Marcus Coates

Today in class we were introduced to a very strange performance artist, Marcus Coates.  The video we watched was of him represented animal noises while he wears strange outfits made out of animal furs.  The whole thing was just extremely awkward.  A group of people just stared at the screen and laughed or gawked at what was happening in front of them. The image above is a normal outfit that he would wear for one of his events. The women is simply staring at him in front of the elevator. If I had been her I am not sure what I would have done. There are three reacts I can think of. 1- Just staring at him and wonder what was going on and if he were insane. 2- Staring for a second and then laughing at what he was wearing. Or 3 (the most likely)- I would turn around and get out of there as quick as I could.
I am not sure as to what the motivation is to go see his performances. As we saw in the movie, he makes strange noises and kind of prances around the room or makes odd gestures. The deer's head allow  creeps me out. The eyes are open and it appears to be staring at you. I don't understand how someone could wear a dead animals body on them. I realize that by wearing actual fur we are in a sense wearing an animal's dead body but by no means do I see people walking around with a full animal suit, head included, making strange noises and movements in today's society. In the end, I believe that Marcus Coates is a very strange and awkward man and I do not think I will ever be one of those who go to see one of his performances.
(Posted by Sarah)

Public Involvement II

Spencer Tunick and Gillian Wearing are two more artists who use public involvement but they use it very differently.
Gillian Wearing went down an everyday street and asked the passerby's to write down how they were feeling on a piece of paper and hold it up for her so she could take a picture of them with it. She entitled this work "Trauma". The most well known picture from this collection is a man in a suit holding a piece of paper that reads "I'm Desperate." I did not understand what this meant at first as to what is he so desperate for? I finally realized what this picture meant when I searched further for another picture from her collection and found another man holding a sign that said "Will Britain Get Through This Recession?"

Spencer Tunick using public involvement in a very different way. He poses the volunteers naked in various places. They have even posed in the freezing cold. When I saw one of the pictures he had taken my mind went to an optical illusion book in which it looks like there are sheep grazing in a meadow but if you look closer, you can see that what you are looking at is actually a picture of naked people. Tunick's art is definitely an acquired taste but for those who participate in the works get the satisfaction of being in a work of art forever.

Public Involvement

In class we learned about the public's involvement in art. Artists sometimes call upon the public to do strange things and make art out of it. Damien Hirst called on twins to be part of one of his exhibits. They were to sit under different patterns of dots, wear the same clothes, have the same hair, and must do the same thing (read a book, listen to music, etc.) In some perspective this is a unique twist on an age old concept. Twins are alike obviously, but not many put them on display for others to see. That being said, it could be taken in that wrong context as well or be offensive to some twins. The twin pairs may think that Hirst is trying to convey them as freaks or weird by putting them on display, something that he is not trying to do, or they can feel annoyed. They might feel annoyed because they may have been made to wear the same clothes when they were children and may feel that by making them wear the same cloths again is degrading or rude, again not what Hirst is intending. Those same things that could be annoying or misperceived are things that make Hirst's work interesting. As twins get older many do not think of them as a pair anymore and rightfully so each has grown their own way but Hirst brings that mentally to light. Twins are not only twins when they are younger but obviously when they grow up as well. The wearing of the same clothes brings back an almost innocence to the work. A quote that stuck out to me was "Art is like holding up a mirror to life." which I believe, Damien Hirst is conveying perfectly.
(Posted by Sarah)

Are you an Identical Twin?

Today in class we learned about Damien Hirst's artwork on identical twins at Tate Modern.  He wanted to take on as many identical twins as possible, having them wear the same clothes, have the same haircut and style while both individuals do the same activity.  Whether it be standing, sitting, reading, talking, both identical twins needed to mirror what the other was doing.  Hirst idea to create this artwork was so show the strangeness of identical twins and the idea that even though they are identical, they are not exactly the same.  I think this is a very interesting piece of work to take on.  It's very odd but at the same time I'd really would have like to seen this artwork in person.  We also discussed Gillian Wearing, who took photographs of random individuals in the public holding up a sign of a phrase they wrote describng how they are feeling at that particular moment.  This is an extremely different type of artwork, I can't imagine someone coming up to me asking me if they could take my photo on the spot holding a sign of how I'm feeling.  It's interesting how Wearing is known to be such a private and shy person, yet she ask's random people she does not know on a day to day basis to photograph them.  I think this is a very unique and creative form of artwork.

Why should someone collect art?

In the past decade or so many more people have started collecting art. These collectors have varying reasons as to why they collect it. In class we spoke of an older couple who had collected many pieces of art over the years because they liked what they bought. They gave it away to a museum later for no money whatsoever. Many people do collect the art because they enjoy it still today. My father collects Todd White's works because he enjoys looking at them and just likes them. Sure there is a monetary factor that comes into play but there is nothing set in stone. Collecting art for the money's sake is like playing the stocks, you just have to pick the right one and hope it doesn't blow up in your face. In my father's case, the price of his art has risen due to recent exposure of Todd White, but that could quickly change. I believe that people should buy and collect art because they like it, they enjoy looking at it, and they truly believe it will make them happy. The fact that people hire others to buy art for them at any cost and probably just store it somewhere without ever seeing it saddens me. Even if I do not like the piece of art in question, the new owner of the work of art should take the time to appreciate what they now have in their possession because that is what art is meant to have done to it, it is made so that people can look at it, discuss it, admirer it, or even hate it, which ever, it is not meant to be stored away never to be seen again.
(Posted by Sarah)

The Curse of the Mona Lisa

In this movie we have met a very cynical man who seems to dislike the way art is portrayed in today's society. He feels that the bringing of the Mona Lisa to the United States was a major mistake as it would commercialize the amazing work of art. In a sense it did commercialize it but on the other hand isn't it a good thing that some random person on the street can identify one piece of art and it's artist. People did just quickly pass the Mona Lisa when they came to see it but how many people could have actually stood there to see it? Those who did would have been pushed, yelled at, sworn at, or who knows what else. And yes, some of those came just to say that they had seen it but isn't that what part of what tourism is? You go to the Statue of Liberty to say you have seen it, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Sydney Opera House, and yes there are many of those who go to see it to experience something more but in essence we all like to brag a little about where we have been. So is it ok to put a painting, however great it may be, above a famous landmark? And so what if they just went to see it to say that they had? At least they went to see it, they have some sense of culture. He is far to cynical of everyday people. Many of those who went to see had jobs, children, or various other commitments and did not have to luxury of staring and analyzing the Mona Lisa all day.

    As for the another part of class, children's museums and how art today is interactive was mentioned. This automatically brought to mind a museum in Rochester called Strong National Museum of Play. This museum includes a variety of opportunities for children to learn. There is a butterfly atrium, a section that is set up like the local grocery store, Wegman's, so that children can learn. There is also a section that is displayed as if it were Sesame Street, a section where the kids can dress up and "act" to whatever they want, a "weather channel"  station, a science section, a toy section which includes dolls that can date back to 1890. Though these may not be looked upon as arts, they are. Why else would we say the arts of science or why would people have spent several hours if not days carving, painting, and dressing these dolls? These children's museums may not be traditional, they are pretty much anything but, but they are still very important to society in that they teach children through hands on actions and in a fun and memorable way.
Posted by Sarah