|
|
| |
|
'Uh, gee, great.' -Andy Warhol 'Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive.'
-Bugs Bunny
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thursday, September 10, 2009
12:33 AM
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"Valuable" generally means something of great value, and i think it highly depends on one's opinion. For me art that is valuable has to have a few qualities:
1. Meaningful
2. Costly (emotional,financial)
3. Aesthetically beautiful
4. Only one (unique)
i use these factors to determine whether a piece of art is valuable or not.
1. an artwork that is meaningful simply means that the artist went through a lot of thought processes. he also has to think about his intentions. an artist who can convey his thoughts through the use of symbols alone is a genius. i find artworks that are hard to understand without the need to do research very attractive. maybe because the fact that not many people can understand it makes it more mysterious and in a way more valuable.
2. what i mean by costly is that the artist gave up a lot just to have that painting done. many artists like to exhaust themselves this way i notice. some artists would give up their family to become an accomplished artist. i think these people who sacrifice themselves for art are stupid but at the same time respectable. some artists like Pollock who own such "rollercoaster" lives sacrifices his relationship with people to be at the top. his artworks are in return so filled with emotion and movement. Long after his death many still think of his work as valuable.
3. Of course an artwork has to be aesthetically beautiful! this is highly subjective though. an artwork that makes you cringe or one that you will not look twice at is an artwork that is not worth keeping. mankind continues to search for beauty in many ways, and we cannot deny this. beauty in art should not reach a level of perfection however. an artwork that is pleasing and at the same time has an element of surprise is very valuable.
4. although Warhol's works are considered valuable to many, it is not to me, especially those works that have undergone mass production. making an artwork homogeneous just erodes the meaning that it holds! but if THAT is the intention of the artist its fine. an artwork that is a one and only is almost like a valuable treasure to me as it cnnot be found anywhere else.
4:01 AM
4:01 AM
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
"Our life together is so precious together." -- from (Just Like) Starting Over, by John Lennon
On March 20, 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono wed in Gibraltar. The following week, media manipulators used their celebrity for good, hosting a honeymoon "bed-in" for peace in room 902, the presidential suite of the Amsterdam Hilton. The press assumed that the famous nudists would make love for their cameras. Instead, the pajama-clad newlyweds spoke out about world peace. It was the honeymoon as performance art, interlaced with a protest against the Vietnam War.
Lennon's "The Ballad of John and Yoko" chronicles the week in song: "Drove from Paris to the Amsterdam Hilton / Talking in our bed for a week / The news people said / 'Hey, what you doin' in bed?'/ I said, 'We're only tryin' to get us some peace!'"
For a week, John and Yoko give interviews, ignoring the mockery and hostility to spread their words of peace to a global audience.
Yes, i think this is art; Performance art.
Performance art involves time,space, the performer's body, and a relatinship between the performer and the audience. it can happen at any time and wherever.
More importantly, performance art has to get across to viewers a message. in this case, it is a message of peace for the world.
On june 1st 1969, the couple and a huge group of friends recorded "Give Peace a Chance." The single is credited to "The Plastic Ono Band." Five weeks later, on July 7, the 45 was released in the United States. "Give Peace a Chance" reached no. 14 on Billboard's chart -- and inspired an entire generation to chant a song of peace along with John and Yoko.
8:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
