Not much to say about this...Props to Joey for helping me out.
AIRPLANE!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Awkward Conversation
"Awkward Conversation"
I wanted to portray the way we as human beings mostly communicate with people (texts, phone calls, facebook, etc) and I wanted it to be an extremely awkward and unsettling conversation. Though some people may have though its me talking about a new sex toy I had experimented with (to each his own, I suppose), I wanted to convey tight, almost claustrophobic spaces (the tunnel of a playground for small children). Perhaps the tunnel does convey a sexual theme, par example (as the French say) the conversation after a one night stand, which makes you feel dirty...
In other words, the conversation can be anything (sex toy or otherwise). Hopefully, it just conveys that the conversation is AWKWARD as hell
Monday, February 1, 2010
Two posts in one day, ya'll are in for a treat.
Anyways, for our next project, we had to take three pictures and eventually, use those three to make one photo.
When I was looking for my "inside" photo, I was really struggling with it because it'll be one of the most important aspects of the photo. It basically sets the mood for everything. Finally, I was in my backyard and saw the play set from my mom's summer daycare. I took a picture of a tunnel that connects two part of the play sets together.
PS. I want to tilt it 90 degrees, to make it more uncomfortable
I then had to find an "outside" picture, and I already had a theme and was looking for something uncomfortable. I finally saw a potted plant with really hard soil and branches from the previous spring. I took this because most people, and correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to sit on
hard dirt with branches coming out from every angle.
Finally, I ran back indoors and knew the pose I wanted. SO much human interaction is based on the telephone, so I took a picture of me, in a shirt with some briefs on. Why would I expose myself like that? Well, what's more uncomfortable than sitting on hard dirt with sticks coming out of it, inside a small tunnel while talking on the phone in your briefs.
Enjoy it ladies...
I'll give you a peak at what my idea is...the title...
....
"The Uncomfortable Conversation"
Anyways, for our next project, we had to take three pictures and eventually, use those three to make one photo.
When I was looking for my "inside" photo, I was really struggling with it because it'll be one of the most important aspects of the photo. It basically sets the mood for everything. Finally, I was in my backyard and saw the play set from my mom's summer daycare. I took a picture of a tunnel that connects two part of the play sets together.
PS. I want to tilt it 90 degrees, to make it more uncomfortable
I then had to find an "outside" picture, and I already had a theme and was looking for something uncomfortable. I finally saw a potted plant with really hard soil and branches from the previous spring. I took this because most people, and correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to sit on
hard dirt with branches coming out from every angle.Finally, I ran back indoors and knew the pose I wanted. SO much human interaction is based on the telephone, so I took a picture of me, in a shirt with some briefs on. Why would I expose myself like that? Well, what's more uncomfortable than sitting on hard dirt with sticks coming out of it, inside a small tunnel while talking on the phone in your briefs.
Enjoy it ladies...
I'll give you a peak at what my idea is...the title...
....
"The Uncomfortable Conversation"
Today is February 01, 2010.
I finally sat myself down on my computer and forced myself to read the posts of others about the four artists (in no particular order: Teun Hocks, Gregory Crewsdon, Cindy Sherman, and Jeff Wall). As I was reading them, I found that I wasn't as bored as I thought I would be. In fact, I was actually enjoying reading the different interpretations of style and technique. I also liked some of the people's interpretations of the artists' art (redundant?)
Teun Hocks:
There seemed to be a consensus that Hocks uses a lot of humor to either make you confused/laugh/ uncomfortable. His style, which most agree on, is surrealism. He brings two realistic aspects/activities (a large painted set and a photo of himself [later painted]) and puts them together. What happens is that by putting two daily activities/places but not having the activities/places match up, it causes them to become out of place or surreal. Themes can be interpreted differently, which is the reason I don't like discussing what the artist meant to do. There can be so many different interpretations that there could be much conflict in doing so. However, no matter what your opinion of the subject matter and what it's trying to show, there is always a sense of humor.
Gregory Crewsdon:
There also seems to be a consensus often works in a human/human made objects into a natural setting or nature into a human made setting. By doing this, he creates a surreal work of art that often makes the viewer awkward/uneasy. Also, at first glance, Crewsdon's work seems to be a painting with no digital work, much like Hocks. However, once you realize that it is, you really begin to appreciate the subtly and attention to detail. I read on someone's post that there's always a light source (whether it be the TV or the moon). I thought that was a really interesting thing to notice because I didn't notice that right off the bat.
Cindy Sherman:
Many people agreed that Sherman's use of black and white gave the photos an almost vintage/nostalgic feeling to it. People also agreed that the main point of Sherman is to show the feminine body and the beauty of femininity. But it also shows the stereotype of certain women (ex. the prima dona actress, the business woman etc) They are all very simply shot, but with wonderful costumes.
Jeff Wall
Many of Wall's pictures seem to be real life. There doesn't seem to be any digital touches to them, besides the obvious photo. However, this is what makes Wall's work so interesting. Many feel that his simple subjects show many themes of racism and chaos. His work is seamless, much like the other artists but what separates him is that there is no sense of surrealism or nostalgia. It's gritty and simply there.
By reading other people's say towards the art, I felt that I got a better understanding. I usually like to just look at art and not really think about the process of what the artist did, because to me, it kind of kills the magic of it. So because of this, I usually miss A LOT of the techniques/thoughts behind it. However, I did enjoy reading other people's blog to really get a better understanding of everything and open my artistic eye into the world of the other artists.
I finally sat myself down on my computer and forced myself to read the posts of others about the four artists (in no particular order: Teun Hocks, Gregory Crewsdon, Cindy Sherman, and Jeff Wall). As I was reading them, I found that I wasn't as bored as I thought I would be. In fact, I was actually enjoying reading the different interpretations of style and technique. I also liked some of the people's interpretations of the artists' art (redundant?)
Teun Hocks:
There seemed to be a consensus that Hocks uses a lot of humor to either make you confused/laugh/ uncomfortable. His style, which most agree on, is surrealism. He brings two realistic aspects/activities (a large painted set and a photo of himself [later painted]) and puts them together. What happens is that by putting two daily activities/places but not having the activities/places match up, it causes them to become out of place or surreal. Themes can be interpreted differently, which is the reason I don't like discussing what the artist meant to do. There can be so many different interpretations that there could be much conflict in doing so. However, no matter what your opinion of the subject matter and what it's trying to show, there is always a sense of humor.
Gregory Crewsdon:
There also seems to be a consensus often works in a human/human made objects into a natural setting or nature into a human made setting. By doing this, he creates a surreal work of art that often makes the viewer awkward/uneasy. Also, at first glance, Crewsdon's work seems to be a painting with no digital work, much like Hocks. However, once you realize that it is, you really begin to appreciate the subtly and attention to detail. I read on someone's post that there's always a light source (whether it be the TV or the moon). I thought that was a really interesting thing to notice because I didn't notice that right off the bat.
Cindy Sherman:
Many people agreed that Sherman's use of black and white gave the photos an almost vintage/nostalgic feeling to it. People also agreed that the main point of Sherman is to show the feminine body and the beauty of femininity. But it also shows the stereotype of certain women (ex. the prima dona actress, the business woman etc) They are all very simply shot, but with wonderful costumes.
Jeff Wall
Many of Wall's pictures seem to be real life. There doesn't seem to be any digital touches to them, besides the obvious photo. However, this is what makes Wall's work so interesting. Many feel that his simple subjects show many themes of racism and chaos. His work is seamless, much like the other artists but what separates him is that there is no sense of surrealism or nostalgia. It's gritty and simply there.
By reading other people's say towards the art, I felt that I got a better understanding. I usually like to just look at art and not really think about the process of what the artist did, because to me, it kind of kills the magic of it. So because of this, I usually miss A LOT of the techniques/thoughts behind it. However, I did enjoy reading other people's blog to really get a better understanding of everything and open my artistic eye into the world of the other artists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)