Yay, my naked man actually has a semi-complete form now! In that I mean that he has some depth going on, even though he's got a ways to go.
Despite my earlier idea to go from bottom to top (in regard to adding value), I skipped adding more value to the legs and went to the top arm, head, and torso. I think this is a good thing because I am able to see a better overall picture now.
"never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face"
This article presents the idea that modern art has exactly two founders; Eduoard Manet and James Abbott McNeill Whistler. The argument for Manet as a father of modern art is that he was a prominent figure in the impressionist movement, and he made the alla prima method of oil painting more widespread. He was also known for his loose application of paint, which resulted in varying areas of texture, including those that were considered to be flat. These flat areas are known by art historians as the first examples of "flatness" in modern art.
Whistler, on the other hand, took a very different route to receive this title. His journey seeking what he believed to be justice is very important in seeing how critical (ha, get it, critic-al, hahahaha wow I need to get a life) the art critic is to the process of changing art movements.
Critics are instruments of change through the fact that their judgments and statements affect how the public views artwork, whether they are conscious of it or not. Also, they can even determine whether or not a certain art movement will be successful and prosperous, just by giving their professional opinion on the artwork coming out of the movement. However, their goal is not always realized; sometimes the result is the opposite of what the critic wanted to happen. As a general example, a critic could create so much publicity for an art movement, even if it is negative in nature, that it catches the attention of more well-known artists who may be intrigued by the new styles of work being created. This, in turn, allows the movement to grow in size and in technique and content.
Art thrives under pressure. Intense emotions breed works of beauty, and works that simply convey the feelings better than any amount of words could.
Personally, I think that it's hard to side with either person, because each had an important cause to defend: Whistler, his dignity and the reputation of his painting, and Ruskin, his reputation as a critic and his ability to continue and make income. The relationship between the artist and the critic can be seen as a symbiotic one; each depends on the other to survive and mature.
I really love the fact that there is a whole story behind the uncommon art medium that Sarah uses. It is awesome to me that she can trace her love of the feeling of tape and sticky things all the way back to her childhood and Chiquita banana stickers.
She uses found boxes to stage the intricate designs that she creates with her hand-rolled tape sculptures, which is not only cost-effective, but it also gives another layer of meaning to her work.
The act of rolling the tape is somewhat of a calming ritual for Sarah. She says that no matter how terrible of a day she may have, she always gets to go home and relax with her tape while she plays a couple records and burns incense. She even compares it to being a vice, like drinking or running; for her it relieves stress and transports her to another world.
I think that Sarah's work is unique and I very much enjoy it. It is without a doubt, on the abstract side, but it has its own intricate beauty that I appreciate.
Okay, this article made me very happy. I have always been a little mad about society's current view of art as an illegitimate profession. In earlier times, artists were regarded as highly skilled craftsmen, and it was not uncommon for talented, hard-working artists to be paid very well through commissions. Today, choosing a career path in the arts is greeted with looks of uncertainty and ones that seem to say "Are you serious? That's what you want to do with your life?".
This article discusses the life and work of one woman, Susan Crile, who was accused of underpaying taxes, since the I.R.S. didn't believe that her work was part of a separate profession than her teaching job, which is her primary source of income. They said that what she did as an artist was "an activity not engaged in for profit", implying that art was simply a hobby for her, and not a career that she was aspiring to succeed at. They also called her work "artificial" since they believed it was created solely to supplement her teaching career (since art teachers where she works are required to create their own work, but not to sell it).
However, despite all of these accusations from the I.R.S., the judge ruled that Ms. Crile had proven that her making artwork was indeed for the purpose of making a profit, and thus she should be named a professional artist under tax law.
Hopefully this will result in a societal change of how people perceive the work of artists, and that they will acknowledge its legitimacy.