Sunday, February 14, 2010

Follow up: window display

These were all done by Gabriel Gonzales, however; since all his work was put together it was impossible to distinguish a name for each piece. You see 4 out of the 5 pieces

The names as they appeared in the shop.
Stalagmite Cradle
Spelunking Eardrum Dwelling
Pink Popfoam
Track Model No. 1
Cosmic Locator


Follow up part 3 of 3

Greg Lynn
Toy Furniture: Dog Shelf

The last place I went to on the follow up was the Objct Gallery. The portrait I posted was probably one of the worse things I saw at the follow up. I saw this object on the first art walk, but this time I decided to ask about it.

I talked to the guy sitting behind the counter and he said that this art could be used to interpreted the psychology behind the artist. He said this art was right up the alley of any psychology major. I decided to take his word for it. I asked him what it was suppose to be and he told me he was just as clueless. All he knew was that they were reused toys. He also referred me to the name of the piece which was Dog Shelf. This piece was boring and I figured that anyone could glue old dog toys together to make an object. The only pattern I see here is chaos. There is no pattern, but just random parts stuck together enough to make sure it stands. I'm not even sure if it is right side up or not.

I then asked him what people did like and he said most people either liked the silverware (credit goes to ash...my camera died and she had a picture of the silverware on her blog) or the things in the window display. I was turned off by the silverware because it was just a set of silverware. It was arranged in a special way, but it didn't do anything for me. There was no aesthetic pull. It was dry and seemed to lack creativity. It was just too ordinary. People loved the window display and I didn't know why. It seemed to lack excitement and nothing but the creepy eye stood out. The color was bland and the big eye put me off drastically. I suppose my taste set is different from everyone else. I didn't see anything really worthwhile in the window display. I also didn’t understand why the window display cost so much. Everything was 100 or above. It seemed to be worth around 20.



To Getty Project
To Art Walk

Follow up part 2 of 3

Juan Solis
Mi Corazon


I believe this painting is a lot like the Mickey one in a sense. However, instead of being on the cross he is inside the cross and his arms are in relatively the same position. From this, it would seem you can say that religion is embedded in Hispanic culture. Even though there are individuals who don’t practice outwardly, it is embedded in their hearts and their existence. It is like a heart, you cannot live without it. In a way the color is a mixture between being clam and passionate. It is both passive and aggressive. The man even looks to be more relaxed than in agony. It is like the religion gives him solace.

I saw the same person looking at this picture that was looking at the Mickey portrait and I asked her what she thought of this. She said that it seems like he is "being put in a higher place than he should be." She also said that the color isn’t boring and plain. The color in this is much more intense than the Mickey one. It gives a sense of passion to the art.

I guess we can both agree on the color and there was some inter-subjective interpretation in this case. We both thought it was also one of the better in terms of color. However, everything else was different. So, I suppose the color is a part of Rosenberg's general criteria. Ironically, either of us would pay the $1900 price tag.


To Part 3



Follow up part 1 of 3

This image is called Icons Collide by Manuel Ortega.



I missed this picture the first time I went to the art walk. It is worth 150 dollars and it reminds me of the film Super Size Me. This documentary was about a guy who ate nothing, but McDonalds for a few months. He nearly died. Anyway, in one scene, they showed children a picture of McDonald and Jesus. The children had no idea who Jesus was, but then instantly recognize a picture of Ronald McDonald. Keeping that in mind, I’m sure if you showed kids a picture of Mickey and Jesus; they would know Mickey over Jesus. I suppose in a way Mickey has become the childhood savior for all little children. Disney must be proud. So, in way I suppose Mickey has merged or replaced Jesus, hence the name, Icons Collide. I never liked Mickey though, he annoyed me.

With this piece in particular I decided to ask someone who was around to interpret it for me. The person I talked to said that it is Mickey on the cross, the color is dull and bland. There was nothing to like about it, except that kids might enjoy seeing Mickey. Then the person walked away.

There was some agreement. We both agreed that the color did not help the portrait. In fact, it might have been better black and white. The color was also really boring. Beyond that, there was no agreement here and there doesn’t seem to be any general criteria for why we like or dislike the painting. My interpretation of the portrait comes from the background knowledge of what the picture may represent and knowledge of the symbols found in the portrait. If we were going to base our appreciation solely on criteria found explicitly (color, shading, lines, contours etc) in the portrait, the portrait wouldn’t be that great. The portrait would have an overgrown mouse on a cross, which would have no meaning what so ever. I am also unsure if Rosenberg would agree with using background knowledge the appreciate art. He seems to be stuck with what we explicitly see in the portrait. At the very best, it seems the color could give the painting a little more flare, but that would be all. To Part 2