Digital vs Organic

Step #1:

Joseph Mallord William Turner's The Salve Ship (Salvers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying, Tpyhoon Coming On)

Step #2:

Step #3:

The Final Piece:

The colors aren't exactly the same as in person but this is the closest I could get. I did a little bit of collaging and some fancy Photoshop stuff then draw with pastels over top :)

I was trying to go for a chaotic feel. My piece is kind of a war between technology and nature/natural things.

This might be one of my favorite things I've done all year.

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin

I think I can relate to San Te in the way he grows as a person and the changes that occur to him prior to Shaolin, while he was in it and after it. Prior to Shaolin, you could say he was fairly set in his ways and was full of spirit without any real logic or reasoning behind it. But once he got in Shaolin he kind of got a slap in the face to wake up and really dig deeper into himself than just that on-the-surface-fury that he felt towards the the Manchu (I think that's who they are.... basically the bad guys). Once going through Shaolin he wanted to create the 36th chamber, which is basically a representation of all he has learned and who he has become. From what he has learned in Shaolin it basically inspires him to go further than what is already in existence. I feel like that's how art school can effect a person. When you go into art school with limited knowledge and no expectations outside of just wanting to learn, you get knocked on your ass at first and kind of get a big wake up call that there is more to art than just simply wanting to become better. There's discipline, conceptual problems, technical problems, money issues, and a bit of a competition going on, not so much with the students around you, but within yourself between your habits in creating art and your full potential - really going that extra mile vs just doing what comes naturally to fulfill an assignment. There's tons of things that, while you're in school, slowly start to become something that you always think about in your art and soon you're thinking about art and making art with a passion and a mindset that you didn't have prior to becoming a student. After art school, everything is fair game. It's a fend for yourself kind of thing and some people will begin their journey to become the next big hit, others will just fade into a routine and others will use the skills they've learned to fulfill their desires but in a different way. It's actually kind of insane how much a movie about learning kung-fu can relate to art school.

At first glance you wouldn't think the twol are similar in any way but if you really think about it they are kind of the same. As a student you come in with passion that is pretty much driven with no real logic. You go through a foundation course where you basically get the shit beaten out of you but you somehow still manage to hold your own.The physical cuts and bruises on the kung-fu trainees are somewhat reminiscent of all the harsh critiques everyone gets where they really just weren't on their A-game and totally created shit. But each time the student tries again, they keep the lessons from the last experience and prior experiences in mind to get better. Art school and Shaolin are a series of levels to complete and a bunch of sleepless nights to practice. They're both little bubbles in the world that shelter their students as they make them grow.

"It's peaceful in this temple but outside is turbulent." : To me this quote really relates to art school because of how much we can get away with in school versus out. In school it's more of less okay for us to appropriate images we find and somewhat use or copy the works of other artists without permission. Outside school, we'd more of less be sued to hell for so much as looking at an image and considering to use it in any way. Art school is more liberal in terms of what is allowed and what isn't. We display work in a safe environment where people certainly get offended by things but it won't necessarily end our career as an artist or put us in some deep shit. On top of it all people in the outside world don't give a rats ass about you. Let's just say on some rare occasion you find people to truly critique your work. If they aren't fellow artists who are your friends, dude watch out. People will rip you to shreds to discourage you from continuing. People outside of art school don't want to help you out and make you grow, they want to get you out of the game and get themselves ahead. It's just a big competition of who can be the next master.

But who/what is a master anyway? I'd have to say everyone's master is themselves. I am really the only one who can limit myself and keep myself from fulfilling my full potential as an artist. Most people would probably say their teachers would be their master(s) but I don't really think teachers an obstacle. A teachers job is to challenge their students and draw out the full potential within the student that they are just too lazy to bring out or don't know how to bring out.

I'm not really sure what art outside of Tyler is going to be like honestly. When I came into Tyler I wanted to learn new techniques to help with my craft and the way I see the world. But I honestly feel that Tyler is a more conceptually based school than it is a craft school. Being able to be more conceptual has been very challenging for me but it's been a really wonderful thing for my art as well. I don't know. Maybe I'm a lame artist but I find it more impressive when I see something so expertly done that I have to question whether or not it was done by hand or see a painting/drawing so realistic I'm just kind of thinking "wait....is that a picture?" Sure being able to make an abstract drawing that has splashes of color that represents someones frustration with society or have a still life drawing of shoes represent a person's fear is awesome and all but it's too much bullshit for me. Just because I can attach a really heartfelt or complex meaning to a blank sheet of paper doesn't mean it's art. I'd like to live out my days illustrating books, not necessarily children's books always, but I just want to make little drawings inside books that make people happy and is more accessible to people. I'd also like to get a teaching job at some point because I never want to stop talking about art as well as inspire people to do art like my teachers have done for me. As a foundation student who isn't 100% sure what to major in, the possibilities are endless. All I know is that I'm going to do what I love; I don't need to label it.

Pig Installation Piece

 



One of my 3D projects was to create slip casts of an object out of a two part plaster mold and set up the casts in a space to either create a new space or tell a narrative. For my set ups I tried to make these cute pigs seem sinister and cult-like. I had originally wanted to play around with the idea of recycling (thus the first picture) but as I was painting them before I put pupils in their eyes they just look ghost-like and downright creepy which led to these militant-like setups.

I painted the pigs in 3 different shades of pink, put corks in the sprue where the nose was and painted the imprint from the tape I had on my original object purple to make them all look like part of a group or cult.

John Armleder Response

1. What does the artist think about the relationship between artist and audience?

I feel like he is saying that the relationship between artist and audience is very important but it's not a relationship on which he bases his art. He seems to create work without really caring how his audience might interpret or understand it because he himself doesn't really have a clear understanding or opinion of what he does. But later in the article he talks about works where he lets people add on what they think belongs and even talks about one private collector who owns a piece of his that added onto it and he doesn't even know what has been done to it. I feel like in that instance the audience is what makes the art, the artist is just a tool. He seems to create art and then just let the audience think of it what they will, just as long as they think at least a little bit.

4. What do you think of the quote: "Most important, I've never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself"?

I think his thoughts about his work would have to have an impact on the work because if he didn't like something he wouldn't create it. I mean, I kind of feel like everything that has to do with an artist impacts the kind of work they make. Regardless of how his thoughts about his work change overtime, they still matter and they still have an impact. I think he's just trying to make himself sound like a super complex artist. He creates what he likes. He even says it somewhere in the article that he decided it was okay to make what he likes. Isn't what you like part of what you think about something? But as I went on reading the article I'm being to question whether or not this man  does have any sort of opinion of his "art" because he just lets people add onto it or takes art from other artists. I wouldn't even necessarily call it appropriating others work because he's not even really creating anything new.

5. Do you agree with him about a generic or neutral work of art? Explain
I don't agree with him that generic art wouldn't exist if it was generic. Art is art no matter what label is attached to it as long as some sort of idea comes across to the audience. Generic art, in my opinion, is just a form of art that is somewhat elementary that all audiences would be able to understand and take something away from it because it is so common that it's universally understood. I think generic art exists so that the average person has some sort of art to appreciate. Sure it won't stand out, but it still matters. Plus, his work in the 80s was considered generic... how can he just dis art like that when he made art like that himself? I do agree with him that making generic art is very restricting. If an artist is trying to make a certain type of art there are a lot of limitations that the artist would need to follow that may inhibit their full potential. But at the same time, it's impossible to make art without being influenced somewhere along the lines. I mean, at this point in time everything has pretty much already been thought of. It's just a matter of building onto what's already been done and doing it better. Again. I feel like he's trying to be super revolutionary and complex. He's trying to disconnect himself from the basic foundation where all artists start. He says that artwork that is essentially a portrait of him would be very boring. I think I disagree with that. To him the art may be boring because he already knows things about himself but the audience might find that type of art very engaging. Art speaks a lot about someone. That's not boring.

8. What does he mean by "pseudointelligent idea"? What do you think about
this way of making art?

This was slightly confusing for me. He says a pseudointelligent idea is "something that’s sort of trying and failing to be smart" but then later states that he hopes this idea will "trigger an original response more readily than work that proceeds from these very academic premises." I think he's saying that this art is attempting to be art but isn't actually. He hopes that since it's essentially wannabe art it'll evoke a response to real art someone else did...whaaatt?....From what I'm understanding, he's taking other artists works and pieces of trash essentially and putting them together and calling it art. Associating other artists work with disposable items that are essentially trash seems like a major dis to the artists he's using to me. And what does that say about him? If he needs to rely on other artists can he call himself an artist if he's not really producing anything? In the article he talks about taking "ready-made junk" and piling it up to bring "it to a much higher status than it had when it was functional." He goes on saying that he just asks people to add on what they think belongs in it

10. What does he say about "vagueness and precision"? Do you find that you
work in that manner as well?

He talks about how he used the same composition, essentially, in each of the rooms in one of his exhibits but they all produced completely different images. By using, for example, a light source in each of the rooms he creates a sense of déjà vu. But the viewer probably won't recognize each thing as a light source in the same spot because they are each so different from one another. The precision comes from the fact that each light source was picked specifically to look a certain way. I'm not entirely sure if I work in this manner... I probably don't. I kind of don't think much about my art; it kind of just happens. That may or may not be a good thing but I feel like when I plan out my artwork it's often more disastrous than something I kinda just went with after a had a vague idea of what I wanted to do at the start. I think it'd be interesting for me to start forcing myself to work more precisely and see if I can somehow be vague like he is.

11. As an artist do you believe in confusing or explaining things to an
audience? What's more exciting and why.

I think explaining things and being confusing are both exciting for different reasons. I believe you should be clear to an audience what you're trying to do to a certain extent. It's nice to be able to explain your ideas to people who have no idea what you're thinking. It's also nice to just be able to express yourself verbally sometimes instead of visually in some way. But if you paint the whole picture for the audience then there is nothing for the audience to look at besides some technical aspects of the painting but that is only interesting to a person for so long. There needs to be a slight element of confusion in art so that the viewer has something to think about and can engage in the art. It's exciting to confuse people because it's enjoyable to see peoples brains working hard to unravel your work. But when the work is so confusing that the audience doesn't know where to go, then that's just no good. As an audience, it's their job to do something thinking and come up with their own conclusions about the art. As an artist, it's our job to create a balance between confusion and clarity to create amazing and meaningful works of art.

12. Refer to the last page for this question. What do you think about Armleder's way, methodology, modus operandi of making art and the way he makes work vis a vis his audience. Do you agree, disagree, find it naive, interesting, condescending, irritating, arty, stupid, transparent, etc (what things do you find it to be)?

He seems to create art for his own sake and also so he can grow as an artist. While the art is displayed for an audience, they are merely a second thought to him. He doesn't feel every decision needs to have an explanation because if he can't figure it out, it's kind of irrelevant if the audience understands or not if they even notice something like that. He creates work for himself. Period. I find that somewhat inspiring and stupid. He must have gotten lucky to have become a successful artist because most of the time people make art for themselves, it is basically seen as crap to the public. Just because you make art for yourself, and it's fantastic to you, doesn't mean anyone else really thinks so. But it's also inspiring in the sense that he is so set on making work that he seems to care less about anyone's opinions but his own. He just wants to grow and learn and become better; the success just seems secondary. Sure, he could only be saying that after the fact but the fact that he has that firm stance on making art for himself is just amazing. Of course I'm in the art field for myself. If I wasn't interested in a career that I was doing strictly for me I would have picked something where I can definitely make some money. But while I've been creating art this year, it hasn't always been for myself. It's been to fulfill an assignment. Yes, I've tried challenging myself and picking subjects I'm interested in but I don't know if I'd necessarily create art that fits all the assignments I've had. These assignments have definitely made me grow as an artist and look at things a different way, but it's not because I was doing it all for me like Armleder was. His art may not be so inspiring to me, but his words definitely are.

Bruce High Quality Foundation

When I arrived at the building to go to this presentation, they were letting nobody in. We stood out front while a mass amount of people gathered in the lobby, half of the people not even signing in like they were supposed to. A band was playing music behind the locked doors and outside of that there was no real sign that anything would be going on here tonight. We waited outside for at least 10 minutes past when it was supposed to start and I was beginning to wonder if I had my timing wrong or if something was up. Finally they opened the doors and we were greeted with Temple's marching band playing music. A guy behind them was dancing around and had a t-shirt gun. He was wearing the mask of a president, that I know, but I couldn't begin to tell you which one because it was just disturbing to me... but that's besides the point. Balloons were scattered around the seating and I was really confused as to what to expect because I could see nobody around who looked like they'd present anything to us. There was the creepy guy up front but I felt like he was just for show. Then there was a few people in the same tie-died shirts they were shooting out into the audience.

Suddenly the music came to a close and the lights went off. The creepy guy unmasked and everyone sat down as one lone, modest, bearded individual stepped forward to the podium. As he began to speak, I felt all the excitement and craziness going on in the room vanish. His voice was monotone but not in a boring way. He had a seriousness that went with his words that meant you had to listen, really listen. He wasn't just up there talking out his ass about something. He was actually speaking to us. He was actually talking about something - passionately. Something which I don't hear in much speakers anymore. He was telling a story and behind him flashed a series of images and sometimes video clips. Some of the images or statements he made were clever references to today's culture. He started out lightly, speaking about some made up girl and asking questions like why are there so many artists when so few are actually successful? Why is our education so expensive? Why is our education set up the way that it is? Basic questions. General questions. Harmful questions. Suddenly, things were serious. He started speaking of how few jobs there are. How colleges make tuition high and max out classrooms with expectations, not even hopes, of people dropping out to get a greater profit. Again and again he brings up our fictional girl and how she's in her studio and needs to talk to someone. He keeps making more and more controversial things in an aggressive way. Asking more and more questions. Making more and more accusations. But what stuck with me the most is he asked something along the lines of would you still make art if you didn't get paid for it in any way... that's where he got me. Would I? Why do I make art anyways? After he hit there I was really anticipating him answering some questions that he brought up or making suggestions or something that deals with something as important as art school. But he didn't. It just ended with the unmasked creepy guy inviting us to get drinks with them....

What? That's it? For something so important and that was made to seem like such a huge thing, I feel really cheated. In the beginning I felt like this was so important to be listening to and like this would be something that would really have a great impact on me but with the way it ended totally ruined it for me. I felt like the presentation was structured in a way that captured my attention so I was practically on the edge of my seat only for them to throw the Bruce High Quality Foundation University (aka BHQFU) in the picture so that I'd want to join in. It felt like an advertisement. I was even let a bit confused as to what the point of the lecture was. So I went on their website and read this "The Bruce High Quality Foundation, the official arbiter of the estate of Bruce High Quality, is dedicated to the preservation of the legacy of the late social sculptor, Bruce High Quality. In the spirit of the life and work of Bruce High Quality, we aspire to invest the experience of public space with wonder, to resurrect art history from the bowels of despair, and to impregnate the institutions of art with the joy of man’s desiring. Professional Challenges. Amateur Solutions." 


Did I miss something in that lecture? Their mission statement is to basically revive the art world right? But, to me anyway, that lecture was almost discouraging. Telling me I'm going to fail because my university expects it of me. Telling me I probably, or rather I won't, get a job as an artist. Telling me I won't even make it in the art world period because so few do. The only thing that really got to me was him essentially asking me why I do art. It's not something I think about often so he easily got me listening and really thinking about the rest of what he said. I paid attention. I paid attention closely so I wouldn't miss anything because I felt this was a big deal to be a part of. But what was I apart of really? Them networking their "university?" Initially after it was over, I thought it was a great lecture. I felt inspired by them in the sense that I was like "man if I don't make any money doing art, fuck it. I'll still do it anyway." But after taking almost a week to digest it I don't feel that way anymore. I feel like I should have left questioning whether or not to continue what I was doing. Better yet. I should have been questioning what the hell was the point of all that. I feel like there was much more to talk about and much more to be said. This is important. "Amerika" did a very poor job teaching me anything but that BHQFU is a great place to go to make art and volunteer my time.