john cage

i'm not sure how to take john cage's performances.  it's not that i don't understand them because i do understand for the most part the ideas he is trying to convey.  i really don't feel like it challenges my notion of what art can be either.  maybe i'm just not all that interested or feel like i've seen it before.  i understand the reason why i accept this type of art is because people like him have done it in the past, its just hard to have a genuine reaction.  i see the importance of how art like this has helped shape what can be done now,  but it just didn't interest me.  maybe my reaction would have been different if i didn't know what was going to happen, or if i was able to actually experience it.  sorry so glum. 

Matthew Barney

I have seen Matthew Barney's 'The Order' before and i had a similar negative reaction -like we discussed in class.  The first time i saw it i I felt like i was supposed to understand something and i was just too stupid to get it.  Or maybe i just wasn't cool enough!  It's not like i didn't like the video the first time - its just that i felt it was out of reach, and that honestly made me feel jealous!  I enjoyed the imagery and the costumes, and the fact that he incorporated his sculpture in to his work.  For some reason that video has stuck with me and has recently become of interest to my own work.  i think the more i see it the more i understand the idea behind the work.....(not well enough to explain yet, but I find myself accepting his language more.)  I watched it one time when there was narration along with it, and i thought that was helpful.   But even with the narration it was confusing.  i've come to accept that i don't really need to understand all of his meanings to appreciate the work.  Visually there are many things to keep my interest.  And even though he is not specific in what he is trying to say, i believe you can understand the the tone of his work.  I was excited that I was able to see it again in class.   

response to Man Ray documentary

I really enjoyed watching the documentary about Man Ray.  I've taken a lot of art history courses throughout the years and the only thing I can remember seeing of his was his iron with tacks glued on.  I feel like he was always looked past so we could spend more time on Duchamp.  It was interesting to see all that he contributed to art history.  Although his first love was painting i was not that interested in his painting prior to his photography work.  His paintings just made me think of what everyone else was doing at the time.  What i thought was interesting was how he introduced art to the fashion industry.  It was impressive that he was not only able to use photography to make a living, but that he transferred his creative energy from painting into changing the way we view fashion.  His portraiture seemed authentic and raw. The subjects, who were friends and visitors in his studio, were portrayed how they came. Real human beings without touch ups or fake poses.  He was able to capture their awkwardness in front of the camera.  

The documentary showed his dedication to his art making.  Even when times were tough and people hated him he kept his spirits high.  If things weren't going well in one place he would move some where else.  My favorite part of the documentary was his personality.  He just seemed like such a cool guy.  Every time he said something it would make me smile.  It definitely made me appreciate his contribution to the arts.

response to Past, Present, and Future Tense

My first reaction to the text was that of confusion.  I am not familiar with the History of multimedia art so a lot of the references they made i did not really understand.  It was hard for me to envision the projects like Robert Adrian's The World in 24 Hours, or the projects done under the name JODI.  I feel like i am supposed to make sense of them but then again maybe I'm not?  I can understand the artwork by Nam June Paik because it's something tangible, something in real space.  I have i hard time with JODI because i don't know how to evaluate it.  What is the criteria for this kind of work?  It raises questions about what I feel is 'art'.  I know that everything these days is 'art' but its hard for me to rationalize some things.  Even right now I question questioning this kind of work!  Maybe it's that i am indifferent to things that don't interest me (as Man Ray would say).  Or Maybe there is some kind of line that determines art making and none art making?  I guess some of us are just finding ways to constantly push that line back while blurring it.  This article didn't really show me anything i haven't heard of or seen but i guess it brought me to face these questions i have about 'art' outside the realm i am used to.  

casey reed johnson

note: i hope this was not too conversational for a response.