Lovely! Lovely!

I think that beauty is all around us but you have to have a keen eye to REALLY see beauty due to that we ALL live in a modern world that is concidered an ugly world. Chris ofili used this knowledge to his advantage, he took the batist (I think that is what its called the host didn't pronounce it right for me to research) anyway, Chris Ofili used dung with teeth and dred locks to show beauty in his own way the way he SAW it.  He also had the "No Woman No Cry is a tribute to the London teenager Stephen Lawrence. The Metropolitan police investigation into his racially motivated murder was mishandled, and a subsequent inquiry described the police force as institutionally racist. In each of the tears shed by the woman in the painting is a collaged image of Stephen Lawrence’s face, while the words ‘R.I.P. Stephen Lawrence’ are just discernible beneath the layers of paint. Despite these specific references, the artist also intended the painting to be read in more general terms, as a universal portrayal of melancholy and grief" -Chris Ofili

he obviously thought that he could find beauty out of tragedy like a laugh now cry later face mask.

shock and horror

I actually liked the shock and horror complilation because of what we learned in class relates to the subjects shown in the video clips. For example, some of the artist used abstract shock art to portray their images to the viewing audience such as smugs, complacent and hypocrite people but other wise to disturb them like horror movies are suposed to do.

Shock and Horror

I really wasn't shocked by the art created by these artists, though I can understand why some people would be shocked by it.  Maybe this is due to growing up in a more desensitized time, but I feel that the works shown in this episode of "This is Modern Art" were merely artists expressing their personal viewpoint.  I believe that some of the artists choose to work with more shocking subjects in order to create controversy, and to make the people viewing the art reconsider their perception of what art means to them.  However, the effect would change over time, as people would become desensitized by viewing images such as these and the art would no longer be shocking, instead becoming known as just another style or genre. I also believe that public funding should go to art that might offend some, as well as art that is not viewed as offensive, that way people will be able to see the wide range of art and form their own opinions.

Shoking Horror

I think these artistses choose these subject matters because this pretained to them are there lives and others. It exposes the drak sides of people life the not so pretty stuff. These things arent that pretty but its beauty to them cause thats what surrounds there world. I think this fulfill the role of showing the world in a diffrent view. I think public funds should be used for paying for art as long as it serves a good purpose. Everything is not going to please everyone. I think that people should vote on what art funds should pay for.

Shock and Horror!!!

Well to start I do not think of horror as being something scary I really find it funny for instance the horror movies I have so far I have them labeled as comedy. I believe that an artist paints horror becausethey show what some people are thinking but will not say it out loud because they fill that if they were to speak it or think it then it would be wrong, it also shows how much we think about paranormal things. So an artist paints what we do not want to think about out loud and then once we see the paintings then we are all like wow thats how it really looks,

sHoCk AnD hOrRor!!!

"El Aquelarre" by Francisco Goya

      During the second episode of "This is Modern Art," the most horrific art to me was the art made right here in America because some of them had kind of a psychoish vibe to them. I believe that these artists intentionally chose shocking and horrific subjects to try and give their audiences a look through their eyes. In general, most people have the idea in their head that art has to be beautiful, abstract, or pleasing to the eye, but that is not the case with the these horror artists. They want to people to see that art can also be shocking and horrible as well, and while that may be a shock for some, sometimes what's even more shocking is that some of this art shows the true realities of this world. This almost seems very hypocritical since it is sometimes the truth because people try not to see the truth and try to live in their own close-minded world. Over time, however, once the skepticism and artist have faded away from peoples' minds, then do they tend to see the art through new eyes to try and gain meaning rather than passively glancing for a second then looking away. Once enough people have accepted it as art, then maybe comes the public funding to show it off in art galleries. These works of art are probably seen as offensive because the viewers have not learned to see from the artists perspective of it rather than their own, nevertheless it is still art and I believe that it should not be denied being shown just because one person doesn't like it. It should have the right to be shown to others so they can formulate their own opinions about it from their perspectives and not from the few others before.

Lovely! Lovely! (blog #3)

And now for something completely different.
What about beauty in art, is it still important? Does it still matter? Watch the final episode of "This is modern art" where Collings focuses on a few artists that embrace the power of beauty in their work. Choose one of the artists from the video to look up further and respond to.

PS
Remember that I have included links on the blog to help you find reputable sites for research. Be careful where you get info and pictures on the web, many of you are posting images of art that is not by the correct artist. If you do include images of art in your post, always include the artist's name and title.

Shock! Horror!: Response

The pieces these artists create are made to be controversial, it is the artists' imagination being shown to the world. They are expressing themselves to the public in shocking ways to bring attention to the subject matter presented. To me, these pieces are considered art just like Andy Warhol's work is considered art. They should not be alienated because of the content of the piece, or because one person is offended. If one person is offended and decide is not worth supporting with public funds then why not remove all artwork containing Jesus or any other religious works of art.

Shock and Horror

I can’t say that I was offended or shocked by any of the ways the artists in the show expressed their art.  Maybe this is because growing up in a time where nothing really shocks you and you have seen everything nothing really throws you for a loop.  Being raised on Friday the thirteenth, nightmare on elm street, Texas chainsaw massacre, and the exorcist I can’t really say that anything shocks me anymore.  I just read an article about two teachers in south Los Angeles being accused of child molestation on second grade students.  They are accused of inappropriate touching as well as feeding their semen to the children in what they called a “taste game”.  Believe it or not I was not shocked by this report, this is the reaction that you get from an individual that realizes that the world is not as sugar coated as people would like it to be or make it appear.  I say we are capable of doing extra ordinary things at both ends of the spectrum the ends being positive and negative.  I apologize if this makes me seem insensitive and callous but I believe that I am a realist and that’s what I thought about these artists work.  I thought the zebra impaling the, what seemed very happy, woman was funny.  Peace.