6:00 Who the FUCK says that the collage image of mickey mouse (made from clippings from magazies) is "unacceptable" art or creates "no new meaning." That is an extraordinarily **subjective** assessment. And, in my opinion, FLAT WRONG. I call 100% bullshit. You, or anyone don't get to gatekeep what **is** or **isn't** art, what is or isn't a "new use" or "new meaning," what is/isn't "acceptable" art or "acceptable" re-use. There are many ways in which this piece can be interpreted by the viewer, which do in fact cause the viewer to think, to feel something new, to create a new context or new meaning for/behind the art work. Just "off-the-top-of-my-head," it feels like the artist could be conveying the notion that "everything is the product of something else," moreover that "we can produce meaning or understanding, even out of what might appear to be random noise," perhaps it is a visual representation of "pareidolia" or the propensity of the human mind to "see things that aren't really there, even in 'random noise' or a collection of random objects." Is "Mickey" really there at all, or is it just a random collection of clippings, or is it **both?** There are absolutely potentially new meanings there. What if the image's title **were** actually "Pareidolia" and not "Mickey Mouse" (or whatever it's called)? Would your assessment of whether or not it was "valid art" or "new meaning" change? If so, why? If not, why? Does the title have any bearing on the art itself? What if is were "untitled" rather than "pareidolia"? Would it "lose" the potential meaning, if the meaning isn't explicitly spelled out for you in words? What if rather than using actual "found object" clippings, they took the clippings and painstakingly traced them, in exactly the same arrangement? Would *that* be art whereas the original is allegedly not? If so, why? If not, why? Is 'found object' or 'collage' art inherently "lesser" art than hand-drawn or traced or painted art? If so, why? Are there not a great many respected artists, during or after their own time, who used found objects, or clippings, in their art, and were lauded for it? Why then, should this be any different? Why is **this** "inappropriate appropriation" and **that** a "masterwork" from a now-famous artist, when both are for all intents and purposes the same thing: transformative use of found objects to create something new and new meaning or aesthetics? Subjectivity? Popularity? Age-discrimination against young adult artists' choice of subject, medium, or other factors? Discuss... I'll be **subjectively** grading your paper on "creativity" and "new meaning"... This essay accounts for 69% of your grade. You have 86 minutes, and the essay must be at least 420 words or longer. Extra credit may be assigned based on discretion if the essay is at least 666 words long. Time begins ... now. [/sarc]
"Only tracing from photos is allowed, not cartoons, or drawings, or fucking blah blah blah." "Only in tracing from photos can you see stylistic choices of the artist in what to trace, which marks to make." What goddamn FUCKING nonsense... You can see exactly the same stylistic choices in art traced from other sources, trace this, don't trace that, color this don't color that, alter this part, leave that the same, etc. Unless of course you simply a have an uncritical eye or are, again, trying to gatekeep what **is/isn't** "acceptable" art or "acceptable" reuse/appropriation. But, honey, **you** don't get to decide that. 'Cause it's not **your** art, and you're not the one **making** it. Those choices are the artist's, the vision is the artist's the meaning, if any, is the artist's not yours. You may apply some **subjective** meaning or assessments after-the-fact, which is fine, but you're not the one **making** the art and giving it form/meaning. Your interpretation is inherently going to differ from the intent of the artist, base on your life experiences, contra the artist's. So, I'mma have to disagree on your apparent attempted "muzzling" of artists or implication of "this not that [is art]".
There is such a thing as being a Gatekeeper. 😠💔
Indeed...
Done
6:00 Who the FUCK says that the collage image of mickey mouse (made from clippings from magazies) is "unacceptable" art or creates "no new meaning." That is an extraordinarily **subjective** assessment. And, in my opinion, FLAT WRONG.
I call 100% bullshit. You, or anyone don't get to gatekeep what **is** or **isn't** art, what is or isn't a "new use" or "new meaning," what is/isn't "acceptable" art or "acceptable" re-use.
There are many ways in which this piece can be interpreted by the viewer, which do in fact cause the viewer to think, to feel something new, to create a new context or new meaning for/behind the art work.
Just "off-the-top-of-my-head," it feels like the artist could be conveying the notion that "everything is the product of something else," moreover that "we can produce meaning or understanding, even out of what might appear to be random noise," perhaps it is a visual representation of "pareidolia" or the propensity of the human mind to "see things that aren't really there, even in 'random noise' or a collection of random objects." Is "Mickey" really there at all, or is it just a random collection of clippings, or is it **both?**
There are absolutely potentially new meanings there.
What if the image's title **were** actually "Pareidolia" and not "Mickey Mouse" (or whatever it's called)? Would your assessment of whether or not it was "valid art" or "new meaning" change? If so, why? If not, why? Does the title have any bearing on the art itself? What if is were "untitled" rather than "pareidolia"? Would it "lose" the potential meaning, if the meaning isn't explicitly spelled out for you in words? What if rather than using actual "found object" clippings, they took the clippings and painstakingly traced them, in exactly the same arrangement? Would *that* be art whereas the original is allegedly not? If so, why? If not, why? Is 'found object' or 'collage' art inherently "lesser" art than hand-drawn or traced or painted art? If so, why? Are there not a great many respected artists, during or after their own time, who used found objects, or clippings, in their art, and were lauded for it? Why then, should this be any different? Why is **this** "inappropriate appropriation" and **that** a "masterwork" from a now-famous artist, when both are for all intents and purposes the same thing: transformative use of found objects to create something new and new meaning or aesthetics? Subjectivity? Popularity? Age-discrimination against young adult artists' choice of subject, medium, or other factors?
Discuss... I'll be **subjectively** grading your paper on "creativity" and "new meaning"... This essay accounts for 69% of your grade. You have 86 minutes, and the essay must be at least 420 words or longer. Extra credit may be assigned based on discretion if the essay is at least 666 words long. Time begins ... now. [/sarc]
"Only tracing from photos is allowed, not cartoons, or drawings, or fucking blah blah blah."
"Only in tracing from photos can you see stylistic choices of the artist in what to trace, which marks to make."
What goddamn FUCKING nonsense...
You can see exactly the same stylistic choices in art traced from other sources, trace this, don't trace that, color this don't color that, alter this part, leave that the same, etc. Unless of course you simply a have an uncritical eye or are, again, trying to gatekeep what **is/isn't** "acceptable" art or "acceptable" reuse/appropriation. But, honey, **you** don't get to decide that. 'Cause it's not **your** art, and you're not the one **making** it. Those choices are the artist's, the vision is the artist's the meaning, if any, is the artist's not yours. You may apply some **subjective** meaning or assessments after-the-fact, which is fine, but you're not the one **making** the art and giving it form/meaning. Your interpretation is inherently going to differ from the intent of the artist, base on your life experiences, contra the artist's. So, I'mma have to disagree on your apparent attempted "muzzling" of artists or implication of "this not that [is art]".
I actually am the gatekeeper for my middle school art classes.