Photography progress!

 

Any input on which of these is more successful/interesting would be much appreciated! Thanks!

Painting Progress

 

Well I still have a lot left to do but here's the start of the 4 by 5 ft painting!

Process Photography

 

Progress

finally finished this painting

and started 3 more

 

I learned how to use my easel and painted the gray base for the large painting. 

I tried to start the large painting using a projector but I was not able to hook the projector up to my computer because I didn't have any of the right cables. I was able to hook my camera to the projector but my camera automatically turns off the display after 10 seconds and there was no way to change this setting, or least I could not figure out how after 30 minutes... Guess I will be lugging the canvas to campus this weekend.

Since the weather is finally permitting, I will be taking pictures of Zoey today before the sun goes down!

Progress Photography

This is going to be a series of photos of Zoey displaying various collections and belongings.

Here are the first photos I have taken:

Other ideas for photos:

Zoey sitting or standing on the back of an arm chair with a tea set setup on the floor in organized lines.

Zoey in a tree with a bunch of her books propped up on the branches and organized by size and color.

Zoey standing in front of a chain linked fence with her dress ups hanging on hangers in an orderly fashion.

Zoey sitting in a class room chair with her markers, pencils, colored pencils, crayons, and other school supplies lined up in and organized pattern in from of her in the school hall (Will have to find out about getting permission with the school)

I want to do a picture of Zoey sitting in the grass with a collection of something but haven't decided what makes sense for that situation yet.

I want to take a photo of Zoey with her large collection of head bands arranged in front of her but not sure about the setting yet.

Potential picture of Zoey with her sand/beach toys arranged in front of her, possibly on the beach or on a driveway.

Potential picture of Zoey with dolls and their accessories arranged in front of her, not sure about the setting yet.


One last photo with goes along with the idea but is of a different kind:

I am going to try to take 2-3 more of the settings I have planned hopefully this weekend. If I can do more I will, but the setup time for these pictures varies so it is hard to say how long it will take.

Expressionism and Cognitivism

Questions for Further Reflection

1. When, if ever, is knowledge of an artist's intent in making a work of art valuable and relevant to interpreting or judging that work?

I do understand why some people find the artist's intent completely irrelevant with regards to interpreting or judging the work, but I personally find it incredibly relevant. For instance, I plan on painting a picture of my daughter where her midriff is exposed. My intent in having her stomach exposed is not to suggest a sexual tendency in children but quite the opposite. I wanted to reveal the innocent nature of Zoey by showing her formless belly; it is neither muscular nor fatty, not unlike the belly of a baby or a cabbage patch doll. For me, intent is relevant and important. With that said I believe just as there is two sides to every conversation, there are two sides to every artwork. There is the intent of the artist and then there is the interpretation of the viewer. The "conversation" or interaction that takes place is different for each viewer and may even be different for each additional viewing. So I suppose my answer is that the intent is relevant but only half of the story and may be chosen to be disregarded my the viewer if they please for the viewer may choose to value their own opinion over that of the artist's.

2. When, if ever, is biographical information of a psychological nature relevant when interpreting and judging a work of art?

In my opinion, for that is all that matters in these responses of mine, it is not relevant but it is interesting. Whether or not Vincent van Gogh was crazy or depressed does not alter my opinion of his art; In fact it does not even provide me any insight as to why his art is the way it is. With that said, I do find it interesting to find out information on an artist because it does give me insight into their life. And as an artist I do like to know how a particular artist felt while making any specific work but as a viewer I care only about how a work makes me feel while viewing it.

4. Is a "sentimental" work of art a good work of Expressive art?

Something sentimental is essentially the feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way. The fact that it is centered around the idea of self– the experiences, feelings, and views of the self– would suggest according to Expressionistic theories that it does make a good work of art. If the piece also communicates the artists' views of the world, demonstrating their insight into life or what not, then according to Cognitivist theory it would also make a good work of art. For me, when I make something and it is sentimental for me, it holds a certain level of value that not everything I create does and therefore I feel more connected to it and I do think they are good. But I suppose it all depends on the concept for the piece. Depending on the concept, the complete lack of sentiment could be what makes it good.

5. Can knowledge derived from works of art be trusted?

Can knowledge derived from the news be trusted? Anytime you derive knowledge from anything– books, tv, the internet, your parents, your friends, your teachers, art, entertainment, etc.– it should be strung through the internal filter that we all have. The legitimacy of anything should not be blindly trusted. With that said, I see no reason why knowledge through art would be any less reliable than  the knowledge obtained through books. It is another form of communication and can rely knowledge beyond that of words. To disregard the information contained within a work of art would be to close yourself off to a large form of communication and an area rich in information and knowledge.


I will post the last 4 questions/answers (3, 6, 7, and 8) asap.

painting progress 10/3

More progress with the sixteen 6 inch square paintings! I only managed to finish 2 more but went back and sorta added to two of the ones I showed in the previous painting progress post. I also have two more in progress paintings that I am working on right now. I'm hoping this time next week to have at least 8 out of the 16 paintings completely finished and potentially an under marking/painting for 4 more. 

With no further ado, here are the photos of my progress this week.

  

Five paintings finished!

Realism

Questions for Further Reflection

1. Are Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions about the arts relevant today? If not, why not? If so, which, how, and why?
Well yes and no. I'm sure they are relevant to some people and not relevant to others. I suppose the main question is whether it is accepted as relevant to me, or in comparison to the art world as a whole. I think the answer to both of those questions is yes, at least in part. Aristotelian concepts concern themselves with the overall beauty and purpose of an object. Does this piece fulfill its' intended purpose? Is still a very relevant question to ask yourself when examining a work of art. And from a Platonic standpoint all art works can be viewed while considering the finite shapes, colors, thoughts, sounds, customs, and characters that their beauty pertains to. I find that when I few a piece of art that is obscene, since I am uncomfortable with it, I take a very Platonic stand point by trying to view the work without allowing it to evoke any emotions from me.

2. Do you think Plato and Aristotle would differ on their judgments of Koons's work? If not, why not? If so, how and why?

I think they probably would differ greatly. I have a hard time believing Plato would have been able to appreciate any of his work and would have likely thought most of it should not be displayed publicly. On the other hand, I think Aristotle may have liked some of his works while greatly disliking other works. 

3. Can the thinking of Plato and Aristotle be applied to works of nonrepresentational, non-mimetic works of art? How or why not?

Yeah, I think they probably can to an extent. Not so much with Plato's thinking but maybe with the  thinking of Aristotole which sees value in the evoking of emotions. Nonrepresentational works can often evoke more emotions than representational, in the same sense that a rorschach test can evoke intense emotions and images. It allows the viewer's subconscious mind to speak to them, in a way. I do think Aristotole may have been able to appreciate that aspect of art, the nature of it, and therefore the thinking can be applied to nonrepresentational works as well. The thinking of Plato, on the other hand, relates almost directly to representational works and would therefore be difficult to apply to non-mimetic works which are not copies of anything. In a greater sense Plato would probably have had great issues with the aspect of expressing and even encouraging emotions. However, it is quite possible that they both would have seen little to be offended by or to enjoy in nonrepresentational art. I suppose one could argue both sides to the coin.

4. What do you imagine Plato and Aristotle might think about "reality TV"?

Wow, interesting question. Also a hard question. Heck, I don't even know what I think about reality TV some of the time. In short, it is likely that Plato would have thought it horrible and think it unfit to be seen. Aristotle would probably seen them as being a good thing because they provide an outlet which in turn can help us act more civil in our own lives. 

5. Plato advocates censorship of the arts. What counts as censorship? Is censorship ever justified? If not, why not? If so, when, why, by whom, and from whom?

To me, censorship is when anything is purposefully suppressed or changed to hide an aspect of it from the viewer. I think there may be times when it is justified but I can not think of any, per se. Obviously, obscene art should just be displayed in places where children are (ex. child's museum, public places, etc.) but that has less to do with censorship and more to do with common sense. I do think censorship can be used to further a point or a perspective that the artist is trying to present, so it can be a very useful tool. However, I think censorship for the sake of censorship kind of goes against what art has become in today's culture. Many artists have worked hard to get the art world where it is today, accepting of all forms of art, and so I do not see a time where it is actually justified to censor art within the context of an art. If it is offensive to you then look away and do not bring your children to an art exhibit that has obscene art. It is not the artists job to shield someone's eyes.

6. In your personal philosophy, is "obscene art" a contradiction of terms? Why or why not?

No, I do not feel it is a contradiction of terms. Art used to be about the beauty. Even when scenes of battle and death were portrayed the ones dying would die in graceful ways and it would almost seem beautiful. Now, however, art is more about the expression, whether it is the expression of the artist or of the subject matter, it is about expressing something real. In that way, most art is realism because almost all art presents a very real truth to the viewer. Of course, with that said, I have a harder time viewing obscene art simply because it makes me a bit uncomfortable thanks to my home schooled, good old christian upbringing.

7. Are vivid sexual images more obscene than vivid images of violence, poverty, displays of extreme wealth, or sickness?

I think they definitely can be. I know the argument is that sex is natural and beautiful and violence is not, however sex does at times walk an extremely thin line of becoming an act of violence. It is not especially beautiful to the spectator, unless the spectator is a voyeur and has at times become something very unnatural and violent. Frequently, in art, the images of sex are meant to be more alarming so they do not typically portray something natural or beautiful. To me it is frequently vulgar. With that said, I have issue with images of extreme violence as well. 

8. Should it matter to artists working within Realist traditions whether Realism is natural or conventional? Why or why not?

I'm not sure I understand this question exactly. Does it pertain to the way in which realistic art is perceived? I do not think any one style of art is more natural than another, because it depends greatly on what is natural for the artist in question. I do not think an artist should create realistic art because it is the conventional thing to do, nor should they not create realistic art for the the same reason. It should be something natural to them. As far as the conventional aspect of real art, I can not say. I suppose what should matter is what does matter to each artist individually.