FILM 20: Haring

What factors in Haring's life play a role in his artwork?
I think his sexuality and family play an important role in his artwork. I think his originality comes out through his art and it was a way for him to express his sexuality. He used all the pictures of penises to show that he was gay at the very beginning. Also, his family was what pushed him to pursue his dream and move to New York. They allowed him to follow his passion and they supported everything he did. The home videos of his family showed me that they were very close and extremely supportive of his artwork.

What are the differences and similarities between Baquiat and Haring's stories? Did they have similar hardships?
The differences between their stories is that Baquiat was very much influenced by music and his African American culture. He was brought up in New York city, rather than Haring just moving there. Baquiat had a rough upbringing and was very much influenced by race and also criticized for it as well. Haring is similar in that he was judged for being gay. They both had similar hardships with being accepted throughout their careers. However, once they were accepted, they both became very popular and well-liked.

Why was Haring referred to as a "phenomenon" in the film?
It was said in the film that he was referred to as this because when he painted, he used no sketches. He simply just painted and it came out right. Even when he didn't have a project or concept, he would start something and be done 2 hours later. He mixed the colors perfectly each time. It came effortlessly to him and it amazed those that watched him do his work.

What are your favorite qualities about Haring? How do those qualities translate into his work?

FILM 19: Basquiat

What was special about the band Basquiat was in?
What was special is that Basquiat had no musical background or talent. He was playing the clarinet, yet had no idea how to. His friend was also on the drums, but simply just making noise. This is important because it is Basquiat's first public work. He was not known for any type of artistry yet.

What makes people so confident in Basquiat's work? Why did people give him a chance when he had nothing?
One of the curators in the movie, Diego Cortez, said that when he ran into Basquiat he was "down and out." Cortez told him to pick up a pen and paper and draw because he had a talent for it. This little push was what Basquiat needed. I think that Cortez had faith in him because he saw how original Basquiat was. He had this unique individuality that no one at that time possessed. People were interested in him and curious to see what  he would do next. This originality and spunk that Basquiat had was what intrigued curators and other artists to learn about him.

Basquiat dealt with a lot of racism during his career. What does the film say the art world did to him?
The film says that the art world made him a representation of all black people. His artwork became what white people just assumed that all blacks were like. The mentality was that he became what those people thought of him. The racism really affected Basquiat and he felt that most of the criticism he received was for his race and actions rather than the artwork itself. It was said in the film that this had a huge affect on him and really bothered him.

Why do you think people were drawn to Basquiat? What qualities do you admire in him?

FILM 18: Minimalism/Collings/Nothing

What do you think is the most interesting thing about Rothko's chapel?
I think it is all pretty interesting in itself. This is the perfect place to demonstrate that something can be made out of nothing. I like that it is so simple, and in some ways boring, yet the underlying concept has a lot of meaning. This chapel could be anything one wants to make of it. The affect the chapel has is simple, modest, and makes one feel like there should be more like this. I really enjoyed learning about it in this film.


Why is minimalism not as loved as other types of art?
I think it is not as loved because people do not know what to make of this type of art. People always want something that has a meaning, image, or concept. With minimalism, that doesn't always happen. It is often what you make of it and audiences have a hard time not being told what they should think. If a movie came on with a blank screen, people would be angry that there was nothing to look at. This is similar to minimalism. They get bored or frustrated that there is nothing being thrown at them.


"The Void" is another example of making something out of nothing. What should the audience get out of this room? What should they feel?
I think the audience should feel a little bit of loneliness, frustration, and understanding from "The Void." I say loneliness because there really is nothing in it. The walls are so white and so bland that it would make me feel alone standing in there. But I don't think this is a negative reaction. It should put in perspective that sometimes being alone is okay and gives you clarity. They should feel frustration because of the nothingness. When one is looking at art or enters a room, they are automatically searching for something to look at or focus on. With this room, there is nothing. That would be frustrating to me. To walk in somewhere and have there literally be nothing to do or focus on would drive me nuts. Lastly, understanding. This room would give me the understanding that something can be made out of nothing. That room could allow someone to think, have some time to themselves, and also understand that there doesn't always have to be something to look at in order to be art.

Do you enjoy minimalism? Why or why not?

FILM 17: Lichtenstein/Bragg

The source material for his first pop painting was a bubble gum wrapper. He was inspired by the cartoons on the wrapper and it started as just an idea, nothing for him to continue. Roy used a projector to sketch his paintings onto canvas, similar to Warhol. However, they differ in that Warhol used a silkscreen rather than sketching like Roy did. I prefer Warhol’s method because I feel like he got a more realistic image than Lichtenstein. Warhol’s paintings kept me interested, where Lichtenstein’s did not.

He projects the image up against a wall to see how big the painting would be. He enlarges the exact same image onto the canvas. When he reuses the comic books, he changes the colors and lines to make it its own. He changes the image to fit what he thinks he should look like and what will satisfy him. With the famous paintings, he wanted to see how they looked in different contexts. You can tell the differences between reusing the two because the comic book paintings look a lot like the actual comic books. Where with the famous paintings, it is harder to tell that he used the original image. I prefer Lichtenstein’s comic book use because I think they’re entertaining and fun. I like the comic book aspect because it has a carefree feel to it. Painting always seems so serious and this makes me feel like it’s not. I think it is acceptable to “copy” other artists because I don’t see it as copying. He doesn’t do them exactly the same, he simply makes them his own. He makes the image larger, adds color and lines, and makes them mean something completely different. This is not copying at all and I think it’s an ingenious way of painting.

Fine artists make art in order to develop a concept or establish a meaning behind it. It is so that they can relay an idea onto its viewer. Commercial artists are different in that they make art for distribution or advertisements. They are the same in that money is a motivation. Every artist wants their art to be bought or liked by its audience. They make it for a reason other than their own enjoyment. Fine artists do not have many rules to follow. They paint pretty much what they want and how they want it. Commercial artists have to follow what is going on in the media, business world, etc. They have to adapt to what the person buying their art wants. The client controls what and how an image is painted or made. The curator can also influence the artist by telling them what would fit in their museum as well.

Which type of artist do you think has more success? Commercial or fine? 

FILM 16: Warhol/PBS

One Coke painting was referred to as messy and the other one as tight. I prefer the tighter version because it looks better to me. I don't like the brush marks that are used in the messy version. I think that the cleaner one gives off a more professional look as well. Warhol used a projector to trace the images. 


It was Muriel Latow's first idea to paint the cans of soup. He wanted Warhol to paint the cans in different ways and in different views. They were first shown in California. I don't think that they are worth that amount of money, like 100s of millions of dollars, but I'm sure they are worth a lot. I definitely think they were revolutionary as well because it changed the way people looked at soup cans forever. It takes a very boring, ordinary object and makes it something special. 

Henry Geldzahler is the one who suggested Warhol paint Marilyn Monroe. These paintings were made differently because he used a photograph of Monroe on top of the paint. He left spaces open where her face would be and used the actual photographs of her on his painting. This makes each Marilyn different because the ink clogged after each use. She then looks a little bit different in each one. The timing of these paintings is significant because he started these on the day Monroe died. I think this is still considered a painting because he is still using paint. He just uses another source to help make the painting what it is. 


What do you think of the Monroe paintings? Was it still painting even if he used the photograph in his paintings?

FILM 15: Pollock/Evans

This film was different in that we saw Pollock painting a lot himself. We never got to see that with the other films. The 5 best ways that Evans delivered information were the video clips, narration, pictures, interviews, and the paintings themselves. The most effective was (1) video clips, (2) interviews, (3) pictures, (4) narration, and (5) the paintings.

The “Macho Modernist” was a man who thought that he was less of one because of his painting. Instead of marrying a wife and raising a family, they were doing their artwork. This was looked down upon and seen as weird during this time so they overcompensated by drinking a lot of alcohol and going out all the time. They became vulgar and often spent many nights getting in trouble or fights. It affected their lives in that they would often become depressed. This also affected their art in that a lot of that built up emotion was put into their paintings. I kind of understand where this mentality comes from. I think it makes sense that others would look down upon a man who was an artist. It is not the typical “macho” role. However, I think Pollock’s paintings would not have been the same without the “Macho Modernist” problem.

Clement Greenberg was an art critic, Lee Krasner was an artist who later became Pollock’s wife, Peggy Guggenheim was one of the first to show Pollock’s art, and Hans Namuth filmed Pollock. The film eventually ended up causing Pollock to drink again and his art was never the same. It took a negative turn and he lost a lot of inspiration. He was limited in his style at this time and could not move forward.

Which video of Polluck painting did you find the most interesting?

FILM 14: Dali/Low

This film is different than any other films we have seen so far because Dali himself is featured in it. There are actual interviews from the artist, which is unlike anything we have seen so far. It is also different in that it is set up like an actual documentary. With the other films, I felt like they were more of movies. This one made me feel like I was watching an actual documentary for class. I originally thought it was boring in that sense, but it got better as it went on. The 5 best ways that Low delivered information were interviews, narration, the news, books, and paintings. The most effective was (1) interviews, (2) books, (3) narration, (4) news, (5) paintings.

One of the most interesting paintings from this film was “The Soft Construction with Boiled Beans.” As if the title isn’t interesting enough, the painting represents the Spanish Civil War, before the war had happened. According to Wikipedia, Dali painted this 6 months before the war had even begun. It was made with oil on canvas. The first thing that catches my eye is the monster-like figure in the middle. It is attached to another monster-like figure and it seems to be fighting itself. This painting represents the repercussions and devastation of the Spanish Civil War. There were many horrors and tragedies during the war and Dali is representing those through this monster. Dali is quoted saying that the reason the beans are included is, “one could not imagine swallowing all that unconscious meat without the presence of some mealy and melancholy vegetable.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_Construction_with_Boiled_Beans_(Premonition_of_Civil_War)

I think living surreally changes the relationship between the art, artists, and audience in the sense that the artists may have all been inspired by a certain thing for a painting, yet the audience does not pick up on its purpose. It creates an avenue for misunderstanding this way. I think it is acceptable to paint in irrational ways. Art does not have to fit into a certain image or frame, it can be anything the artist feels it should be. Nothing about that is unacceptable. It is also acceptable to live in irrational ways. What is rational to one person, may be irrational to another. If living surreally worked for them then it is acceptable. 

What is the most interesting thing you learned about Dali?