(with time to spare!!)
1. On page 128, Fried comments about the size of literalist work. One example he states was Tony Smith's Die which was six-foot tall. Later he says that "one way of describing what Smith making might be something like a surrogate person - that is, a kind of statue." Then, on page 129, Fried says that he is "suggesting...that a kind of latent of hidden naturalism...lies at the core of literalist theory and practice."
Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Do you feel that the size of a piece has a greater impact when it is the same size as a human being?
2. Again referencing Tony Smith, Fried shares a story of Smith's on pages 130-131 (the New Jersey Turnpike). Fried then says that "'you just have to experience it' - as it happens, as it merely is. (The experience alone is what matters.)"
When it comes to visual art, one must experience art. However, with technology at it's peak, experiencing art has become so much easier and accessible to the masses. How is this both a good thing and a bad thing?
3. Throughout the entire essay, Fried compares literalist art and theatre. Though Fried makes valid points to his argument, is the gap between art and other forms of art (such as audio, dance, creative word, etc) starting to disappear? Why? Why not?
Would you say that having a background in liberal arts is decreasing the gap? Why? Why not?
Good questions girl! ok:
ReplyDelete1.) I do feel that size does play an important role in impacting the viewer. I feel that bringing a "life size" element to a piece does allow for the potential of greater relateability for teh viewer. Additionally, I also think that it could potentially also ehance the essence or, intention of the piece. I agree in that human's do tend to want to relate to art and understand, and if a work seems more natural in size, it may indeed leave a greater impact on the viewer.
2.) I found this question most compelling in that I just recently stumbled across this outstanding, yet enabling? website, the name is slipping me {Sue bloom just showed me, I will ask her and then repost} This website is one that allows you to visit galleries, online, through out the world. Essentially it is a virtual tour, but it is unlike any other program I have ever seeen. You have the ability to zoom in to see the fine details of a Van Gough painting and zoom out to see the gallery. I must say it was astounding. However, like this article said, one must experience art. Is one really experincing the Mona Lisa through the internet? I feel taht it has major benefits, especially with the status of the economy. People simply can't afford to travel to these places and through websites like this an oppurtunity is still an option. Yet, I am unsure as to the degree in which the work is being truly vauled.
3.)I feel that now disciplines are overlapping and intergrating. A Painting may be themed with audio to enhance the idea or concept. The idea of "mixed media," is moving beyond 2D, beyond 3D and now entering a more conceptual interactive realm. I feel that having a liberal arts education only furthers this, in that the core nature of the instiution is founded on the belief of multiple disciplines working together. I think great progress has taken place in the academic world regarding this.
1.) Personally, I think size defiantly matters. Size could make or break what the viewer thinks. Much of the viewer's response can depend on how large or small the artwork is. I really like the answers put to Tony Smith about his large six-foot cube. Q: Why didn't you make it larger? A: I did not want to make a monument. Q: Why didn't you make it smaller? A: I was not making an object. I liked the direct way Smith answered the questions because it reiterated the importance of how size can manipulate the overall feel of a work of art.
ReplyDelete2.) I agree with the point that "the experience of art" matters a great deal. The conception that one takes in when experiencing art not only is a matter of if they see it, but how and where they see it. I think the question Sarah asks about technology is an important one. Seeing an image on the computer or in a magazine (depending on what type of art it is) can simply be good for an artist to "advertise" their work. The actual experience happens when your there in the gallery, or in the presence of the work itself. The image of a work on the internet or newspaper is like the preview of a movie or an abridged version of a book. (unless it's a film, in which case you could watch the whole thing online-and even then it depends on the film and how the artist wants to present it).
3.) I believe that now more then ever, art and "forms of art" are intertwining with each other and will continue to do so. We are constantly shaping ideas and concepts of art in different creative ways. Incorporating all types of art such as video, performance, painting, sculptor, audio, and more greatly broadens the art's scope. Having a background in liberal arts could heIp this progression (depending on what is being taught). As long as those students are expanding in their own creative thought, they will help the different art worlds meld together.
1) My impression is that there definitely is an anthropomorphic aspect in literalist art. Because this art is often meant to confront the viewer and in some cases even obstruct the viewer, it seems to become more than just artwork. This can definitely be effected by the size of art. If the intention of the artist is to confront the viewer, then making art the same size as a human being (or larger) probably does make it more effective; however, I do not think this is necessary. I do believe that there are many smaller works of art that still can confront the viewer through use of subject matter, color, medium, etc.
ReplyDelete1. I agree that size definitely has an effect on how an art piece is viewed. It was interesting to me that Fried put it into the perspective of comparing it to the size of a human body, because I've never thought about how we do that unconsciously. You notice when the art is extremely large because you have to stand back to take it all in without moving your head. This in itself makes the large image small again and is like our brain bringing something to large to handle down to a smaller scale so that we can comprehend. Also, extremely large objects have much more of an impact than extremely small ones..why is that? Is it because we are intimidated? Or just more used to smaller objects because as mentioned the internet and computers have made it available to see most art online, however large it is it must fit into a computer screen though, unless seen in person. Also, seeing work in person, as the artist meant it to be seen, will always have more of an impact and lasting impression.
ReplyDelete1. When Smith responds with "I was not making a monument" and also "I was not making an object", I feel like this puts a limit on the size art can be. If a work of art "compares fairly closely with that of the human body" I suppose the viewer can relate more easily, or be less intimidated. The issue on it being too small like an object is interesting. How big or small are objects? Objects are all around us, but maybe we associate objects with being able to hold or pick up, when really objects are things that can be seen and touched.
ReplyDelete3. Liberal arts education can very well be influencing artists to try different forms of art, but we don't exactly know what sort of education they received. I agree with Lindsey that interactive art sort of bridges the gap.
3. While I do agree with Lindsey and Caitlin that artforms are integrating with each other, I believe that there is still a fairly large chasm exists between art and other forms of art. For example, when you ask someone who is there favorite musician, composer, author, poet or actor, the will tend to give you a definitive answer. However, if you ask someone who is there favorite artist (sculpture or painter) is, their minds go blank.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the fact that the question is worded as, "art and other forms of art," I think speaks for itself, don't you?