Trip To The TANG

I visited the Tang Art Museum on Skidmore's campus in Saratoga, NY on April 17th. The museum felt very welcoming, it was in a very nice location, but did appear allot larger from the outside then it actually was once we went inside.

The first exhibit that I saw was called "Opener 19: Los Carpinteros". The Los Carpinteros are known for transforming everyday objects and common urban structures into unique, inventive, and humorous transformations of reality. They make the viewer think twice about what the actual use of the object resembles/has become. Los Carpinteros suggest complex connections to class, mass production, and consumption within their work. The Carpinteros consist of Castillo Valdes and Rodriguez Sanchez, both natives of Havana, Cuba. They began their collection in the early 90's. The piece the have on display at the Tang is the "La Montana Rusa 2008", it is a full scale mattress shaped like a roller coaster. I found it very unique and interesting. Valdes and Sanchez have bent the reality of an actually mattress and made me think about the thrill and adrenaline experienced while riding a roller coaster, but all as I was actually looking at a mattress. It was a very funny sight to see an object such as this as soon as I entered the Tang Museum.

The next section of the museum that I observed was the Fred Tomaselli gallery. I was already

familiar with his work because we have viewed a few pieces in class. His first piece that caught my

eye was the "Portrait of Laura 1995", this image shows what appears to be a solar system full

of stars, but all the stars are labeled with various drugs and medications, such as cocaine, novacaine,

bacitracin, etc. It makes me wonder what Tomaselli's relationship with this "Laura" lady was like.

It certainly paints a picture that she was a wild girl, who probably liked to experiment with various

types of drugs. The picture is still very unique to me and certaintly makes you stop and ponder at the message

behind the image.

Another Tomaselli piece that I viewed was called "Echo, Wow and Flutter 2000". Most of Tomaselli's work consisted of many many pills and leaves that were pasted to a large wood panel using acrylic and resin. From a distance the pictures are slightly pshycodelic and almost make you dizzy. When you move in closer to the piece, you can begin to appreciate the extreme detail that has gone into producing all these exhibits. The pictures consists of a unreal amount of different pills most of which nobody would be able to name all of them, and they are all strategically placed to form an image, in many cases a very elaborate and symmetric picture. In some of Tomaselli's other pieces he has even gone as far as cutting out images of body parts and letters from magazines to form on larger picture. For example he would cut out 20 or more noses from magazine images and paste them together to form the nose of a larger portrait of a face on a large scaled canvas. Tomaselli's style was very interesting to observe, and search for a deeper meaning.

Trip the Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Museum I went to for class was the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. An exhibit that I found interesting was called “Surface Tension: Contemporary Photographs from the Collection”. The exhibit was full of many works by various artists.

The first piece that caught my eye was called Photo Transformation by Lucas Samaras. The piece is a picture of a fist in front of a distorted image of a face and upraised arm. I saw this picture immediately because of the color scheme. It is a dark picture with a lot of dark reds, purples, and black. The piece looks like a picture of a psychedelic monster from a movie or show. The fist that is put in front of the image is in a spot where it looks like the mouth of the image. I would assume that this was strategically placed there to appear this way. It really takes you a second look to realize that it is in fact a fist. The background image is very unfocused and kind of hard to make out. When you look intently, you see the detail of the fist and how different it really looks from the rest of the piece of artwork. When you sit and look at the piece, it is very obvious that the fist is simply inserted in front of the image, but if you were just walking by and gave it a glance, you would think it was the mouth of the face in the image. After looking at the image for a time, the figure in the picture looks to be in a relaxed state, with the head resting on the arm. What appears to be a dark and eerie picture is quite relaxing when you take a longer look at it.



Another interesting piece of artwork that I liked was called Sole of Tennis Shoe by Jungjin Lee. It is a very dull picture of the bottom of a tennis shoe in different shades of gray. This piece doesn’t look like a footprint like you would usually see displaying the bottom on of shoe. It looks like the artist almost had a view from underneath the surface that the shoe was on. It appears this way because if you look you can see other parts of the shoe, such as the sides, going up toward the top of the shoe. I think the artist did something more interesting that simply look at the bottom of a shoe and draw it in an upright position. When I look at the piece, I feel as though the artist had a view from underneath a shoe, almost like putting the show on a glass surface and drawing from the view from under it. The shoe itself also seems to tell its own story. The bottom is very faded, so it appears to be an old shoe. The heel and sole are both faded and seems to have lost mostly all the gripping and pattern on the bottom of the shoe. It’s pretty clear that this particular shoe has been around for a long time. In my opinion, the shoe fits this particular artwork. The picture is dull and uses only grays, which is perfect for the seemingly old, dull faded shoe.


The last piece of artwork I want to comment on is a piece titled Touch of Evil by Miguel Rio Branco. This picture is pretty tough to look at for a long period of time. The title of it fits perfectly, because it does seem to be sort of an evil character from a movie. It left me wondering why the face was drawn like this. Judging from the title, it seems as though its purpose was to make it look more evil. When you look at the face, you can make out one eye, the other is too dark to make anything out. You can barely see a nose and mouth in the image. The use of dark colors further enforces that this piece is made to give off a dark and evil vibe. The long dark hair gives a sense of evil. Also, the disfigured face gives the image some mysteriousness. When I first saw the piece, it reminded me of the character from the movie “The Ring”. The person in the movie and the picture share a lot of similarities. This piece caught my eye because of the darkness. When I saw that it was sort of an evil portrait of a person, I wanted to take a closer look at the piece.

Trip to the Tang Museum

On Saturday April 17th, I went to visit the Tang Musuem at Skidmore College in Saratoga, New York. The three main exhibits of interest at the museum were titled “Opener 19: Los Carpinteros”, “Fred Tomaselli”, and “Power Play”. The pieces that truly became embedded in my mind were that from the artist Fred Tomaselli’s self titled exhibit as well as a Salvadore Dali’s piece from the “Power Play” exhibit. Before I comment and analyze the above mentioned exhibits, I just wanted to comment on a piece of art that was outside of the museum. When I first walked up to the Tang Museum I saw a huge thank you bag on the front lawn of the museum just outside of the entrance (Image 1). I thought it was interesting that the above image was facing the same direction as the entrance of the museum so people could see it as they were walking into the museum. In my opinion it seems as though it would have been more appropriate to turn the bag around so that it read thank you as you were exiting the museum. The bag would work almost like a structural message to the crowd from the directors of the Tang Museum that thanks them for visiting the museum.
Since there were so many different pieces in Tomaselli’s exhibit it seems appropriate to comment on his overall style and then discuss a favorite piece of mine from the masses. Overall I found Tomaselli’s artwork to be very unique, original, and beautiful. Tomaselli’s images truly push the use of color contrast to visually appeal to the audience. His use of detailed images to create the general message in his pieces keeps the viewer’s eyes constantly moving. Having this movement throughout the piece does not enable the viewer’s mind to stay stagnant. Upon looking at an artwork, the viewers mind is in a state of constant movement where he is constantly interpreting the individual pieces of art and left in a wondrous state of mind throughout the exhibit. The main subject matters throughout Tomaselli’s exhibit were actual pills perfectly placed for interpretation. Honestly, it appeared as though Tomaselli had more pills in his exhibit than a pharmacy has in its inventory. The use of the pills was interesting because of their assortment of colors, sizes, and styles. Also in most of his pieces, from afar, I could not tell that Tomaselli used pills in the images at all. The lines of pills appeared as though they were lines that provided emphasis against the dark backgrounds. Another component of Tomaselli’s exhibit that I enjoyed was how he used detailed pictures of specific parts of the body to create the actual images of the body. An example would be how he used pictures of feet to create the actual image of a foot in his artwork. I would be curious to see his magazine collection and all of the missing pictures taken from them so he could use them to create his art.



Out of all of the pieces in the Tang Museum, Field Guides (Image 2) by Tomaselli was my favorite. Its shear size alone was enough to impress me. The contrast of the colors was amazing to me and the use of all of the detailed components kept me searching the piece to develop an educated interpretation of the meaning behind it. I love how the butterflies throughout the piece approach the figure with a distinct flight pattern, then surround the figure with such grace, and then dissipate into the starry night. The grass in the image also has such distinct characteristics that the viewer can get lost just looking at the field the worker is mending.



Another piece I enjoyed at the Tang Museum was Dali’s piece titled Setze jutges mengen fetge d'un penjat (Sixteen Judges Eat the Liver of a Hanged Man) from 1977. Some art critics believe that Dali lost his flair after the ‘60s and he was just creating art for the money. Now, in Intro to Visual Arts I have seen this topic of art and money constantly being debated therefore it is not necessary to comment on this matter for this particular piece. One of the real reasons why I enjoyed this piece was because of the memories it stirred for me. It reminded me of my trip to the Dali Museum in Berlin, Germany. I went there with a few friends of mine while we were on a study trip for our International Business and Economics class at the Danish Institute for Study Abroad in Copenhagen, Denmark. At that museum I saw many original Dali sketches, sculptures, and paintings that were truly mind boggling. Also, one of my friends that I went with was very well educated about Dali, so he was able to provide some insight about Dali and some of the artwork we saw at the museum.
In the end, my trip to the Tang Museum at Skidmore College proved to be quite successful. I saw many beautiful pieces of art and was also able to reminisce about my time abroad. From the museum I was able to walk away with a new artist to include in my top 5 favorite artists as well as gain a new respect for the art world in the Capital District Area.

Response to Dave Hickey

Dave Hickey was surprisingly interesting to listen to. He discusses how some artists like money more than they like art, and how this isn’t the way it should be. People shouldn’t to get into the art world to make money; they should do it because they love art. Hickey says that artwork is getting sold for too much money. He talks about how in museums a lot of the time they bought the good artwork in the back and artwork that no one was interested in was in the front along with items that were only there to lure people in to the back. Public funding began going down.
He then describes an art bubble that brings in a ton of money. The people who benefit off of this are greedy artists who are selling their art for more money than it should be, and they make this off of people who are buying artwork. I do agree with Hickey in some respect that art can be very overpriced. We’ve seen pieces of artwork in class that are extremely expensive and I can’t believe people pay these extraordinary prices for some pieces. However, I do feel that some artwork is worth the money. If you really like a particular artist and find a piece that you really want, sometimes the price tag doesn’t matter.

In The Ballpark

On the 20x200 site I came across this piece of art that caught my eye. I have played baseball my whole life and have always been interested in baseball. This is a piece that I would definitely see myself hanging up in my house. The artwork is very simple, and that’s what I like about it. There is no great attention to detail. The outfield wall is completely plain, as the crowd is all the same. The picture reminds me of an old-time baseball stadium because they player and field do not look modern day. There are only 4 colors used in this picture. The grass, outfield fence and background in the stands are green. The crowd is simply white circles, there are no faces or detail. There are no signs or any advertisements on the outfield wall. The picture reminds me of “the catch” made by Willie Mays in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series at the Polo Grounds. This similarity is what first drew me in to the picture. This is one of the most famous plays in the history of baseball.
Since the baseball season has just started up again, I think I find this piece even more attractive. Also, seeing this picture and being reminded of baseball makes me think of the summer. I would not consider myself a person who is very into art, so this picture is a perfect fit for me because it involves sports. I would definitely spend the $200 for this picture to hang in my house. When I was first looking through the pieces of artwork I did not think I would find anything that interested me, but this picture did

About Four Thirty + The Architects by William Wegman

I found this picture to be interesting because of the colors and position of the dog. I think it is a cool picture to have considering how restless my dogs are and the high unlikeliness that they would pose for a picture such as this. I am would bet that my mom would like this picture if not hang it up somewhere in my house, considering that we have five dogs. I plan to get a dog once I have my own place after college and would definitely like to have a dog like this.

The original image has a graphic below the above image but I cropped it out to get the full effect of the dog image. The image I cropped out was an outdoor horizon mural with several people sitting on a bench below looking into the distance, I found it irrelevant and would rather focus on the above picture. I found William Wegman's use of a green background and tan looking coach chair to be quite intuitive. A simple yet stand out piece that I would purchase myself. The image is on a 8 by 10 in matte finish paper, which includes a signature by the artist to ensure authenticity and supreme condition, and sells for $200.

I found that Wegman has allot of other pieces of work which also involve images of dogs primarily his own Weimaraner dressed in various costumes and taken in many different poses. I think my mom would find these hilarious. Wegman is a Massachusetts native born in 1943. He attended the Massachusetts College of Art in 1965 and obtained his Masters of Fine Arts degree from the University of Illinois in 1967. He later taught art at the California State University in Long Beach. He acquired his first and most famous of the dogs he photographed, which was a Weimaraner named Man Ray. The dog Man Ray became so popular that people called him the man of the year in 1982 in the California town Wegman lived in. Wegman's pieces of work are well respected in the world of art and have been displayed at venues such as the Hammer Museum, The Los Angeles County Museum of art, the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts, and The Smithsonian American Art Museum. His work has also bade its way on shows such as Sesame Street and Saturday Night Live as well as various visits to the Brooklyn Museum, Norton Museum of Art, and Addison Gallery.

Response to David Hickey

The podcast that featured Dave Hickey’s lecture on the subject of selling art without selling out was a very opinionated speech. When it comes to having a strong opinion about art and the current culture of the art world, the Culture Critic and Professor of English from the University of Nevada, Dave Hickey has it. Some of the key notes in his lecture were very biased however, he did bring up a lot of good questions and posed some insight into the art world.
Hickey mentioned that right now is the perfect time for anyone to be 25 years old or younger. Quite frankly, in my opinion this is not true. Currently I fall into this category and am able to understand this perspective of life. Even though Hickey is a professor and deals with students every day, it seems as though he may be out of touch with this perspective. People under the age of 25 today are faced with many different problems in our growing global economy. Whether it’s trying to find a job, trying to keep a job, trying to get into college, trying to pay bills, or trying to get out of the house, these are all just some of the many different obstacles this age group faces. If he was attempting to imply that this age group does not have to worry about anything or have incredible opportunity in front of them, I strongly believe he is wrong. In my experience, it seems as though a better age range would be people who are 18 or younger. At this time in life the adolescent is usually still able to live off of their parents and their primary concerns involve the day to day struggles of school.
In his lecture, Hickey also said that there are people today who like art better than money, which is not necessarily bad, but it is bad when there are artists that like money better than art. He brings up an interesting point in this statement that does describe most artists today. Artists such as Damien Hirst are creating “artwork” that have been inflating the prices of the art world as a whole. Thanks to these artists who are more concerned about the price tag of their artwork instead of the meaning or beauty of their art there has been a loss in the appreciation of art. Like Hickey said, now is the time for people to behave honorably and meticulously because you will stand out. People need to behave with moral intentions because if we behave right than all we can potentially lose is money. I would be curious to know if any of the artists from previous centuries went into the art world to make money.
Hickey continued to describe the love of money and the devaluation of art throughout the rest of his lecture. He mentioned such points as:
• Did anyone get in the art world to make money?
• Why is everyone worrying about money?
• What are you going to do if you have a lot of money?
• Unless you have a drug habit, there is no need for money at all.
• Who cares about money, we should care about being right. You can’t be right all the time, but you can never be wrong.
• Art dealers are creating value, but not real value – real value is what art dealers pride themselves on.
• We’re having a strange moment that is a return of primary practice, just like the 80s and 90s which was the biggest hypocritical art movement. During this time period, public funding disappeared and museums started closing. Artists were displaying confetti and dog terds as installation art to lure people into the art gallery to buy the other primary pieces of art.

Dave Hickey's - Custodians of Culture

Dave Hickey's lecture was interesting to hear. It was not what I had initially expected, most of the art critics that we have listened to in class where very plain and did not open up like Hickey did.

He states that if you are an Icon of Virtue, you will stand out. It is important to stick to your ambitions as an artist, and not become immersed in the idea of producing art to make a profit.

Hickey also says that by being correct, all you can lose is money. But what will you do with all this money. Leo Castillo's says you can't be right all the time, but you can never be wrong. Leo's idea of being wrong was selling something for to much money. Overpriced art compromises everyones artwork.

The return of primary practice in the 80s and 90s was a very hypocritical period of art. Hickey made some funny jokes about how the good art was placed in the back of the museum or show and the crappy stuff was put in the front. Hickey says that this hurt the public funding to art and weakened the power of museums.

Hickey also talks about hyper liquidity and its relation to art. The art bubble as he refers to it, brings tremendous money into the art world. In the 20th century there is more art produced then people to buy it. All in all, I think that Hickey had a very interesting way of addressing what he feels to to be the problem with art and the inflation of art prices. Although I find some art to be way overpriced, I still believe that good art does cost money. I don't see how artists can be mad that they aren't receiving large sums of money for their work, they can only be mad that it is not them.

Hemi by Don Hamerman

After class on Tuesday I went online to look at the site 20x200.com that we went over in class. At first I was very skeptical about the $20 artwork on the site and I did not think that I would be able to find a piece of art that really stuck out to me. While I was browsing the different images none of them truly grabbed my attention, all of them just seemed to blend together. Most of them appeared to be simple images, plain text, basic cityscapes, and expressionistic color schemes. Then, all of a sudden “Hemi” by Don Hamerman caught my eye. I clicked on the image to enlarge it and right then and there I knew that this would be a piece of art that I would hang up in my own house.
Although baseball season will be starting up soon, it has never really played a huge role in my life. I never played it as a kid and I play it every once and a while now. However, in my opinion, nothing beats going to a baseball game on a warm summer day to sit back and watch one of Americas best past times. The funny part is that even having said that, it is not the reason why I would want to hang this artwork up in my house. The reason why I would want to hang it up is because of the symbolism I can attach to it.
The image of the baseball is perfectly clean and crisp, the polar opposite of the ball itself. The baseball appears as though it has traveled to hell and back, but did not go down without a fight. To me it symbolizes the hard work, dedication, sweat, and blood that is poured into sports and the players behind the game. Whether it is at the professional level or the tee-ball level, baseball or boxing, to me the baseball represents the perseverance of today’s athlete. To me, it symbolizes the motivation behind the physical abuse involved in sports and shows an overcoming of pain.
I could honestly say that if I had $2,000 to spend, I would buy the 30”x40” version of the portrait and hang it up on my living room wall to help motivate me to overcome lives daily endeavors.

Against Interpretation

Susan Sontag’s article Against Interpretation talks about interpretation of art. She states that interpreting art actually depletes it. Sontag says that by reducing an artwork to its content and then interpreting that, one “tames” the artwork. She also says that interpretation indicates dissatisfaction with the art, and a wish to replace it with something else. I disagree with Susan Sontag. I think a person’s interpretation of an art piece is what makes it art to them. To fully understand a piece of art I think you need to interpret it, and try to figure out the artist’s reason for making a certain piece. I don’t think that trying to understand the art depletes the art. I do agree with one point that she makes. She says that interpretation separates art into categories, such as abstract, decorative, or non-art. I think this is true and maybe sometime an artwork will get categorized into something when it wasn’t the artist’s aim to do that. The viewer may have a different take on the piece than the artist had intended. However, I don’t think we should cease to interpret art. People take different perspectives away from a piece of art and that’s what makes it art to them.