Art Show Reflection 2

Yesterday I went to see Bonnie Veblen's SMP presentation on her artwork.  First of all, I was deeply impressed with the artwork itself, which I got to look at for a few minutes before her presentation began.  The depth of the detail, maybe not necessarily accurate to the scene itself, but to the painting, and what she was trying to augment was very impressive.  I definitely connected with her when she was talking about how art, for her, is about trying to experience the world anew, to reexamine the beauty that is present all around us, especially in the seemingly mundane or everyday things that we no longer notice.  When she mentioned how children have no problem doing this, and that we are too busy to any longer take notice of these exquisite wonders, it struck me that also, maybe it was because, for the children, these things were not yet mundane, everyday things, that they had not been here long enough to be able to forget to appreciate them.  I also really identified with her answer to one of the questions, which, if I remember correctly, had to do with her mentioning the privateness of the vision that is then manifested on her canvas, and how she reconciles that privateness with sharing it with the rest of the world as a work of art.  She said that she is not trying to keep this vision of hers to herself, but wants other people to understand and appreciate it.  I think this is one of the main reasons and characteristics of art, much less the human experience.  It reminded me of a scene from "Into the Wild", where the hermetic youth is dying of poisonous berries, and jots the note "happiness is real only when shared" in the space between paragraphs of the book he is reading.

Art21 viewings 2

Looking back at the work of Sally Mann, I am struck by her determination in her medium, at least concerning her photography.  I was reminded of Robert Frank's work, in how the "mess-ups" and scars on the photographs are not at all hidden, and truly seem to be on purpose a lot of the time, seeming to add grit and/or some type of authenticity to the photographs.  But Frank did actually have limited resources, at least more so than Sally Mann, whose work is featured in the Smithsonian among others.  But she chooses to shoot in black and white, and not just in black and white, but with a camera modeled after those used in the 1800's, using her hand for a shutter.  At first it would seem as if these choices are just creating unnecessary difficulties and obstacles.  On the one hand though, it probably makes it that much more rewarding when the result a beautiful picture.  And on the other, even if the specific individual scratches and light blots aren't purposefully placed, it definitely seems the methods taken in order to develop the film to appear that way is on purpose.  And the ghostly, ethereal images that are produced are really beautiful. 

I find Mel Chin's work to really inspiring, in the way he intelligently assimilates so many disparate disciplines, as in the case of KNOWMAD.  In doing so, he stretches the notion of what an artist actually is, what an artist makes or does.  I think that even if his "works of art" can't or wouldn't normally be considered as works of art, that there is something very artistic in the very act of asking these questions, of stretching those bounds.  If art is about taking the viewer away, of forcing them to look at something in a new way, then he is doing this.  Not only in his projects, which seem to me to be directed at making the world a better place by bringing attention and aid and art to hurting corners.  And this is to be highly admired whether or not it is art.

I have been out West once before, but when I go again, I will go to the Roden Crater, built by James Turrel.  His work with light is really fascinating to me, like the corridor of light, called "The Light Inside", where the block's of light appear to be solid, but are not.  And of course, the crater, a visionary work, to be able to turn such an empty place, to build a place where light, natural light can be so viewed.  Light itself is such a beautiful phenomenon, and to be able to create such interesting ways to look at it, that in turn allow us to look inwards, and upwards, is inspiring. 

I feel like I can probably relate most closely with Gabriel Orozco, out of this group of artists that we learned about.  I identify with and admire the way he uses any and all mediums not only to give answers, to tell messages, but to ask the questions, so many questions.  Like Mel Chin, sometimes I think that it is in asking the questions that the true art, the true human experience comes through.  I can relate to this exploration and asking because that is where I am right now in life.  Sometimes I feel like I'm not even sure what the question is I'm asking, that I'm trying to answer.  Perhaps by making these works, by exploring these questions through such a cathartic process, one may hope to register the actual questions being asked, and may hope to find the answers.

Reflection on the 4 Levels of Meaning and Little Red Robin Hood

According to William Irwin Thompson, there are, especially in regards to fairy tales, four levels of meaning and understanding that are contained within a story.  He identifies these four levels as: literal, structural, anthropological, and cosmological.  The literal level is exactly what is written on the page, the immediate meanings of the present words, according to the context of the words as a whole group.  In his article he uses the example of the story of Rapunzel.  The structural level gathers patterns between the present words, matching themes and lines, looking for things that repeat or might be related, while still on the literal level.  Here he points out the repeating image of the window, the wall, and the many differing pairs of characters.  The anthropological level is the process of organizing these seeming patterns into a coherent whole, the exploration of alternate story lines contained within the literal words of the story.  Here he analyzes the possible meanings behind the purpose of the name Rapunzel, the significance of the witch, and the importance of the way it is translated from German, where it is closer to "sorceress," as well as the significance behind the different pairs, and how it points to the old matrilineal world in the figure of the sorceress, and the power she has over the different men, as well as the newborn babe.  The cosmological level further expands the possibility of interpretation to the very construction of a world view, pertaining to the relationships between sexes, planets, and different forms of life.  Here he continues his examination of the Rapunzel plant, pointing out that it has the capability of reproducing with solely itself, just as the maiden does in the story.  He goes on to discuss how this could relate to the issues of pregnancy, and then takes Rapunzel as an allegory of the movements of various celestial bodies through the night sky, as seen by those who originally told the story, through their geo-centric orientation.

In regards to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, I'm not sure there is as much to say, of course I never would have guessed there was so much to say about the story Rapunzel.  It was really awesome and impressive actually.

As with most fairy tales, there are multiple versions, as well as translations available, and obviously, many different meanings and understandings can be derived from the stroy simply by which version one chooses.  If one were to take the Brothers Grimm version the discussion might follow as such:

Literal: link to Brother's Grimm Little Red Riding Hood

Structural: I would point out the recurring image of the cap, the one that the girl wears, and the one that the grandmother, and then the wolf wears.  The recurring image of the path as a place of safety and assuredness, straying from the path will bring dire consequences, even if you get flowers first.  Like in Rapunzel, there are several pairs: the mother and daughter, the girl and the wolf, the wolf and the grandmother, the girl and the grandmother, the wolf and the hunter. 

Anthropological: The case of the cap is difficult, because the color of the grandmother's cap is never specified.  However, the red cap of the maiden could very well signify a coming of age, the beginnings of menstruation and the reaching of womanhood.  As this tale was being told in pre-Renaissance Europe, the path could have easily resembled the way of Jesus, or more specifically, the way advocated by the Church, that being purity and avoidance of evil; what that evil is, or was, is another discussion.  The flowers signify the temptations that can lead one farther and farther off the path, from the way.  And this falling away will hurt not only you but those you love.  

Cosmological: Just as the red cap could signify the beginning of womanhood, so does the popping from the wolf's stomach, that was so dark and scary.  And not only does this signify a coming of age, but it implies a new birth, the spring or the dawn.  This makes allusions to the Norse myth of where the sun is swallowed at the end of this age (Ragnarök), to begin the world anew.  In connection with Thompson's analysis of Rapunzel, present here is the triad of the maid, the mother, and the old woman, supporting the matrilineal perspective of the sexual awakening and growth of the woman, as represented in the caps.  In terms of the relationship between the girl and the wolf, it may be interpreted, also from the matrilineal perspective that males are the interlopers, that the wolf is symbolic of a man, predatory man taking advantage of young maids.  In the Grimm's translation the wolf is referred to as an "old sinner" and "greybeard."  

Self Portrait Reflection

I think I usually prefer art that is more along the figurative line, where some things are shown and some are left out, some exaggerated, and so forth.  I think this is more interesting, because it implies a story, a history of how, and possible why the artist views the subject in such a way, and why he should choose to share this version of it with us.  Of course this affects our view of the subject, and perhaps isn't as wise if it is our first encounter with said subject.  But in my experience, I make art concerning things that concern me, things that I have an opinion about, and I usually try to communicate that impression or message through my work.  

Even in the work of photographer of Ansel Adams, who and whose work I think is spectacular, is if not figurative, altered in order to portray the awe with which he views his natural world.  

Then there are times, like in the paintings of early Chuck Close, whose awesome objectiveness and ability to render exact detail is just incredible.  And I think what makes these paintings so awesome is that in his ability to render such fine details, he removes the need to add any type of impression or message of his own.  He simply lets the power in that face, in those eyes, speak for itself.  

As far as my objective portrait goes, I didn't want to simply take one picture of me, straight on, and print it out and paste it on the wall and call it art.  That's not art, and it was boring to me.  I knew I couldn't draw or paint anything like Chuck Close, though before I saw his work I considered myself to be rather good at drawing faces.  I decided to take a picture of my head from each side, except the back, because I couldn't see where my head was in relation to the camera in the computer then.  The idea was that I would be able to combine the three images into one, by blurring the divisions between the different curly sections of hair, to make them appear unified.  To make this work, I later realized I'd need to combine the necks as well, and this makes the image look a little awkward.  However, since it is meant as an objective portrait, there is no real significance behind the unified neck.  It is possible that a viewer, might gather a message anyways, possibly that, figuratively, I look in many directions at once.  

For the subjective portrait, I wanted to totally abandon any outward appearances.  I did construct the symbols in the formation of a head however, in order to identify the picture as a portrait, as well as to communicate the idea that it is these things that combine to form a unified whole: me.  I did retain one outward vestige: the eyes.  Eyes are very important to me, because they are what most honestly express a person's sentiments.  They are unique to the individual, and I think that they, more than anything else, are what give animation to the face. All of the other images included in the subjective portrait were things from my life that are immediately special about and to me.  Obviously I left a lot of important things out, which I may add. 

Digital Pictionary Reflection

I was really excited about the Digital Pictionary project, when I heard about it.  Back when I was at home, my family used to play that a lot.  Of course, when you are playing the game, you want your partner to be able to guess whatever word or concept you are trying to describe through images, so that you can win.  This project was so exciting for me, to be able to try be more ambiguous, and clever. To present a solid stash of information that in context would obviously point to whatever word I was given.  But hopefully, out of context, would be much more unclear.

When I learned that we were supposed to make three different takes on the project, so whoever was guessing would have a wider base off of which to guess, it worried me a little that I wouldn;t be able to make that many.  However, I realized that, though this presented a challenge, it was a very good challenge, and forced me to work and think outside the box.  In the end, I lucked out, with the word "ironic", which, in regards to English and grammar, actually has exactly three different types of manifestation: verbal, situational, and dramatic irony.  This was perfect.

Of course, in trying to represent these three different aspects through images, the lines were no longer so sharp: I could not actually represent verbal irony, truly, without audio.  So I used the picture of the guy with the fingers crossed behind his back, implying a lie.  But then, whoever is looking at the picture knows he is lying, and the guy he is lying to doesn't, and so it becomes dramatic irony.  

It took awhile for concrete ideas to start formulating, but once they started it was easy.  I made the situational irony one first, then the verbal, then the dramatic.  One of the first ideas I had was of the curbside prophet actually witnessing the end, whatever that was.  I couldn't find any suitable picture of one (I looked through a lot of Non Sequitur comics), so I drew one.  After that it was easy to assemble common images from an imagined apocalypse.  Again, my concept for the verbal irony image centered on the fingers crossed behind the back and the silver tongue to signify lying.  Hyperboles are a common form of verbal irony, and so I included the image of the snake that had eaten a horse, rather than just stating "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!"  The dramatic irony was really simple actually, with the audience watching as the thief snuck up behind the unsuspecting girl.  It was interesting because, in terms of the three images as a group, this one seemed to throw people off the most.  In the background of the third one, was the text "this year?" and then "nope" repeated 8,000 times.  Ideally it would have been able to fit 1,000,000 times, to represent the hyperbole "not in a million years."

Robert Frank Exhibit Reflection

I really enjoyed the visit to the Robert Frank exhibit.  I had heard of his work prior to this class, but I had never actually studied it, or learned about Frank himself.  It was really interesting to learn of his earlier work in Peru, where he began focusing on the people, and the everyday living of the everyday person, rather than the grand scenery or famous monuments, and how these orientations and experiences informed his later work, specifically "The Americans".  I was drawn to his work because of how raw it is, and how simple.  The shots are not set up or conceived at all, but truly spontaneous photography, capturing things that he saw that interested him.  It is amazing how much you can observe and learn about people by just sitting back and watching, and his work exemplifies this for me.  

He is not actually showing us anything new.  He is truly just a passerby, a nobody, and is not taking pictures in places where anybody couldn't go.  He is merely taking the time to point out that those things are there to see, and that maybe they are worth taking second look at.  By taking the time to photograph such "mundane" or "marginalized" things, he is immediately giving them worth, and asking if maybe they should be given more as it is.  This is, I think, why the work has had such lasting affect.  It is easy to forget what you are not looking at.

Another thing that struck me was the way they were not essentially individual pictures, but a group of and groups of pictures.  Rather than immediately hitting you with a message, Frank's or not, (although there were some that did, for me at least), whatever that message was seemed to slowly wash over you as you took in the whole exhibit, or at least the different sections.

Whether it was intentional or not, this seemed to me to imply the grandness perhaps of the human life, these pictures of little, overlooked, everyday places, slowly combining to allow us to form a new vision of America, those little, overlooked, everyday things, making up the essence and foundations of our lives.

It was also really cool to learn that Jack Kerouac wrote the Introduction to the book.  Last semester I read The Dharma Bums and On the Road, both by Kerouac, and this led me to have a deeper admiration for Frank's work, after seeing the way Kerouac appreciated it, myself greatly admiring Kerouac and his opinion.   

Scrap Book 22

I found this light-switch in my hallway, 2nd Dorch left.  It has only looked like this for a few weeks, and I'm not sure of when exactly it was changed, but I would assume that it was a Friday or Saturday night.  First I just noticed it because I wasn't used to a light-switch looking like that.  Then I noticed how the break was nearly straight down the middle, and the symmetrical appearance of the smooth side contrasted with the the gaping naked side reminded me of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which I actually just read yesterday.  Mr. Hyde describes the persona of Jekyll as the cloak under which he hides to preserve himself from judgment.  If I named this photograph "The Doctor's Mask, Reflecting, Broken, Reveals the Dark Hyding Within" the poetic nature of the title would render the photograph a metaphor, and therefore, art.  But I have not named this photograph in such a way, but merely "Scrapbook 22" and it remains purely objective, and unsentimental.  The light-switch itself is not art, but it is possible for a human being to take virtually anything, and by putting it in a new, strange context, adds a figurative layer of meaning that could manifest his creativity, and/or take the viewer away.

Scrap Book 21

This is a coat hook, to be found on the stall door in the bathroom in Dorch, 2nd left.  It seems to me to resemble a face, and specifically the face of an elephant.  I've been tempted quite a few times to draw ears around the sides.  That of course would have made it art though.  This coat hook is not art, however, because it was designed purely for the purpose of functioning as a coat hook, and was most likely in no way intended to resemble an elephant's head.  It was manufactured in a factory, made by machines, and was not the manifestation of a creative impulse to create of some individual.  The fact that I see it as an elephant head is, from a psychological perspective, due to a process I believe is called projection, the tendency of human being to see patterns or make connections that might not really be there.  

Scrap Book 20

These three marks are found on the floor of the bathroom in Dorch 2nd left.  I was struck by the symmetry of the marks, and the way that they balanced with the congruent tiles.  It seems to me that, even though these marks were assumedly made by totally random processes, their symmetry, for some reason, implies an order, a non-randomness.  And perhaps even more than that, some sort of designer, or sentient being behind the marks, responsible for the symmetry, to account for the coherence of the marks.  But then again, Nature presents us with some of the most beautifully symmetrical, patterned things in the world, and it is usually man's attempt to create such beauty, or at least an ordered pattern of his own, that leads him to adapt these patterns that he finds in the natural world.  They are not always geometrically sound or applicable, and this gives force to the argument that it is all in fact random.  These marks on the floor were assumedly random, and are not exact in their symmetry anyways.  But they are close enough to appear somewhat aesthetically pleasing, which is why I noticed them.

Scrap Book 19

This is a picture of the floor in the hallway of Dorch, 1st left.  The trail of dried blue liquid actually extends all the way down the hall in front of me, and all the way down the hall and all the way up the stairs behind me.  I am not sure what the liquid is, or was, but it reminded me of the paintings I saw of Jackson Pollock's during the museum visit.  The blue is actually a lot easier to see when present in the hallway.  But the trail is very wandering, even down the narrow hallway, it weaves around, sometimes little drips and sometimes bigger ones and sometimes huge splashes like the one in the foreground.  However, even as it winds and weaves, it remains on the white tiles, never touching the blue border tiles.  This seemed very artistic to me, in the simplicity of the materials, how the growing and shrinking drops seemed to imply a narrative, the length of the trail, and the way it remained on the white tiles.  And even though the trail was certainly man-made, this does not inherently imply any intention or design behind it.  I must assume that whatever substance was dripping on the floor was not dripped and wasted on purpose.  If the drips were in fact intentional, then I would definitely consider them to be art, again, in the way of Jackson Pollock.  However, until that intention is known to me, I must believe that the drips were an accident, which would not be art. 

Scrap Book 18

This is the RA bulletin board in Dorch second left.  This is what it looked like Saturday morning, whereas on Friday afternoon, it had been covered in papers talking about political issues such as illegal immigration, abortion, and such things.  Assumedly, this was the quasi-intentional work of a few people having a good time.  I'm sure there are movements in art that center on themes of reduction and maybe even destruction, such as this is an example of.  But again, the intention, to me, is all important.  I can look at this bulletin board and see art, project an image onto it by forming patterns between the little white bits of paper and the huge brown gash sliding through the black.  But that does not mean it is a work of art.  A work of art requires an artist, an artist who creates or changes the appearance of his media in order to convey a thought or emotion, or any other sentiment.  I of course do not know for sure, but I would assume that whoever tore down the bulletin board was not intending to make art, but rather just destroy.  Because that is fun sometimes.

Artist 11

This is an image from the Electronic Disturbance Theater, an internet based group that organizes large scale protests in support of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, following in the example of the sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's.  They are not able to make their presence so immediately physical, and so several figurative measures have been taken to allow these electronic methods to hit just as hard.  When the participants run the "bad URLs" on the targeted web sites, whoever is trying to log in on the other end (whether that be the President of Mexico, etc.) is presented with the name of one of the innocents killed during the massacre in the village of Acteal, as well as the site possibly overloading, or at least loading extremely slowly.  I was very drawn to this mission, and the work that this group does. I am very interested in issues of human rights, and methods of protest and so forth.  However, if this group were not present on the list of New Media Artists, I would probably label them as an activist group, which they surely still are, but not an artist or group directed at creating art.  There definitely seems to be an art in the act of organizing the protests and properly executing their objectives.  And the manifestations of those objectives and aspirations would be the realization of the dignity due to all humans.  And that would surely be a beautiful, moving thing.  It seems to me that this is actually beyond art.  This is a question of the human experience, of life.  Art is the description of a message, a vision, of what that life should or may or did look like.  Well, perhaps then the EDT is truly creating art.  A fluid and somewhat intangible, ever changing work of art, that definitely takes us away.

Artist 10

This is a still from one of the animation projects that artist Vuk Cosic created using ASCII, adapting the screenplays from select films into black and green pictures made up of numbers and letters moving rapidly across the screen.  I think this is a pretty cool concept, because it inherently forces a new perspective on the film, whether that be ambiguity or something else.  This is exemplified in the image to the right.  Without the context of the rest of the film, it is almost impossible to decipher what is going on in the still frame. 

In the New Media Art article the pointlessness of the ASCII format is repeatedly referred to, and I'm not sure what he means when he says his experiments with ASCII are carefully directed at their full uselessness from the viewpoint of everyday high tech and all its consequences.  I don't know how to go about adapting film into ASCII format, but I imagine that it is not that easy, or else I think he would have done more than five films so far.  And if this takes that much work, than why do it if one's view of of it is that it is pointless and purposeless.  This seems contrary to the whole point of art to me, that one creates art because one is driven to build, to create, and this inspiration is a purpose in itself, much less whatever kind of message that that creation emits.  Perhaps that message in regards to Cosic's art is purposelessness. 

Artist 9

This is the title page image for the project "Brandon", created by Shu Lea Cheang, in memory of, and in contemplation of Teena Brandon, sometime known as Brandon, who was raped and killed in 1993 for posing as a man.  Through the simple, black and white imagery, the rather short loop grabs at the essence of Brandon's story, biologically a woman, but identifying more closely with the female gender.  Without the context of Brandon's story, the image becomes much more ambiguous, and could be taken for many different things than it was intended to mean originally.  However, to a certain extent this even furthers the whole mystery and ambiguity that is gender.  By making the transformation in the animation so fluid, it seems that Cheang is implying that the divisions between genders are not as formidable as popular culture has had it in the past, and usually still does have it.  

Scrap Book 17

It's kind of hard to decipher what is written on this white board (located in Dorch 2nd left).  I'm pretty sure that "SAVE ROY D" was recently erased from the board.  Now, at first glance, the blue markings on the board seem to form some sort of abstract and ambiguous shape.  The marks were made by human hands, and were blurred and abstracted by human hands.  However, this was not part of creative experience, and as far as I can tell, there was no manner of artistic inspiration that induced the marks to be made on the board.  They, and whoever made the marks, are protesting whatever happened to Roy, after an incident I think occurred last semester.  This slogan has turned up on boards and posters all over Dorchester.  I noticed these markings because at first I could not tell what they had said, and the blurred marks looked cool and interesting to me.  After going through the museum of modern art last week, and seeing some of the things that they were displaying as art, I'm sure that this could be considered as such.  However, I don't think I would agree with that conclusion.  At least the displays in the museum were intended as art.  I doubt that when whoever wrote "SAVE ROY D" on the board they were intending it to be a work of art.  I think this in itself removes the possibility of something being art.  If it was not intended as art, then placing it in the art category is marring its identity I think.  Whatever that identity is.

Scrap Book 16

This is a picture of the tiles on the floor one step outside of my dorm room in 2nd left Dorchester.  The yellowish blob in the lower left corner of the picture is a crushed goldfish that actually managed to stay in that very place for over a week, till one day it was gone.  I noticed it because the contrast between the blue tiles and the yellow crumbs seemed rather artistic to me, and the picture captures that contrast pretty well I think (minus the glare from the ceiling light of course).  Of course, the fish was there by total accident, assumedly, someone dropped, coming or going, and its presence there was not the result of any creative process.  Even though it did fall nearly equidistant from the perpendicular blue tiles, using them as a sort of frame, as creating a very modern art image.  Again, after seeing some of the things in the Modern Art Gallery last Thursday, a painting of this photograph could surely be considered art.  But as far as this scrapbook entry goes, I am solely concerned with the fish itself.  And the fish itself was placed there by accident, was crushed by accident (i know this for a fact), and swept away because it was trash.  The trash itself is not art, but art can be created out of it.  Depending on where you put it, and how you look at it, you can make it art.  But then it is your material that you are using for your artistic creation.  The paint itself is not art, the picture you create with the paint is.

Scrap Book 15

I happened upon this decrepit car while frisbee golfing in Seneca Park, Gaithersburg, MD.  It is almost entirely covered in rust, and the leather on the seats has completely disappeared, along with the items on the dashboard and so forth.  However, the engine remains, fully present, and again, totally decrepit.  I actually found the car because my frisbee actually went into the engine compartment, as the hood has slid partly off the front, as you may be able to tell.  Yes, it was a horrible throw.  Anyways, that's how I found the car.  As far as art goes, I would not consider the car, at least in its present state, to be a work of art.  Perhaps at one time, newly manufactured in some long forgotten year, the car was truly a thing of beauty, and the craftsmanship could have been held above mere functionality, and it could have been art.  But now it has endured countless years of oxidation, and though a fascinating specimen, that might truly "take us away" in our wondering about what it used to be, and how it came to be there.  But as far as I know, this car that I found was not the manifestation of any creative process.  I think maybe the very photograph could be considered art, but not the car itself.  Rather than a process of creation, it is the manifestation of neglect and decay.  I could certainly see it in a historical museum, but not an art museum.  

Scrap Book 14

 This is a guitar string that I actually found in the trash can in my dorm room.  It caught my attention, because, as a guitar player, I have a tough time not considering the strings of a guitar to be works of art.  However, according to the definition of art that I have been espousing through these entries, a guitar string is not in fact a work of art.  I may in fact be wrong, because I have never met anyone who makes guitar strings, and am ignorant to the process of how they are actually made.  But it seems to me that guitar string are analogous with paint brushes, in regards to music and painting, respectively.  Is a paint brush a work of art? Or is it the instrument that allows one to more effectively create those works of art?  This is difficult territory, when it comes to craftsmanship and the making of tools and such things.  I think many of these said craftsmen would quite understandably argue that the tools they make are in fact works of art.  And I believe I would agree with them that the tools they make are tangible manifestations of a creative force working uniquely through each individual.  However, the tools themselves do not take you away, they do not inherently inspire.  They are the means by which one can execute an inspiration, and paint a song that can take you away. 

Scrap Book 13

 These are a bunch of shells that I collected on the beach directly across the water from The Point.  We went kayaking and just started picking up shells and rocks that looked cool. My favorite one is probably the one in the lower right corner, which is a triangular rock with different stripes of color, ranging from red to dark brown to a yellowish shade.  I think, at least for me, I don't usually even think about shells unless I'm at the beach, and so unless I'm involved in that environment, these shells and rocks become insignificant.  However, once at the beach, especially one so filled with rocks and shells (there was little actual sand), it becomes almost natural for me to start skipping rocks, and collecting cool rocks and shells.  These are not art because they are not the result of human craftsmanship.  They are the result of countless years being washed and beaten by the sea and the various shores they have washed upon.  They are certainly beautiful, and may have the capacity to take us away from here, but they are not the tangible manifestation of a creative force working uniquely through an individual human, or group of humans.  However, the fact that these shells and rocks are not art does not take away from the fact that they may be very important to our lives: I do not know as much about climate change as I should like, but it wouldn't seem too far fetched to me to say that such shells and rocks could possibly be indicators of such climate change.  

Artist 8

This is an image from the project UMBRELLA.net, created by Jonah Brucker-Cohen and Katherine Moriwaki.  The concept was to visually represent the technological networks established by cell phones in everyday life.  Umbrellas seem to have been one of the original inspirers for the project, and so they have been incorporated as an important part of the project.  The blue umbrellas represent those individuals who are connected to the umbrella network, while those with red umbrellas remain isolated.  The image itself is interesting to me, because the huge gray backdrop makes the people and their umbrellas seem very small.  It seems to me they are commenting on the way that technology is changing the way people interact, at least those with such pervasive access to technology, just as the Frontline documentary we watched earlier in the semester did.  Perhaps the huge gray backdrop signifies that these technological connections are very important, so we will not be left alone in that empty gray world.  Or perhaps it means that we are in fact isolating ourselves, collectively, from the world and each other, and with our increasing dependence on technology, the world outside is fading.  The questions relating to the pros and cons of technology are deeply interesting to me, and I appreciate the questions UMBRELLA. net is asking.