Murakami

Murakami's work seems to implicate the viewer in the art/commerce system. Whether it is a critique on the commercial aspects of the artworld or not is irrelevant- we become part of the circle, complete interactive art. The point of this article that stuck out to me was the name of his Louis Vuitton bag- "Neverfull". It speaks to the desire associated with art and retail. We are "never full"- always wanting more, better, faster...

© 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?

Third ear for art

I agree with Dave's statement that this third ear project is a waste of medical time and costs that could be going to someone who actually needed it. I also did not understand the artists exact purpose for doin this. The article mentioned he wanted to have a micrphone implanted to allow others to listen to what his extra ear picks up. How is that any different from what a normal ear would pick up? If his point is about listening then why not be concerating on listening to sounds invloving a regular ear, more people would probably relate to or understand it. A woman who was born without an ear claimed the work shows a lack of understanding. I can see why she feels this way. She has been living with one ear her whole life and clearly knows the physical and emotoinal stresses it brings. Then someone who was lucky enough to have both ears grafts a third onto his arm. It seems to be making light of her personal situation. Perhaps if the artist had some medical connection himself to this idea i would feel differently about it. While the science of it is fascinating to me, i just see this particular use of it as a waste.

Do you hear me?

The extra era reminds me to think of my past students. Some of them have nice and complete appearances of ears but they are deaf or have problems in hearing. The way they tried to understand me is focusing on my mouth and body language to "see" what I talked about in class. Stlarc made a very vivid ear, a sculpture with perfect quality, which is composed by some very high technique but the small ear has no function. Comparing to 2D ear drawn on one forearm, this 1/4 scale 3D ear seems more strong and attractive. I don't understand why Stelarc hopes to have a microphone implanted to allow others to listen to what his extra ear picks up. It is unnecessary to duplicate one ear just for hearing what it picks by a microphone. He just need to set a microphone on his forearm. But I think there is one thing good that is the artist sets the third ear on his body instead of other animals.

The third ear

I really believe this sort of thing to be absolutely ridiculous. A doctor's time and the amount of money spent on a project like this could go towards so many more important and helpful medical procedures for people that really need them. Perhaps I feel this way because of my overwhelming disgust for plastic surgery addicts and plastic surgery in general. In my opinion this type of procedure should not take place unless it is medically necessary/if it improves the overall quality of your life. While some of the research involved with Stelarc's project may be quite interesting and even valuable I do not deem the ear implanted under the skin of his arm as a necessary component. Sometimes money allows us to take things too far. You don't need an ear on your arm in order to capture/record what others say. My verdict: no clinical need= no surgery.

The Extra Ear

I think that the extra ear is more of a social experiment then an art project. It is a very interesting idea that makes you think about body modification, and it is comparable to people that have metal beads implanted under the skin to make designs show up on there skin. The ear that was made is a piece of art that was grown and attached to his arm. But what he is planning on doing with the ear is a sociological experiment into the body and the way you hear and interact with your environment. It is hard for me to fully embrace the ear on his arm as art and not as a strange body modification. It is also a little cruel to people that are deformed with extra toes and excreta with the adding and additional body part.

Carolyn Lambert

I found Carolyn Lambert's presentation a few weeks ago to be interesting. What i noticed most about her lecture was the medium she has been working in . Well, perhaps medium is the wrong word, but that my point here. I am not very familiar with performance art or documentation. It intrigues me that we can catatgorize this as part of "studio art" courses. I would veiw this as something fit more for the perfomance or thater arts department. I don't think it's bad or wrong that Carolyn's work is being classified in to the studio arts academically. It just makes me think about how we feel the need to catagorize everything. I think that this diversity of art is one of the things i love most about being an artist. We have many outlets and directions our work can take. Someone in sudio art courses has the opportunity to incorporate everything from dance, video and music in to their work, what other areas of study have that much openness and opportunity?

Art star(world)& Top 100

These articles remind me to think about the billboard of art stars in my mind. I found that the art stars in my list are actually long-lived, like Marcel Duchamp and Louise Bourgeois. In their long life-spans, one of them kept on working in art world; the other turned to pursue other careers. Duchamp finally left from the art world to become an chess player since 1920s until the rest of his life. Bourgeois became famous in 70s, then people started to notice the "female artist". They focused on working with their interests, regardless whatever it is. What they want to do is simply to have fun with their careers.There are always lots of elements affect whether you can become a noted artist or not, usually not only depending on your talent in art. Maybe you need to find a good mentor, look for a good dealer and smell what will be the next most popular issue.... But I think if you want to be an artist the most important to keep your art career longer is to keep your passion and have fun with your works. It is really easy to feel frustrated when there is no viewer appreciating your work. By the way, another important thing is to keep healthy and live as long as possible or you will have no chance to celebrate your accomplishment.

Art Stars/ Top 100

There are millions of artists in the world. Many of which make their careers by making little cash and calling themselves artists. Some make their careers by becoming professors at an institution. Plenty of them make some money in galleries.
Why not? It’s life do what you want, in life you can do anything that the mind can imagine. Why limit yourself to being labeled as an artist. An artist in the modern day is becoming ever closer to being nothing than a corporation. Become a business man or a farmer if that’s what you want to do. Have tons of money and influence. Essentially that’s what this top one hundred artist thing is saying the top one hundred artists good at. Not necessarily their art. Like Aasta said its all dependent on what galleries you are in and how much money your work makes.
But time and time again through history we have seen artist come out of the woodwork and not even be alive any more. That’s part of the beauty of the art world. It has the power to immortalize a person. Even when the person is dead. Dealing with the modern capitalist industry and gaining fame in this life time is one way of dealing with becoming a successful artist. But it doesn’t mean that you have to do it to become famous. Or even make the best art. The top one hundred artists probably aren't even known. They are probably so far ahead in their thinking that people would not even understand a thing they create. These kinds of artists are untouched and pure. Their creativity is out of the world and unknown. These kinds of artists achieve an understanding of the world beyond what the New York and London galleries can even begin to imagine. Beyond what the Artstars can set precedent for. The actual top one hundred artists might be content with creating within their own minds exclusively. Not ever making a single work in the real world.
The life of an artist in the modern society is fleeting. up and down as Dave said. What’s the point? You can make money doing anything you want. Or make it selling art. But what’s the point in becoming one of the top one hundred artists. Just to gain power. That’s just what every other person in the world wants. Artists should be different, progressive and out of this world. Not concerned so much with achieving a world class status as a prominent gallery showman for some capitalist PIG!!!
-Aaron Treher

Pittsburgh Gallery Crawl

Hi all,
The next Gallery crawl is on Friday the 19th from 5:30 to 9 in downtown Pittsburgh. It's a good time to see art - up to 20 galleries and other venues open at the same time, with free admission and often snacks, music etc.

You can see a list of venues here: http://www.pgharts.org/education/gallerycrawl.aspx