For those of you that may be a bit short in your requisite blog posts, here is an extra post:
We have now gone through our six art presentations, learning about photographers, conceptual artists, and glass blowers. Of the six, which artist did you find most compelling? Whose work grabbed you the most? What did you find inspiring or challenging or engaging about the artist and his or her work? On the opposite side, which artist could you not relate to? Why, in your opinion, was this artist not as engaging?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite environmental artist by far was (and is) Andy Goldsworthy. I think that the things that he does are absolutely incredible and the time and patience is amazing. He is an environmental artist in every aspect of the word/term. I feel that the way that he uses nature are so utterly new that, he’s just completely novice. The ideas he has are so inspiring, using thorns to pin down leaves, using his own saliva, he’s incredible.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Peter Lik I was not a fan of. I felt that his work was too “messed with” or altered. Some of his work is really cool, but it didn’t feel environmental to me at all. It feels too digital and to some degrees animated. It seems as if he is not taking the picture for nature but taking the picture simply so he can alter it. We watched the video of him in class and he seemed so arrogant, so urban and nothing about him or the way he worked seemed organic.
I have to agree with Hannah on both counts. First of all, Andy Goldsworthy has basically been my favorite artist for some years now. I always find myself making little things out of sticks and rocks whenever I go out into the woods or whatever, and when I first saw his work, I was blown away. He is the real deal to me, and I love his attitude towards his work. Many times I look at things that he makes and am just awestruck because it almost seems impossible. I also like that he makes things that look so out of place, and yet are all materials from a small area around where he works, like the leaves plastered on rocks and things like that. I also like that he is very humble. If you watch him work and interact with people, he is so focused on the work, and almost awkward around people, which is cool for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI like a lot of Peter Lik's work, but it bothers me that he enhances it with photoshop. What also bothers me that he is so bent on his image and pushing his work so fervently. He is good at what he does, for sure, but the attitude behind it was sort of annoying. Therefore, he is my least favorite of the people we have gone over.
I thought that Andy Goldsworthy had a great talent for using the things in nature to make beautiful and unique art. I agree with the idea that holes provide a focal point for a work of art. His use of movement and time in his work was also fascinating. I agree with his use of natural materials that decay back into nature. I contrast his view with that of Peter Lik, who I presented on but did not really care for. I liked many of his photographs but had a hard time taking him seriously. I also did not believe that he was a genuine supporter of the environment.
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoyed learning about all the artists, I really liked the work done by Andy Goldsworthy because it was so simple, yet very powerful. My favorite part was how he used nature in a non-obtrusive and un-damaging way, which I feel forced him to be more creative because he didn’t rely on supplemental materials or tools, but used the most natural materials he could find. I also think the message implied by letting his work return to nature is very neat. It makes it more about the art and the materials in the creation process, the then and now, where artists go through periods and some of their earlier work is no longer representative of their overall aesthetic. I think Goldsworthy really challenges the idea that you have to have all these expensive and specialized materials to create art, it’s an almost elitist concept, whereas he embraces a very natural, and simplistic yet very beautiful and engaging process.
ReplyDeleteI did not really relate to Chihuly. I think the fact that he does not create his own pieces, but gets recognized as if he had, is ridiculous. Also although his forms may be inspired by nature, the creation of his pieces is very detrimental to the environment in the large scale he usually applies. His works seems overly grandiose and gaudy almost, for me, it has lost a lot of its connection to nature.
I really liked Christo. The way he used different objects such as the umbrellas, sheets of fabric, and the Gates in New York I thought was really cool. I also like how he works with his wife and they're both just so dedicated to their work together. Although some of his work might not be completely environmentally friendly, the works that he does do I think are really neat. I really liked the one with the red cloth surrounding the island completely. Who thinks of that? Also, they mentioned in the presentation that they actually cleaned up a lot of the garbage in and around the island before even laying the cloth down, so it did atleast some good. When people think of art, most of the time they think about paintings or sculptures that are created... I think it's neat how Christo uses these tarps and sheets and things like that to outline objects that we see everyday, but don't notice as art until they are sketched out through his work.
ReplyDeleteI found the last art presentation on Andy Goldsworthy to be incredibly inspiring. Even from that short presentation, after never hearing about him before, I was thoroughly impressed by not only his stunning art, but his wholly moralistic and peaceful approach to his creations. I took the fact that there was so little personal information about this artist to mean that he was incredibly humble, a trait that I greatly admire in all people, especially creators who deserve vast amounts of credit. As someone so bright and original, and also with such a genuine personality, I am sure it is hard for him to stay out of the spotlight. However, he has created a very respectable and honest name for himself, and his art is absolutely brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI didn't feel that either Christo or Chihuly were all that environmentally savvy. Their works were eye-catching and bold, but were both very stilted and artificial to me. It felt like an club-handed representation of nature that had nothing to do with natural things. They were just "art" to me, not "natural art". Plus, Chihuly's arrogant attitude didn't sit well with me. You can't copyright a basic design like he tried. No piece of art is original; It is the culmination of inspiration from hundreds of pieces the artist has seen before, distilled down into one new form. Every artist is a plagiarist, to some degree.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Goldsworthy. His overall sense of impermanence in everything he created was the closest that any of the artists we viewed this semester got to "natural art". To me, "Art" in nature is that perfect moment in time When the purple crackle of lightning lights across the sky, or the globe of the sun dips below the horizon, but the last rays hold out for just a few seconds, turnign the whole sky golden. To try to freeze nature, to hold it in your hand, is to remove it's essence. Goldsworthy seems to get this in his works, he doesn't build them to last, but to make their statement, and then be reabsorbed, to perhaps have parts used in some future project a million years from now by whatever species remains on this planet.
...Christo and Chihuly didn't seem to have any sense of environmental stewardship, throwing stuff up to suit themselves, and the very nature they were exemplifying be damned. As mentioned in class, glass-blowing is not very environmentally sound. Not saying people shouldn't blow glass, just doesn't seem a fitting tribute to nature to destroy it.
ReplyDeleteI found myself relating to all of the artists in the sense that each has his or her own need to be expressive. It is the motivation behind the need that is the differentiator. For example, Chihuly and Peter Lik have created art that is stunning and impressive, yet their egos diminish my appreciation of their work. I have a difficult time admiring anyone, or anyone’s artwork, when they have become so proud that each exhibit, each click of the camera becomes another boastful self-promotion. Anything environmental that might have been noticeable within their work is lost because of this, (also, we learned that glass is an eco-enemy!). It is the humble Andy Goldsworthy, the adventurous Ansel Adams, and the modest Lynn Davis that I respect and admire. I find myself wondering if it is fair to judge the artwork by the artist, so I will make the effort henceforth to acknowledge the talent of Chihuly and Lik as being true accomplishments. But if I had to say I really liked what they've done a whole lot in comparison, I just don’t think I could. Because that would be lying.
ReplyDelete