This week's class session focused on the Final Project assignment as well as a visit to the SFMOMA. For 100 points of extra credit, please respond to the following questions:
Write a two paragraph response via a comment on this blog. The response should explain your experience at the SFMOMA and you why you chose the piece as a representation of controversial art. What was the impression the artwork had on you? Why would it be deemed controversial, and who would deem it so? Who do you think would consider this piece “art”? Why?
Yesterday, we went to SFMOMA which was my first time visiting. Of course as an art student, I thought it was great place to spend time on looking famous art works. While I looked around, I found few works that represents "controversial" but also seemed as "art". So, I chose Philip Guston's work and I do actually like some of his work.
ReplyDeleteAs I would like to write basic information about this artist, he is Canadian born American in 1913 and died in 1980. He was an abstract expressionist painter. But at the museum, it was a painting of his work that was first time to see. The name of the work was "For M.-1955," and was done by oil on canvas. And this called controversial art which got transition between figurative art to abstract art.
My first impression was "I dont understand why this kind of piece are famous enough to be at the museum." It was like Jackson Pollock's scribbling work. Philip's work as in between his life, America had the time where abstracts began to be shown up which Philip also changed his style but at the end of his life the evolution of figurative has got better which those made the artist on controversial. As an artist, there's a mind to become famous so once the styles are changed, they would follow the style of art where people would get interest on their work.
I don't think there's exact "who" to be consider this piece as an "art." It depends on how people think when they look at it. Even me, when I first saw the piece I didn't understand it but as I looked carefully, I liked the way he used the different colors of red and some how I could imagine what this red color represent. In my opinion, things being called "Art" isn't only have to be realistic drawing. Art is where we can show our imaginations and giving people to think about the artist's story. But also just for ourselves as an artist.
I did really enjoy the field trip and learned a lot being better artist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei've heard a lot of bad things about SFMOMA but from my perspective, I think it's a great museum and I really did enjoy as an artist. for all, I like how it was free to get in!
ReplyDeleteOut of all the great art works, Untitled - Barry McGee 1996 (mixed media) caught my eyes. I saw these beautiful gathered and installation frames that were making one-to-one templates on a huge wall. In each frames, it had different characters and drawings in it. I got closer to see each one of those drawings. Most of the people can say it's just random but for me, it was different and unique. The papers that artist used were mostly light brown toned which gives out an urban and classic vibe. Only few of the frames had colors that stand out such as red, dark blue, etc.There were about 250 frames together in all different sizes. But then again from other people, it could be looking like wasting frames.
Instead of just one frame, Barry McGee put many frames together. In my opinion, I think it comes from a background of creating a lot of pieces that defines one big meaning when you compose it with many.
Barry McGee is a known artist who got inspired by urban culture and street life. I assume this work is defining about someone's life and each one of the frames has characteristics of the person or specific events that holds the person's experiences.
The pieces are all very abstract and have a very sad feel to them. It could be also about his wife who has passed away in 2001. Simply, no one knows.
I personally love collecting things and gathering them together like memories. It's interesting how in those frames, there are drawings that no one can exactly tell what they are for. It's like hidden symbols that it makes you actually stare at each one of them and try to figure it out. I really love how it's not just only creative by the way he put so many frames together but the drawings he had in the frames. I wonder what meaning they hold all together.
I loved going to the museum, this being my first time there. The museum wasn't as boring as i expected it to be haha. I chose an Untitled piece painted in 1951 by Clyfford Still. The first thing that I thought when I looked at the piece was, " I do not understand what the artist is trying to get across." The entire canvas was painted black with an uneven red line running half way down from the top. If there was a title to the art work, maybe that would have helped understand it more.
ReplyDeleteI find it controversial because it makes no sense to me and it is kind of irritating for me to not understand what the artist is trying to get across. People who do not understand modern art might deem it controversial. It doesn't have any realistic figures to it, there isn't a message that you can see as soon as you look at the piece. People who do like modern art and the simple complexity of it will like pieces such as this one and many other forms of modern art. I simply do not understand it and if there was a description and a short paragraph about the message of the piece, I would certainly appreciate it more.
That was my first time going the the SFMOMA and I actually really enjoyed my time. I would probably like to go back again especially since it's free of students! I had originally wrote down over 10 different names to look up when i got home but the one that stuck with me the most was "RINEKE DIJKSTRA" Her photography was really very interesting to me. I could not chose just one photograph, but I thought that all of her photographs together made a better impact than just one. All of her photographs were like a series of photos of the same person every 3 years or some and just seeing the changes they made. This one series of photos was a girl that started when she was maybe 2 years old sitting in a chair and every 3 years they took another picture of her sitting in a chair and kept going all the way to her all grown up sitting in a chair, and expecting a child of her own. It was cute because in some of the pictures she was even sitting in the same chair. I think that many can think that this is not real art or doesn't take talent, because it just take a picture of a girl sitting there. but I think that the message it brings and the thought behind it makes it more meaningful in that way. and they memory you can get out of that can be really awesome. not many people have that. I think that any photographer would look at this as art. and would really see its beauty, I know this because my mom is a photographer and we would always go to museums together and parks and stuff so i learned some things about photopraphy as well. I know she would appreciate something like this. Im sure a lot of other people would see this as art too, but it mainly just depends on the person.
ReplyDeleteI always wanted to check out the SFMOMA, and I'm glad I got to do it as a part of the class. It was surprisingly better than I thought it would be. I thought I'd just browse around for a quick thirty minutes and head home, but I ended up staying til six o'clock. My favorite pieces were definitely Mark Bradford's abstract paintings and Rineke Dijkstra's "A Retrospective" exhibition. Mark Bradford's paintings really kept me stuck in place, examining every little detail of paints, posters, and newsprints used to create each massive collage. It really baffled me how many layers of paints and materials that went into creating the bigger image of all his canvases.
ReplyDeleteRineke Dijkstra's "A Retrospective" exhibition was also rather interesting because she took pictures of random adolescents living their daily lives. She also followed up with certain subjects to take pictures of their growth an maturity over time. I didn't see any problem with her work or anything that could be deemed too controversial, but if anything, my only guess at a critic's complaint would be the simplicity of her work. They are simply pictures of young people looking the way they naturally are. To many photographers, her style is a new breakthrough, but to others it could seem like overly hyped photos of random people.
My experience at the SF Moma was very enlightening. I learned a lot of things about artist that I didn't know before. The exhibit of photography in Mexico was the best of all of course. I enjoyed how they incorporated the daily lives of the Mexican people whether it was violent or not.
ReplyDeleteThe favorite choice was in fact a piece by photographer Lourdes Grobet. It was the picture of the wrestler who looks as if he's receiving a surge of power. I don't really see the picture as controversial. I can only view this piece as a symbolization of the Mexican cultures power and influence on the world. The piece just beautiful art to me.
I see the picture as art because it captures beautiful emotion and reflection of power and courage.
DeleteThe SFMOMA trip in class was a fun and somewhat enlightening experience. It had actually been awhile since I'd been there, so it was nice to see it again. It was interesting walking around trying to pick a piece of art that i found controversial, but I found what i was looking for eventually. The piece I chose was "The connection" by Die Verbindung. The piece depicts a nude female sitting on a couch and using a concerned and tired looking nude male as her footrest. there is also some random and bizarre construct in the background.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me because the piece is called the connection, yet in almost every sense, the man and the woman are on different levels. literally as she's above him using him as a footrest and figuratively as she's in a position of power. I'd like to think the piece would be controversial from an equalists point of view, but it's different because most works of art or statements that make people angry in that way are usually depicting the woman as the subject being used or abused. it's almost as if the painting is a kind of response to the the what many think is a lack in equality between men & women. I think the piece is very artistic though not so much because of way what it's trying to make you think, or think about, but because of the amount of skill and time that went into it is evident. it's there in the gestures of the figures, thier facial expressions, the careful work of the floor.It's just an entertaining light hearted piece to look at that still makes you think alittle bit.