Donald Judd and Eva Hess

So, I didn't really understand the article. I read it a couple of times, and what I think I understand of it is that he thinks that there is something beyond what it is. In everything. It is more than just a rectangle, but corners, and space inside and then the atmosphere around the actual rectangle itself.

What is his new work that is neither sculpture nor painting? He said it has similarities, but differences as well. I guess that is the part that I don't understand.


Eva Hess:
I really like how she kind of puts it into perspective the role of women in art, and in life kind of. She talks of how we have the ability to succeed and how society wants us to and permits us to, but we also have so much that is holding us back. I think that she is talking more about women in general and life, and just relating it to women in the art world. We as women are given such important responsibilities and we have to take care of those responsibilities, because we are women. It is what makes us unique in one sense, and different in another. At times it is unfair, because there are things that only women can do, ie give birth.She talks about how we are given these blessings, and then expected to succeed in the world, just like men because we are given the same opportunities as men, now more so than when she wrote the article, yet we are still held back by our physical and mental responsibilities. She says that there is rarely a woman who has acted like a woman and not a man that has succeeded in the art world. I think that this is true. Society is more accepting of men and they methods, therefore, when a woman comes in, she can get more accomplished by taking on the "characteristics" of a male worker, or artist. She feels that women, herself, cannot succeed. She says that she has self esteem problems, which what woman doesn't? Even those who plaster themselves all over every kind of media naked have self esteem problems, otherwise why would the be there?

Also, her untitled statements are really interesting. I really like the one from 1969, because it is a factual rundown of what she thought, what she went through. I was impressed because I don't think that I would be able to give a summary of the things that I thought, at least if I did, I would completely expose that fact that I am kind of crazy, and that my thoughts are very hard to make sense of.

Louise Bourgeois

I really like the interview with Louise. I like how laid back she sounds. I think it is a good attitude to have about her art work. She starts with a certain idea or topic, and she just starts wherever. She will go from paper, to cardboard, to canvas, and then to stone. But she considers each one of those pieces a work of art. Even though she has a final image or look in mind for the end result, she does not cast off all of the work that it took to get the end result.

I also liked how honest she was when she said, "I truly like only the people that help me." So many people are out for themselves, but put up a front so that no one knows that they are that selfish and don't really care about others. She worked to work, to express her desires, her questions, her answers. She didn't do it to be famous, at least that is what she says. I think that she really had no intentions of being this huge artist, otherwise she would not have appreciated her work as it went along on each stage. She truly enjoyed being an artist, and was not overtaken with the money and the fame that it brought. She was in it for the art, and that is what counts.

Alan Kaprow

Art which can't be art is really different. Everyone at some point has stopped and examined something that they do and maybe not considered it art, but at least analyzed it and found it odd. Kaprow took something that everyone does, and made it not into art necessarily, but analyzed it as one analizes art. If you think about it, a lot of the things that we do daily can be art, almost all of them. Because the movements of art have changed, and when he was analyzing brushing his teeth, it was more focused on the actual life and bringing that into art, I don't think that we would as easily connect something like tying your shoe, or washing the dishes to art, or very artistic. We as artists can certainly relate it at some point, but that is not our instinctual reaction.

I also think that it is interesting how he used brushing his teeth as an example, and we have two other examples that are directly related to being a human that everyone uses, the toilets. All three men, DuChamp,Kaprow and I forget the other one's name that made the squishy toilet that we looked at in class the other day, have used something that is so common, and routine, and made the viewer stop and think about what we have, and really take granted for.

When we compared the two toilet images in class, I was wondering, where does intent come in when you are labeling something art. Yes, both men used the toilet theme, but DuChamp used the toilet as a means of making soemthing. I think that he had a purpose in using a urinal as a fountain, because it is kind of disgusting, and socially unacceptable, I would think, where as, the squishy toilet is in itself the piece of art. It is supposed to be viewed as a toilet. I don't thnk that the intent makes one more successful than the other, but I don't think that I would necessarily place them in the same category. It was just something that I was thinking about in class.

Happenings

The other Susan Sontag reading about the Happenings was really interesting. I like how they took advantage of their ability to have any kind of exhibition that they wanted and that they also went in crazy wys with the themes. I think it is interesting how Surrealism has made its way into the theme, and how they are exposing their dreams in a physical way, instead of just on a canvas or wall.
My question is, was this accepted by th public. I know that it only lasted about 5 years, but was that because the artists were moving in a different direction, or that ideas were running low, or because it wasn't bringing in any money. I would think that it would be quite radical to start a "trend" like this, using recycled materials and having outrageous topics and items in the show. Also, did you have to use recycled materials? I know Kaprow said something about using new items. But, I would think that if you used old and used items, that it would create more of a story to your piece, more of a history and therefore, more of a relation to your piece.

I like how these artists went from using a flat piece of something, canvas, wall, paper, and took it to the physical form. I think at times, people are more apt to understand or to relate to something, or really to be more interested in something because it is right there, popping out at you. I would think that the people would accept this type of art, cautiously maybe, but eventually I would think it would become the new "it" thing to do.

Susan Sontog

Ok, so I just read the Susan Sontog article and I am really confused. I didn't even realize that Camp is a type of art movement, I guess, until half way through the article. I still don't understand what it means though. It is something that isn't successful but doesn't fail. It is a way of looking at something, with a certain aestheticism, and a certain taste.

I also didn't understand the part about the sensibility. When I think of sensibility, I think of being sensible, common sense, kind of stuff. I didn't understand what she was writing about on the first page, when she talks of sensibility as a noun, rather than an adjective, which is how I usually understand it as.

The way that I understand it.... Camp is a way of looking at art in the sense that you are looking at it, not for its success, but more for what it actually is. Not how aesthetically correct and pleasing it is, but does it make a statement, and what does it say years down the road. What kind of messages does it send out?

I'm still not sure if I understand Camp, but I did enjoy the reading of Andy Warhol. I learned a lot about how he views people and how he feels and wants to feel. It seemed like he was just so lonely and wanted to be able to help someone, but then once he got the chance, that isn't what he needed to fulfill himself. I like when he wrote about how since he has seen emotions and feelings from one aspect, his entire viewing of them will never be the same. I think that is so true, because once you have felt something so deeply emotional, or you can open your eyes to something that you didn't have any idea about, your life and your perspective will be changed from that moment on. Those moments have a defining part in your life, and I think that those moments have a large part of making you who you are.

I am supposed to make a blog for my art history class. It would be nice to get people on here to maybe explain some of the readings that I have been assigned because I don't understand them.