© Murakami or © LV

I start to notice one Japanese artist Yashitomo Nara by notebooks and T-shirts which are sold in one famous book store in Taiwan. Then I looked for the artist’s books and knew more about him and his works, a little girl with sharp expression in her eyes. It is a clever commercial tactic that the girl figure is not combined with any expensive brands. People can pay 30-50US dollars to have one T-shirts. The artist attracted more viewers by this kind of commercial trade and made his art more popular. Comparing to Takashi Murakami’s works, Yashitomo Nara’s little girl is pretty much “kawai,” at least to me. Facing to Murakami's“neverfull bag” which is decorated by the classic sign of LV, it only pushes me far away from his art, although I really appreciate the title of the bag. Maybe this collaboration actually wants to attract people who have more interest in LV instead of ART.

Artist with Ph.D

Artists with M.F.A. can be interested in any fileds of theory and technique then go to pursue their Ph.D in school. The function of any program of school is offering an environment,like as intensive courses, a group of folks and a little financial support to keep your living. Schools are always the best instant way to acquir so-called "knowledge" and lable your identity.

Murakami

Part of me wants to be upset with Murakami's treatment of art as something so commercial, something of a large business enterprise. On the other hand, I feel as though we all want success on a large scale, at least LARGER scale. Murakami has found a way to critique society's standards (whether it involves an investigation of high and low, elite and popular, etc.) all while appealing to the very society which he is critiquing. I'm not sure I would enjoy being so completely immersed in the capitalist system like Murakami has been. But in all honesty, I wouldn't mind the income involved with his success. I guess it is a matter of what is more important to you as an artist, making a name for yourself or making work that you know you can live with. "Mid-career soul-searching" caught my eye when reading this article. It seems to imply that Murakami may not be satisfied/happy with all the work he has completed, as if he finds some form of conflict with it on a personal level.

PhD

PhD program based on theory-great idea, as long is it studio and research based. Thru the M.F.A program- you exploring your ideas, you are focused on yourself, what is good, but in the same time- two or three years, are not enough for some of us. Sometimes feels like you just scratched the surface. Then PhD is for you. For some of us it is all about: changes and exchanges informations- which you can get from even from traveling and collecting the experiences. I think I could believe that this can have the same equivalent as PhD program. I also realize that I still have to write a CV, and still somebody going to based on that.
Well, I hope that PhD “dedication” to aca-deme, not necessary means using the students to do research for somebody who is on PhD “path” (often in Poland), I want to believe that this ”dedication” rather means: actively working and finding an answer, or making statements in the field that is interested on. Actively in theory/and studio.

I am wondering if PhD program which is focused only on criticism/aesthetics- theory, would not be the same for students who graduated in art history? Some people might say that this is “their field”. Well, they are instructed “to make arguments not pronouncements”. Sometimes artists works the other way around, isn’t it? Maybe is like Barnet Newman says:” Aesthetics( so criticism) is for artist what ornithology for birds”?????????

Art PhD's

I actually have no problem with the studio PhD. While I do not think it should replace the MFA as a required degree for teaching on a college level, I see no reason why an artist should have to just end with an MFA. I know many people who have gone on after their MFA's to get PhD's in theory, philosophy, criticism and English. The thinking that everyone should get an MFA and be done with it, it limits the cross-discipline relationships that have become so important in contemporary art. As a student, I would not want a professor who stayed in the studio for six years straight and then came out to teach me. I want them to be well versed in technique, theory, writing, public speaking and have well-defined careers. I think on a broader scale- this is not just a question of whether or not artists should have to get PhD's, but also whether or not the MFA is seen as the beginning of a career or an artists "leveling out" point. The great thing about a PhD program is that it keeps the person active in a field for longer than just two years- I often question if this is enough time to really learn anything.
Being an artist is not like being an accountant. No one piece of paper is going to get you to the next level, that next pay raise. We really are on our own to personally make the decision to expand our knowledge base, gain further skills, get the shows and write the grants. So the question of the MFA versus PhD comes down to how much you want to grow. If that is what it takes to get the same respect as the sciences then i say fine, but it should be an option open to those who want it.

Art PHD

I think that the idea of a PHD in studio art is a administrative idea and used to help standardize and level out the degrees of the professor to better administrate to them. The MFA is a degree that allows the professor to work and continue with there artwork giving them valuable insight into the working of the art scene. In a PHD the artiest is doing more theory and criticism, and is driven away from the studio and the progression the there work receives in a focused study into there area.

How educated must ANYONE be?

This article really hits home for me as I battle with the decision to either continue with my MFA or to bring it to a screeching halt. I question whether or not all the education we receive in an institutional setting is all really necessary. There will always be an element of the real world and real situations that can just not be brought into the classroom. A doctorate for an artist seems like just another layer of education; something else to delay your life plans. I do not want to have to spend the majority of my life in school in order to be able to practice what I enjoy doing. While some of the skills that are provided in a doctoral program would seem to be beneficial to an artist they also seem like skills that can be acquired in a variety of ways. I am strongly against removing artists from the act of making/creating which is what a doctorate would seem to do. It is bad enough that institutions keep stretching out the length of their MFA programs, I can't imagine having to complete a doctoral program in addition to it.

This week's reading- Art PhD's

This week's reading, about the growing trend of PhD's in art, can be found at the following link: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=g48m608c8t6vfhnyx905zqztj8hgxy9d

Mosque wearing

The most interesting aspect of Azra Aksamija's work, for me, is how many different fields of study she attempts to incorporate both in her work and in the way in which she works. Aksamija has to have a large understanding of architecture, Muslim culture, American culture, fashion design, knowledge of the textile industry, and of religion and politics in order to work on her wearable mosques. I do wonder if it is a goal of hers to directly reference the architecture of mosques or of any building in these works. I do not visualize any sense of a structure or of a building when I view one of her pieces. I would be very interested in seeing the reaction to her survival mosque from different areas of the world. Depending on the culture that work could evoke some very strong emotions-both positive and negative.

material use

I would have to say, after thinking about it a bit longer, that my biggest problem with Stelarc's third ear is that I don't understand why he had it implanted on his arm. I really need to know more about his purpose in order to be more accepting of it. As far as medical need vs. no need compared to the use of other materials by an artist that could also be needed for another purpose, I would have to say that it is not much different. I have actually been thinking alot about how wasteful we are as artists, especially since I've come to IUP. It is something that really concerns me.

Stelarc and all his ears

Hi all,
After reading your responses to Stelarc's third ear project, a couple of questions:

Some of you mentioned that the medical resources used for the project could have been better used to help someone who actually needed surgery for health reasons. So, do you feel the same way about an artist who spends a large sum of money on lumber and builds a sculpture with it? After all - that lumber and labor could have been used for housing someone who needs a home. Or is that somehow different?

Also, now that living tissue can be grown outside the body in a laboratory, how do you feel about using this material for art? What are the ethical issues here?