Wednesday, May 11, 2011

♥ Survival Research Laboratories

Many artists throughout time have captured the attention of the outer world through their ideas that challenge the very foundation of tradition and morality. Due to this, clashing views of these realistic fantasies surface, thus bringing more realistic fantasies into the world and creating new views of art. One group that has been successful in this is Survival Research Laboratories. With their traveling performance machine art, they are able to travel the world to show people how they brought their fantasies into something that everyone can experience.
Survival Research Laboratories has brought many fantasies to life. They’ve invented things man never thought that machine could do, such as walking on legs, hovering, shoot vortex rings of air, or even shooting molting metal. One could compare the things they do to fantasy movies, such as Transformers, because of the wide audience they attract and the attempt to make machines come to life, but the difference between these two things is that in movies, it is normally computer generated, whereas with Survival Research Laboratories, there are no digital affects. Everything is hand made and executed in front of a live audience.
I think the purpose of Survival Research Laboratories is not to be “yanks with tanks” as Dutch protesters say, but rather to show that, when one’s mind is put to it, anything is possible. I think the reason the machines are made to be dangerous is to show that mechanics has the potential to be dangerous, however, shouldn’t be used in this manner because of how dangerous it is.
Because of this, Survival Research Laboratories limits their audience to people that will understand this concept and not use it for dangerous purposes, such as Amsterdam, Austria, and the United States. Other countries, such as Tripoli, Afghanistan, or Libya, are known for violence, thus bringing a show to those countries that shows dangerous machines wouldn’t be a great idea.

I AM GRUMPY.
11:45 AM
0 Comments

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

♥ Reverend Ethan Acres

Reverend Ethan Acres walks on the border of two very controversial topics in his form of art: art and Christianity. In his art, he makes one question the true belief of a Christian and what Christian art should really be about. Instead of elegant paintings of the heavens on church ceilings, he makes questionable works from sculptures of Jesus playing with children in a Spiderman suit to videos of off-the-wall lessons he has learned in life.
I believe that what Acres does is art. He portrays an idea through works he creates in order to voice a message. In this sense, it is also like art I have seen, but what makes it so different is that it’s not a type of art that would be expected of a person with his background. According to the New York Times, he has “an honorary doctorate of divinity from the World Christianship Ministries in Fresco, California” and obviously, based on his name, is a preacher. From a person like this, one wouldn’t expect for him to create a sculpture of a crucifix shooting tank made with a bible as the foundation.
I think Acres does his preaching mainly through, not only his sculptures, but his video series “Church of the Holy Fool,” where he speaks of lessons he’s learned in life in a very abstract manner. Though some of his videos are sarcastic, such as the one where he talks about Jeffrey Vallance, I believe that Acres is serious about the things he says. Some people (mainly Christians) take offense to the things he says and makes because they go against what they have learned in church, but I believe that this is the purpose of the videos. As a Christian, I like his works and actually agree with what he says. I appreciate how his works makes me question what I have learned in church versus what I actually believe. He also makes me question what Christianity really is rather than how it is perceived by society.
In conclusion, Reverend Ethan Acres is a very important contribution to the art world as well as the Christian world.

I AM GRUMPY.
9:09 PM
0 Comments

Saturday, May 7, 2011

♥ Richard Serra

Richard Serra’s piece Tilted Arc was a piece of much debate. Due to it’s large size and inconvenient location, the GSA and many of the workers that had to go through the square in which it is located argued that it was in the way and “interfered with public use of the plaza,” while Serra and many people of the art world claimed that this was the point. Serra quoted "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he moves, the sculpture changes. Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement. Step by step the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes."
In this situation, I must agree with the GSA. I believe that the intentions of the piece are great, but not appropriate in the setting. As much as I enjoy the piece and would love to see it, a different location, such as a gallery or a well-known park, would be required for it to be greater appreciated. I think Serra did not handle the situation in a logical manner. Yes, the sculpture was designed especially for that area and would look best in that location, however, he could have made modifications to it so it could better fit in a new location.
I think the piece was taken down at night in order to not contradict their original claim of the piece being in the way. If they would have done it during the day, they would have been in the workers’ way, thus being an inconvenience to the general public. Another reason this might have been done is because of the people against the tearing down of the project. They, perhaps, could have protested and, thus, causing more commotion than necessary.
I believe that artists have the right to make people uncomfortable if it is executed in the appropriate settings. Sometimes, making a piece uncomfortable makes the purpose of it better expressed. In this case, it is inappropriate because of its being located in a working space. In-the-way pieces are nice for galleries or social locations, however, this is not suitable for a professional environment.
In conclusion, Tilted Arc was a great contribution to the art world and its purpose was successfully executed, but unfortunately, its location was inappropriate for its purpose and would have been better if located in a populated location that is not intended as part of a working space.

I AM GRUMPY.
9:28 AM
0 Comments

♥ MFAH

The most enjoyable thing I saw at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston was the art by Carlos Cruz-Diez. I liked it because it involved many optical illusions that were executed in different and creative ways.

What disturbed me the most where the Roman sculptures. I know this sounds strange, but the reason they disturbed me was because they were wonderful works of art that people willingly destroyed. It makes me question the age of art. Also, I don’t particularly care to look up and to have someone’s genitalia in my face.

Something that I saw in the museum that I would like to make was Korean Contemporary art that was untitled. It was made of wire, crystals, beads, and mixed media. The artist made the wire stick out in a flowing, twisting manner and hung the crystals and beads on them. It was a very elegant piece.

I AM GRUMPY.
9:26 AM
0 Comments

♥ Sontag

Photo 1:
This picture is of my friend, Gabriel, and I at a college football game. I took this picture so I could remember fun things I did in marching band my freshman year of college. The fact that one can tell that I am holding the camera as I take the photo and that the camera is close to our faces makes the photo more personal. The fact that we’re smiling and he’s making the “rock and roll” gesture shows that it is a fun, goofy picture. This photo was mainly for Gabriel and me to keep, but I also posted it on my Facebook profile for my friends to be able to see, and I’m sure I’ll remember this memory 10 years from now.

Photo 2:
This photo was taken by my friend, Juan, to help him build up his photography portfolio. Though we are friends, in this case, he was acting as an artist and I was the subject, so it gives the photo a more professional feel. This photo was intended for Juan to use, not only for interviewers to see, but as advertisement for people to want to come to him for photos. I will definitely remember this photo because it’s a great picture of me!

Photo 3:

This is a photo of a random person I don’t know. The purpose of this photo is to make people laugh (due to the fact that it implies a sexual reference). I chose this photo for the assignment because it made me laugh, as is the purpose, so it does its purpose well. Honestly, I have no idea what the subject’s attitude in the photo was intended to be, or her relationship to the photographer, but my best guess is that she was very drunk and was not in her right mind. I think the audience was supposed to be anyone on the internet that happened to come across it. I doubt I’ll remember this in 10 years.

I AM GRUMPY.
9:17 AM
0 Comments