NINTEEN

hello world!

turned the big ol 19 today!

ain't that the craziest!

TANK MAN

It's crazy that the events of 1989 resulted in the way that China looks now. Major cities are bustling with business and cutting edge technology while oppression hits the countryside hard. I wonder what tank man, the students, and all those that perished in Tiananmen Square would have thought about the new China. It just seems silly to me that millions of people are still dirt poor after all the fighting and bloodshed that was spilt in hopes that things would change for everyone. Though there is someone that is benefitting from all this. That someone is greedy American corporations.

Not only are the corporations just benefitting from all of this but they are helping to play a part in the oppression. I can't believe that Google and other internet search engines, which are a primary way of getting information in America, have voluntarily censored the search engines. Students in China thought the image of tank man was a joke. Through this censorship the Chinese government will continue to keep people ignorant and oppressed. That is not what Tank man or those at Tianamen Square fought for 10 years ago.

OBJECT OF DISSENT

SCANSCAPE

Scanscape of Ferdinand Hodler's landscape.

ON THE RIGHTS OF THE MOLOTOV MAN

The argument is interesting because it will never end. This is a recurring argument because this situation and others like it are not black and white. I understand both the painter's side and the photographer's side of the disagreement.

As a photographer, photographs are your artwork and you wouldn't want someone to alter and use it without your permission. But, is it really the photographer's art if they are just documenting a moment in time?

On the other side it is the painters job to take and image and create something new with it and if a photograph is just a documentation of the moment shouldn't they be allowed to paint from photographs? Or should you give credit and rights to the photographer?

In my opinion the painter should only have to give credit to the source of the photograph of reference. I think that it was the responsibility of the painter however, to learn the context and history of the image she was painting. Because if she new the context she would have seen how it conflicted with her theme and changed the meaning of the painting.

ELECTRONIC VENUS FLY TRAP

TED TALK: VIK MUNIZ

http://www.ted.com/talks/vik_muniz_makes_art_with_wire_sugar.html

This video of Vik Muniz was most interesting. It's really funny that his whole art career started out from getting shot. You've got to have a really good personality to make getting shot into a good opportunity. And Vik Muniz does, which is also very apparent in his work. All of his pieces are fuzed with energy and humor.

All of his work involves temporary media: string, chocolate, trash, clouds. Its really interesting that all that remains of the original work is a photograph which technically isn't even part of the work. It make me wonder how does Muniz really want us to see the art? Would he rather us see is in real life as the event is happening or from a removed photograph, does this make the photographic aspect art in itself?

I like the idea of art being temporary art though. You can look at it and move on. The artwork will move on. You appreciate it in that moment. I know that if I were an artist and spent so much time constructing an image for fibers of string I would not want to be temporary. I would want it to stay forever remind me of all the hard work I put into it.

On another note I think that the art addresses themes that are well thought out and interesting. Also humor is a big part of his work. And I love that aspect about it. Clouds made out of clouds, how witty!