality and death. Working within the context of the museum she started to theorize about collecting itself. She related it to dreams where as in a sense they both have nothing to do with the necessities of physical existence. She then talks about how collecting is a form of joy, like categorizing when you were young and even as you grow older. The accumulation of objects is what gives us meaning she concludes. For her, she found she was seeking immortality and meaning through objects.

I think it is key that there is such an importance placed on the fact that the place where her exhibition took place was in the Freud museum. I couldn’t imagine working in such a space without taking in the context. It is easy to understand that she would start to relate her work and even herself to that of the collections of Freud and even to Freud himself. I found her box titled Cowgirl really intriguing. I found her point about western culture getting away with a lot by pretending to not know what we are saying to be quite honest. I also thought it was interesting that she used words in foreign languages for her boxes to make the viewer feel outside of the discourse, unless they knew the language. I wonder what the outcome would have been if the words had been in one uniform language of the predominant viewer. Would the connection of the images, objects and texts been easier to make, too obvious or if the word in a different language gave it necessary depth and ambiguity…

Vitrine - a glass cabinet or case

The Anthropology of Assemblage reader response

William Seitz first offered the definition of “assemblage” in 1961. It appeared that assemblage was the anti-art-art, made up of natural or manufactured materials, objects or fragments of materials not intended as art. The concept of assemblage had been made possible by the earlier twentieth-century cubist collages and constructions and the surrealist object. Assemblage challenged the theory of Art and the concept of art making by using materials that could be thought of as throwaways or simply put, trash. However, it can range from the “dirty” junk sculptures like artists Bruce Conner to the “cool conceptualism of Marcel Duchamp” (24). Assemblage is thought of as Collage’s cousin, both standing on grounds of anti-art. And so it was hard for it to be accepted into the world of high-modernist art. Now assemblage is widely accepted and is visible in museums. Jonathon Katz argues that assemblage has a special function of secrecy, “able to conceal meaning beneath and among its many layers and parts. Assemblage can appeal to the hand and the body, and other senses like smell and hearing, while strongly suggesting its own contingency” (25). These attributes make it easily relatable to non-western object. From assemblage also stems bricolage which Levi Strauss analysis states “is a collection of oddments left over from human endeavors” (26).
“The antiart function of found materials and their carefully chaotic combinations carried the potential to unravel the understanding of what art is for, becoming less an object of contemplation and poetic transfiguration than a tool for doing things, perhaps by roundabout and covert ways- a means of taking action via the apparently benign debris of everyday culture” (30).
When you think about how accepted assemblage is today as a form of art it is hard to contemplate that it has had to fight its way into existence. Thinking of how it started off on grounds as antiart-art and now it is readily accepted as an art form. Still I do believe it has a place as antiart because there are still existing notions of art being that of “high end.” It makes perfect sense that assemblage is related to the cubist and surrealist movement since they were all challenging what art was thought to be. I personally found the part on bricolage intriguing when Levi Strauss compared it to magic, “lying half way between scientific knowledge and mythical or magical thought” (29). He states that both are results of actions and manipulations, collections of activities. I think that it is pertinent to acknowledge the importance that assemblage has had in the history of art. Along with other movements it widened the spectrum, of acceptable art and pushed the boundaries of imagination and conceptualism.

manifesto

Lauren Dobbins
Art Manifesto
ART 112
I Am For an Art
I am for an art that is erotic.
An art that arouses thought.
That stimulates your fingertips as you imagine
Them tracing along the lines and texture,
Or if you’re lucky enough, actually get to meet.

I am for an art that speaks.
An art that has something to say.
Something to scream
Or something to whisper.
Something deep and abstract.
Something simple and concrete.
Even if it is only to say,
“The flowers in the spring are breathtaking.”

I for an art that hangs in public bathrooms.
An art that is put there simply because it looks good.
Not that is needed, and that is the joy of it.

I am for an art that is impractical.
I am for an art that is impertinent.
I am for an art that is impossible.

Because it can be.

I am for an art that expresses our freedom.
Our freedom to imagine.
To create.

To live in an alternative dream world.
Or to face the truth of our world.

I am for an art that is an escape.
For the artist.
For the viewer.

I am for an art created in the mind
And made with the hands.
Or the toes.
Ankles.
Elbows.
Knees.

I am for an art that exists for the sake of expression.
That is not needed to survive.
But needed to live.

I am for an art that evokes an emotion.
That keeps you coming back,
To feel, and feel again
Because these days,
Things are starting to feel routine.

Katy Asher & The M.O.S.T

I loved hearing from Katy Asher about The M.O.S.T. The whole "ministry" / "embassy" was fascinating. I think that the "Ministry of Small Things" is ingenious. I would love to have a group where we met regularly to talk about the "small" things in life and see what we have in common. I suppose that is what my friends and I do. Maybe we should turn ourselves into an official group. I can't believe that they got the project to go so far, stretching over years and being able to travel, even out of the continent on behalf of The M.O.S.T. All the maps were so detailed and really created a feeling of authenticity. The trading cards were great too. Everthing they did and created had so much effort and thought put into it. I can only imagine how much fun it mus have been to be able to create your own world in a sense, and actually having it be more than just yourself and your friends involved. I wish that I had been aware of them when they were still together and could have gone to one of their exhibitions. One thing that I personally enjoyed was their version of marriage in Mostlandia. That was so cute how you could rate it on how "gaga" you were for someone. And how they served ice cream and refreshments at all their events really added to the fantasy and fun of the whole thing. While on the other hand, what they were producing was this fanciful world, but everything that went into it and all the planning, work and behind the scene was very systematic with so many details envolved. The whole world seemed to be full of whimsy and fun but it is fascinating how much actual real hard work was put into creating it. It really seemed like they truely believed in this world. And really, for anyone to have taken it seriously, the members had to and it really showed how much time and effort and creativity went into the creation of The M.O.S.T. I find it inspiring that a typical group of people with things in common can establish themselves into an embassy, create a nation, get followers and sustain it for years.

The Man Who Never Threw Anything Away" reader response

Ilya Kabakov, “The Man Who Never Threw Anything Away”
The article starts off with the story of a plumber who lived in an apartment. It had gotten exceptionally cold and it was necessary for the heat to be checked. Three grease covered men insisted to the chief tenant that they get into the plumber’s room. No one appeared to be there so they broke down the door and inside was piles and piles of trash. “The entire room, from floor to ceiling was filled with heaps of different types of garbage. But this wasn’t a disgusting, stinking junkyard like the one in our yard or in large bins near gates of our building, but rather a gigantic warehouse of the most varied things, arranged in a special, one might say carefully maintained, order” (32). The arrangement was quite spectacular and brings to mind the idea of what comprises “garbage.” Kabakov goes on to talk about how what may seem like trash to one person may not seem like trash to another because of the sentimental value it may possess. Or even still, how certain things may seem important, like post cards or old letters while common sense tells us other things are less important and therefore is trash and should be tossed out. Kabakov refutes this idea by saying, “Why should common sense be stronger than my memories, stronger than all the moments of my life which are attached to these scraps of paper which now seem funny and useless?” (33). He continues to theorize the importance of the “trash” in his life saying that it is the only true tangible artifacts that can confirm his existence by proving his past and that to which has shaped him. He concludes his piece by relating the whole world to a dump saying that “the whole world, everything which surrounds me here, is to me a boundless dump with no ends or borders, an inexhaustible, diverse sea of garbage. In this refuse of an enormous city one can feel the powerful breathing of its entire past. This whole dump is full of twinkling starts, reflections and fragments of culture…” (35). He states that we have lost the border of garbage and non-garbage and that everything in our world is cluttered in garbage. But on a positive note he ends by concluding that it is from this garbage that preserves and incites new projects, ideas and a “certain enthusiasm arises, hopes for the rebirth of something, though it is well known that all of this will be covered with new layers of garbage” (37).

The thing that really caught my attention most in this piece, that was touched on the least, but I thought most vital to the whole theory was the idea of time. I’m sure the thought has crossed my mind before, but I don’t think I had ever thought in depth about it until reading this article.
The concept of time is quite boggling. It exists only because we created it. And all we ever really have to prove the existence of time or even the existence of lives and life is through artifacts. I have a box in which I keep “trash” that I find valuable. Everything in the box has a memory for me that I want to keep safe and for forever. I never really thought before that perhaps the things I keep in my box are also for proof of my existence. Proof of the event and proof of time; of my past. And it is interesting, with this in mind, that our whole nation, society as we know it is based on tangible artifacts; things that represent the existence of our past. And how collectively people’s existence that exists only in tangible “trash” will, can, and has been buried under more and more accumulated trash. It’s not like we can gather all our trash or anything and just shoot it off our world into outer space. It is like saying that everything that was, still is. It’s almost comforting in a way, until you remember that after you die all your things will be sold in an estate sale and the person who bought your vase never knew your story or will soon forget. But perhaps your daughter kept your ring and gave it to your granddaughter and she passed it on and the memory of you travels along with it. Or maybe there is comfort simply in the thought that your vase and your ring still exist even after you cease to.

The Philosophy of Andy Warhol Reader Response

Warhol starts off talking about how people should live in one large empty room, clear of all the clutter that people tend to collect. He says that everything should be locked away and stored somewhere else. That if you can't get rid of everything you should have a closet for your things, but a separate closet, "So you don't use it as a crutch too much."(31) He states an example that if you lived in New York you should keep your closet no closer than New Jersey. He uses that logic that nobody want to, "feel you're living next to your own dump."(31) Other people would be more bearable because you wouldn't know all of the exact contents, that knowing about everything that is in there and thinking about it too much could drive a person insane. He continues to say that everything in your closet should be thrown out at some point and expire like food. Warhol states that the best thing to do is to have a box for a month, put all your stuff in it, then lock it up and send it to your closet in New Jersey at the end of the month. Try to keep track of everything but if something gets lost, well then that’s just a little less clutter in your life. He started with trunks and such but soon found that he was looking around for better things so now he simply uses a cardboard box. He says that he hates to be nostalgic so he half hopes that everything will get lost anyway, never to be seen again. His other way of thinking is that he really wants to save some things because he might need them again sometime.
I thought that this article could be referring to a couple of things; first to the clutter of thoughts that fill our brain, and second to the clutter that fills our lives. He says that we should all have a big empty space, a clear mind without being crowded by all of the stuff we store in our minds and pour over and over, taking up brain space. He says that we should keep things while we need them, but that at some point they should be sent away to free up the space. Eventually though he says these things should all be thrown out. Sometimes he even wishes that things would just go away forever, and that he wouldn’t ever have to think about them again. At the end he contradicts this way of think though by saying that he does really want to keep some things there, to use later. There are things that you don’t want to forget. I think he could also be talking about the clutter that people tend to have, making our lives chaotic. Clutter made up of; everything from our work, our busy social schedules, the things that worry us, bills, and all the material possessions that one tends to accumulate in life. All of these things are taking up space in our lives, making them more hectic. And while the chaos can be overwhelming at times, even preventing us from progressing in life, sometimes it can be useful to tap into it and pull from it ideas, memories and new projects.