Readings for 9/9 & 9/11
3 questions on Lauer and Pentak reading:
- Does the concept of visual training and “re-training” force us to turn an analytic or even cynic lense on the stock images of our cultural history or does it apply only when viewing items of artistic value?
- The two points of view brought about by the discussion of artist Eva Hesse imply 1) that art comes from a creator and 2) art comes from materials. The first point of view seems intuitive, but how can the second make sense? Doesn’t art need a creator, even if it is nature?
- This article suggests that many symbols lose or change their meaning when they cross boundaries (national, ethnic, etc.) but does that negate any possibility of symbols with inherent meaning? Example: a smiling face.
1 Comment »
Leave a comment
| Next »
-
Archives
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (5)
- September 2008 (5)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
As for your second question, I definitely agree with the first part–the notion that art comes from a creator. I think the second part could work as well and can be just as intuitive. With any sort of art, the concept, or idea of art has to manifest into something that stimulates the senses, be it visual or tangible. Therefore it must be made with some sort of material. Even if it’s nature, it is, itself is made from materials. Nature itself is the material. So depending on what theological beliefs you’re into (I really wasn’t trying to get into that lol) ….nature can be all of the creator/creation/and materials….or just the creation and the materials all at the same time.
….and that probably made no sense whatsoever LOL!
I think with the third question you are absolutely right. There are some symbols that are universal like facial expressions.