I found it interesting to see that people chose many different images of these artists to accompany their comments. It just goes to show how differently people can respond to the same artwork. It was nice to see that everyone seemed to enjoy Hocks humor, while several recognized the irony and frustration inherent in the images. I guess it's like watching Wile E. Coyote getting blasted - you laugh, but you can also relate on some level to something that "blew up" in your own life.
Bryan's noted Jeff Wall's contention that ideas are not always best communicated through visuals, despite the old saying about 1,000 words. As Bryan expressed, I also enjoyed Hocks' fusing of media.
Adri's comments were very well thought out. I also noticed Jeff Wall's use of distance. I appreciated that she showed us another very different piece by Sherman. Crewsdon implied Magritte for me also.
Amy 's discussion of the sizes of the works was interesting as I had allowed the format of the computer to cloud my perception of the actual sizes of the works.
Ceire's point not to separate an artist's writings from his/her art was a good one and went along with what Bryan was saying (see above).
Lizz's comment about Sherman's stills and their voyeristic feeling was something I also experienced. I think this only makes sense since these are meant to represent movies and one is often a voyeur when watching a film.
Elle's mention of the layers in Crewsdon's work makes me think of Photoshop!
Katie's comment about Wall's work feeling candid, when in fact it is always staged was something I also felt when viewing his work.
Lots of excellent observations!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment