What You See, Isn't Always What You Get

I love the idea that anything can have any perspective. It messes things up for a lot of people who like straight answers, and I love the artist who takes the high road and says that a straight answer is nothing but bullshit. In class we looked a lot at Georges Braque, and a lot of his stuff is really cool, but even more so, I like the things that David Hockney has done. When talking about modernistic styles and perspective in chapter four, there is an awesome note about Hockney's "Pearlblosson Hwy." The way we look at things from person to person is what I'm really getting out of the class so far, and so who better to look at than some of David Hockney's works?

My favorite Hockney while researching some of his works was Place Furstenberg, Paris. It's photographic collage that contains a lot of the same elements that Braque's paintings do. Also, in most of Hockney's paintings, he uses a lot of greens and blues, bringing out the cooler to colors to give us a more natural look of sky and earth. Modernistic styles have grabbed my attention more than anything so far in this class outside of Edward Hopper's works, but I think it's a matter of opinion. I only enjoy ceratin impressionstic and cubic pieces, but really like a lot of the abstract work, especially in what we saw out of Marla in the film today. I look forward to seeing some more of her work, and comparing with other artists in the genre.

Live Creatively, Dangerously

I totally agree with the artist quote of the week, that creativity is indeed the capacity in which we allow ourselves to make mistakes, and art is the good stuff we decide to keep. Life is full of mistakes, whether we intend for them or not, and what makes "the good stuff" - the stuff that defines who we are as people - that's art. This is a quote that allows artists to be a little dangerous, to step outside the box and allow themselves to not only try new things, but to fail at them succesfully.

How does one fail succesfully? By keeping the mistakes that make art. I don't believe that any type of art is just thrown into the air on the first try. One of my favorite pieces of art, is Nighthawks, done by Edward Hopper in 1942, because to me it is a representation of nostalgic America, someplace I myself would want to be. However, Hopper's creation in 1942 was actually done forty years after his first work began in 1902. And no one can tell me that Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven was done in one try, or that the first production of Chicago was the best. I don't believe it.

So yes, I agree that if we allow ourselves to make mistakes, to keep doing what we're doing over and over again, to figure it out for oursevles what the "good stuff" in life really is - then we're finally creating art.

If You're a Movie Buff, Flex Your Movie Muscle

So, if critics think that James Stewart character is the equivalent to a movie audience, then as a movie buff what does that make me? I'm not sure that I like the word "voyeur," because according to most dictionaries it usually has some sort of sexual reference involved. However, to use it's second definition as "an obsessive observer," well then I'm willing to buy into the idea a little bit.

However, you can't tell me that Alfred Hitchcock made that movie without the audience in mind. In fact, what good director, producer, actor, writer, etc. makes a movie without keeping in mind the effects (positive or negative) it will have on popular culture? So I can't really believe that as a movie buff, I'm supposed to be ashamed of what I'm watching, simply because it was MADE for me to watch.

Movies are so iconic and widespread across so many different cultures that it seems nearly impossible to me to believe that I'm not supposed to feel something for the movie. For example, to me, Matthew Broderick will forever and always be Ferris Bueller, despite any other movie he's ever been in. Same thing for Judy Garland as Dorthy in the Wizard of Oz, or Marlon Brando as The Godfather. It's what makes movies what they are today, what builds up things like the Oscars, summer blockbusters, and the glory there is in having a massive DVD collection. (I would personally know.)

So here I am with a few more photographs, because I love how photography captures a moment for us, and probably will forever share photos on this blog, proving my point. If you're a movie buff, and serve as the audience member as a hobby, then flex your movie muscles and show that without the audience, the movie industry would hardly exist.

The Spectator As Art

While much of spectatorship has to do with the idea of someone looking in or on to an image or piece of artwork, I find it fascinating that the spectator itself may in fact, BECOME the artwork. I got to thinking about this in reference to Alfred Hitchcock's The Rear Window, and decided that while it is true that L.B. Jefferie is using the concept of the social gaze, it is us as the audience that is actually watching Jefferie.

Thinking about this in real world application, I got to thinking about certain photographs and real life examples I've seen where the artwork itself features a spectator. For example, the photograph featured in TIME Magazine portraying the first 3D Movie event the world had ever seen.

It is here that we are a specatator to a spectator, where not only one, but two examples of looking come into play.

Below are a few more examples, because although you can talk about looking at someone else looking, I find it much more fascinating to see how and in what context it occurs.