post 10

     In my blogs over the course of these nine weeks, I have proposed a lot of questions. Questions about art and society, and even life in general. I would like to continue with proposing more questions while also sharing a viewpoint. 

     This all began as I was pondering the subject of "high" art again. I was thinking about paper dolls and how they are considered feminist art. Even the inspiring artist, who I wrote on a while ago, Cindy Sherman, made a line of work of paper doll making. I know that a lot of contemporary artists in the 1970's were into exploring this form of art making. But then I was thinking about how something that a girl plays with as a child (a commercial craft) can then later be used to make art (a high skill). 

     I have interacted with paper dolls myself. I had many paper dolls books that allowed me to color and or draw and design the cloths to dress my paper figure in. Barbie and Disney Princesses were among my favorites. Recently, I find myself very interested in the concept of a paper doll. This also ties in with my blog about women's roles. 

     Girls see many different "roles" as they watch their parents/guardians, teachers, and other adults. But they also see their peers. How their peers act, behave/misbehave, and where they fit in with these peers. Girls begin making associations that go with these "roles'' through the toys they play with. The outfits they choose to outwardly adorn their doll(s) are a way for them to further understand how there are different "looks." In a way, the doll(s) is a way for the little girl to be a caricature of each of these "roles." She learns which ones are desirable, attractive, tempting, needed, laughed at, weak, etc. Even paper dolls illustrate the same ideas. 

     There is also a hierarchy of dolls. A hierarchy that resembles a person's social status. 

Rag dolls: lower social status, humble, worn out

Old "vintage" dolls: odd, weird, creepy

Baby dolls: domestic, homely, motherly

Cabbage Patch Dolls: also homely, and motherly, cutesy

Barbie Doll: pretty, socially integrated, successful, plastic

Polly Pocket:  petite, cute, innocent

Bratz Dolls: live up to their name, diva, social celebrity

All of these are miniature microcosms of real life social circles. There is one "popular" girl and many other "friends." In movie terms, there is one main character or lead role and several supporting roles.  

     What is interesting to me is that these roles that little girls are observing have a long history of being made by a man. For centuries, men have been telling women who they are and who they should be. Even an industry that is supposed to be 'for' women is "targeting" women. Fashion, presumed by many to be a "girly" thing is filled with men who are telling women how to dress and how to look! 

    Girls become invested in this pretty image of life of which we hope to become a part of. But somewhere along the way, there has been a boy who has ripped or beaten up her pretty doll. The boy called it stupid.  This is exactly what happens as a woman. A woman dresses for the "role(s)" she wants to play, but is not taken seriously for whatever reason and is beaten down and made to feel stupid by a man. 

     

 

 
 


 

art art art

     This week for our photo class went to the High Museum of Art in Atlanta. The new exhibit Picasso to Warhol 14 Modern Masters is now open. I have actually seen Warhol in a few exhibits now, and actually enjoy his work. However, it made me think back to how he actually made art using modern commercial practices and assembly lines, etc. in order to defy the "high art" status expected of making "art" work. For his time, this was absurd, but people loved it and bought into it, yet now he is hanging up in a museum. A museum is where I would expect to view "high" art. At what point in time did his work gain that promotion from commercial art to fine art? Warhol is even best known as a painter. But he made prints. Granted there are other works of his that include paintings, and many drawings, but he is most widely known and remembered for 'paint'.

     This brings me back to my previous blog about how we define certain strains of art. Not only confined to the typically known sections of art media, painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, printmaking, etc. but also design fields.  Do interior design and fashion design compare each other and argue whether one is "higher" than the other? Will we ever see fashion design in an "art museum"?

     I turned to Webster for some help defining these wonderful vocabulary words:
"fine art" :   
1. a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural

b : objects of fine art

2

: an activity requiring a fine skill

These definitions seem very easy to understand, but they also exclude many different processes. I think this is where the Contemporary art movement mixed things up. I am not saying that is a bad thing. But it brought about use of and focus on concept.

"conceptual art"
: an art form in which the artist's intent is to convey a concept rather than to create an art object


So in this day in time, one must have an intent and idea, and the two must marry in order to produce "art" that is "successful". This still gets tricky for me because there seems to be so much room for subjectivity. 


"pop art"
: art in which commonplace objects (as road signs, hamburgers, comic strips, or soup cans) are used as subject matter and are often physically incorporated in the work


Now I would like to go back and ask my question of the design fields. Is design and art? Can design ever reside in a fine art museum? What are the distinguishing factors?


"commercial art"
:art applied to commercial purposes
dictionaryreferene.com reiterated
graphic art created specifically for commercial uses, especiallyfor advertising, illustrations in magazines or books, or the like.
Wikipedia says:

Commercial art is historically a subsector of creative services, referring to art created for commercial purposes, primarily advertising. The term has become increasingly anachronistic in favor of more contemporary terms such as graphic design and advertising art.
Commercial art traditionally includes designing books, advertisements, signs, posters, and other displays to promote sale or acceptance of products, services, or ideas.

Skills of commercial art

Most commercial artists have the ability to organize information, and a knowledge of fine arts, visualization and media. Communication is often vital in this field. Usually, the art department is relatively small, consisting of art directors, perhaps an assistant director, and a small staff of design and product workers. Commercial artists work a variety of situations doing many things in the artistic world such as advertisement, illustration and animation.

Genres

Commercial art can include many genres of art and categories of art technique, including:

• Commercial Character Design
• Illustration
• Graphic design
• Motion graphic design
• Photography
• Makeup
• Television commercials
• Music videos
• Animation
• Computer art
• Fashion Designer
• Interior Design

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/commercial-art-2#ixzz1cy9jxhbo


So in the end of all the graduate thinking and questioning, does fine art serve merely for aesthetic purposes? 
Can commercial art in fact be fine art? 


I am going to continue to look into these myself, but I thought I would ask others to weigh in on these questions. 











    

On Painting: On Painting and Photography

On Painting: On Painting and Photography

Today, I looked into the eyes of a young teenage girl who has been living in incredible amounts of fear. She has fear of teenage boys and fear of her father.  Add the normal fear of peers at that age, and fear of adults not understanding her. This fear was so great that it was affecting all areas of her life. The only solution she could imagine was causing her self pain. This young girl recently crossed over from middle school age to high school age. 

It was so sad to hear how she was used by these older boys she knew took advantage of her physically, sexually and mentally. This happened a couple of years ago and she is just now coming forward to tell someone because of naïveté, lack of who she can trust, and fear of being in trouble, or even physically disciplined by her father, for what these boys did to her. She was unaware of what it was exactly that was happening to her just a couple of years ago, but has reached a point of understanding the seriousness and intensity of this incident that happened to her.

At the Sally Mann exhibit, I remember mentioning that this artist’s photographs were sensuous of her children, but not blatantly sexual. However, I cannot argue the eeriness and somewhat disturbing feel that the photographs posses. I also remember bringing up how it really challenges my thinking about at what age it is deemed “okay” and acceptable, or even expecting for one to be “sexual”.  Innocence seems to not be a valuable quality in our current culture. Once on is a “certain age” innocence is dismissed as a prude or unworthy virtue. So teenagers go to a staggering number of experiences through which they get rid of or “lose” it. The alarming thing is some lose this against their will!

I finally arrived at an answer for when one loses innocence. I cannot help but make the analogy of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden when they ate the apple from the tree of knowledge. It was then that it states, “his and her eyes were opened.” They were aware that there is good and evil, wrong and right, positive and negative. With this knowledge they were afraid and ran.  This concept of good and evil is not limited to Christianity. Most religions I am aware of are based on the constant search of good and evil and knowledge between those two forces. And the struggle and conflict that occurs to try to understand them.

Relating this back to a teenager, I feel that that story hold the answer to my question. It is when children are making that transition from childhood into adulthood, from innocent to aware. As a teenager, that is why it is so gosh darn awkward and scary. One now knows that there is good and bad, but they are trying to figure out what that means. What is right and what is wrong? Who are they? They are now trying to redefine not only themselves, but also life altogether and how they fit in it.

This poor girl is now realizing that what these boys did to her is not good, and it is not okay. She has lost her innocence because someone threatened her into thinking that she needs to do certain thing for guys in order to be desirable. What is even worse, she thinks it is still her fault and that this is “normal.”

Is there recognition that people can be sexual beings with out being sexual objects? That a person can be sexual and moral at the same time? Heck why is innocence frowned upon so much after that certain age? And most importantly, how are we raising children? Adults should not raise children they should raise adults.

While this young girl’s story is not my own, I do feel as though I can relate to her because I have unfortunately watched things like this happen to me friends and family. I feel in a lot of ways that I am very naive for my age sometimes. Not unwise, unintelligent, not stupid, but in an innocent nature. I feel that recent life events have proved to me that older people, namely men, have and can take advantage of me because of that quality. But it is looked upon as inexperienced. I find it sick that my life hard ships are what build my resume in credibility. The fact that I am measured by the number of and type of bad experience I have been through, is awful. My first impression that seems to be read is that I am innocent, which means people are very choosy of their language, conversation topics, and almost juvenile in their social interaction. But once I have shared a tough time, then it is suddenly okay to talk about other, more explicit topics.  Sure, there is no denying the relatabaility of experiences, but not all life experience has to be so negative in order to be valuable.  

The very fact that people preach about Sally Mann’s photographs being offensive, but people practically wish an extreme traumatic experience on their youth is absolutely unsettling to me. The fact that one needs to “grow thick skin” if they want to make it in this world, is sickening. This is one very strong reason that I would not want to have kids today, because I do not want my child lead by, or even in company of, the people who I have experienced (first hand or second hand through loved ones). 

what is the new black?

Last week I discussed two thoughts. One involved technology and the other roles for women. I have further thought about these topics this week because I have been more in tune to them while I have been out.

            I must first bring up the show that we went to as a class at the Hagedorn Foundation Gallery, titled A New Photograph. I know I shared a bit at the gallery, but I always feel that I am unable to clearly communicate my thoughts or reactions verbally. I think that I am making a point, but I do not really know if others are hearing that intended point. 

Upon previewing the exhibit, and reading Susan Sontag’s book for class, I just began thinking about painting and its history, its validity as an art form, and how it functions in today’s society.  Then I did the same for photography. It is interesting to me the way Sontag talks about painting. I feel that I can hear animosity in her words as she discusses the rivalry and distinct differences between the two forms of art. Without listing a list of pros and cons of each one, I just wanted to point out the obvious change of roles.

When painting began, it was heavily driven by the importance of documenting events, people and stories of land and culture. There was a need for it to look real. To replicate what the eye can actually see. It was needed to tell the story of the people and culture of the time so it could be remembered. After photography came along, this major role of painting became unimportant. The technological advancement for this time, the photograph, took away that need for a person to replicate the ‘real’. Photographic process made it quicker and more accurately ‘real’. 

            After this, painting became abstract and about feelings, thoughts, and concepts, etc. freeing a painting to become more in depth than just a study. In present day, (my impression of people I have met) painting seems to be in a state of confusion, having an identity crisis of sorts with what its function is today accompanied by fear that the art may have reached the dreaded, dead state. Losing its throne of ‘high art’ to not a relevant art form at all.

            Photography came along not only as technology, but also as an art form. Granted, it did struggle for a bit in time to reach a level at which it was taken seriously.  I found it equally as interesting in the book Looking at Photographs that photography as a process was solely for the inventor to operate.  The technician, scientist himself was the one to operate his invention. Today, I feel that a “photographer” has the demands to be a great technician, inventor, and artist all at the same time. Talk about roles.

            This leads me to my point that connects all this background knowledge together. Where are the boundaries between art forms? Dare I suggest that the contemporary view of painting has made way into the technological realm and that paintings can be made with computers and/or machines? Is photography the new painting? Is design the new drawing?  Is architecture the new sculpture?

How do line, color, composition work differently to be able to have all these subcategories of  ‘art’. What makes one higher than the other?

acquisition and observation

This week, there are many things I could blog about, mid term critiques, the opening show of "Sex Drive" at the Atlanta Contemporary Art Center and open studios Friday night which our professor, Forest, was part of. But I will continue with my theme of acquisition and observation.  There was one statement in particular that Forest mentioned during the first couple of class periods that has stuck with me and I have continued to ponder. We were talking about the blogs for class and personal websites. Then Forest mentioned someone he knows that will not consider anyone's work or look at their portfolio if they did not have their own personal website; Because if they did not have their own site, then they do no take themselves or their career seriously, so why should he. I do not want to misquote but this is the essence of the statement that stuck with me. To me, I thought that was not a fair accusation. Why should I be forced to participate in this technology ------ in order to be taken seriously? To me there is a lot more that goes into being "professional" than a silly site that all I do is sit on by lazy butt and update the world (who really doesn't care about me), about myself, my day, my pretty pictures, blah blah blah. Now, I realize that this statement seems really 'old' coming from somebody my age. I mean really, I am in my twenties, young, and consumed by social media....well, should be.But I feel that social media is what it is ...social...it should be social....optional....
Today, I feel the pressure to not only have multiple talents, roles, abilities, but to have them in many different places. I feel constantly burdened by upholding facades for me, my family, the live public, and also now this alternate reality, webspace. The pictures I show of my self have to be of upmost quality, showing all my best attributes. The images and texts need to be flawlessly exhibited to show my education and competence. When I am out amongst live people, the clothes I wear, my language, my body language all have to be in tip top shape. I have to "look" good in the eyes of all who see me, live or online. 
      I know this sounds 'old fashioned' for a late twenty somethings to talk about. But it just adds to my personal confusion of roles and more specifically, my roles in life. My grandpappy taught me when I was very young the difference between vanity and taking pride in ones appearance. When you take pride in your appearance, one is taking pride in themselves. When one becomes vain, then one is so focused on themselves to the point of obsession. 
     I wonder if this online identity is pride or vanity in oneself?


     I realized that this is related to my work theme. From my point of view, there is the constant pressure on (young people in general) to move away from where you grew up and become 'successful' and 'educated' and make everyone 'proud'.  Now from my female perspective things get even more complicated. I could aspire to become 'successful' by living a high paced 'business' type work life, making money, wearing expensive clothes, and enjoying life in the city. Or I could find the love of my life, get married, move away, have children, be a mother, stay at home, take them to activities, etc. 
     I have noticed that this is a major debate on current talk shows. the polar debate of whether women should be working or stay at home. Both sides of the debate get pretty heated. 
     I do not know why I thought that I would be some magical exception to this issue. That I would be able to just live gloriously in the middle ground of these lifestyles, please all parties, and be happy. Maybe I was extremely naive or just plain clueless. I genuinely thought that I would be able to find what is is that I want to do, do it well, and it would make me happy in return. 
    Instead, I am realizing a lot of different interests that are all so vastly different, ones that do not seemingly fit together in one person's life. I have some people that try to talk me down from seemingly 'far fetched' dreams to more 'practical' and 'sensible' choices.  then I have other parties scolding me for my low standard work ethic, and want to push me to do MORE with my life. 
    Where is this happy medium that I was so certain I would not only find, but create?
     What is a girl to do?
     I have seen the patterns over history and generations ago of "the ideal woman." Granted I, like everyone, have very unique filters through which I have learned about and been taught to behave, act, dress, appear, etc. But because they are so deeply ingrained in me, those measuring standards are hard to let go of. Instead, the "ideal" standards are added to. There is the older standard that women such as Cindy Sherman and women of her time faced to change to the 'new woman'. The 'new woman' has now evolved into 'the modern woman'.   The Modern Woman seems to be able to live her life in balance of family, work, friends, social, pleasure, etc. And in that order. But who exactly is the role model for this? When women become too 'successful', she is scolded for not being a good mom, or wife. So we are still contradicting our own societal standards! Not just changing, contradicting! 
      My mother is an example of a woman who has lived through decades of evolving women. Born in the 50’s she has seen the ‘Mrs. Cleaver’ woman, ‘That Girl’, ‘Mary-Tyler Moore’, fast forward to now. Which reiterates the question, who is the modern woman?
     For me, both in real life and in my quarter's work, the challenge I feel is which standards of ideal woman do I hold on to, and which ones do I let evolve into the modern woman?

 

   

chicago weekend

This weekend, I went to Chicago for my best friend’s wedding. It was absolutely gorgeous weather, nearly 80 degrees the whole weekend. Saturday, I went into the city with my husband to celebrate my birthday! Woo! It was very busy. Crowds everywhere.  My husband took me out to dinner at the Signature Room on the 95^th. This is a very nice restaurant located in the Hancock building where you can sit in the dining room, or the lounge and overlook the city of Chicago. Lake Superior is right outside as well. The view is spectacular!  It was a good evening.

            When I mention that I am from Illinois, people normally have this programmed response, “Chicago!!! Oh I love Chicago!”  Then I have to go back and wordily clarify that I was raised in southern Illinois, not Chicago, and that they are very different. Where I come from there is coal, tire factories, corn, soybeans, farmland, bon fires, four seasons to the year, etc. But then smile and simply say, “But yes, Chicago is a fun city.” All the while not understanding all the hype. EVERYONE LOVES CHICAGO. What is it about this city that seems to get a unanimous vote of approval? It is very cold and windy in the wintertime, which never seems to bother people who desire to visit or live in this city.

            After leaving the small, horticulture rich, mid-western town I grew up in, I wanted to head to the “big city”. I chose Atlanta for a variety of reasons.  The first set of reasons involves family ties.  I was born in Albany Georgia, where my mother moved after being born and raised in Jacksonville Florida; where her parent (my grandparents) still reside.  My mother’s brother and his family live in Savannah, Georgia. I knew I wanted to live young and independently like my mom did. The south made sense to me. The warm weather accompanied by blue skies is a perk. The vague idealized thought in my mind of being a part of busy activity, being successful, living at a fast pace, was always exciting for me. I knew the school I wanted to attend (SCAD). So Atlanta made the most sense.  However, Atlanta, doesn’t receive the same raving reviews as Chicago does.  Not even from me.

            What is this likability? Even after visiting Chicago prior to this weekend, I never grasped what it was that everyone so raved about. But this time, I realized that one afternoon/evening was not even enough.  The city is so big!! It is impressive; breathtaking…literally with the wind….and it is beautiful. It is how a city should feel. Now I am not a world traveler, and I speak only from ideals in my own mind, but Chicago is in fact a fantastic city. But then I question if that is a lasting fact, an acquired fact, or a true fact.  Do the people who live in Chicago see the city as intriguing as the visiting tourists?  Is the Chicago love a lasting love, or does its charm fade over time?           

             These two worlds that I have in my life are ones that I would like to include in my work right now. The vast differences between rural and urban; country and city; nature and industry; my roots and my future. There seems to be an internal battle between this little country girl and the sophisticated city gal. Both of these roles are ones that I think should both share a part of who I am. But how do they fit together, and where?