Posers?

I was watching an episode of Bones yesterday, and one of the characters was this artist who lived near the Navajo in New Mexico. He was a white guy whose art was "based on" Native American designs. Basically, he was copying the Indians. There were a lot of insults hurled at him by the other characters about his copy-cat ways and how it is not really his art.

I think Native American designs are beautiful, but part of the beauty is all the culture and history behind them. Because of this, I agreed with the other characters that this artist guy was a poser ripping off hundreds of years of tradition. Some white guy producing the same images just feels wrong and false. I mean, haven't the white dudes done enough to those poor people without creating facsimiles of their artwork?

So I guess my question is, Do you agree or disagree that the white artist is in the wrong for producing Native American-style art? Why or why not?

Response to Jillian Covey: Phreud and Phantasy

Before I begin answering Jillian's post I would like to say that I am mainly doing so because of her phantastic title. It caught my attention because I found it so humorous. I think it gives us all something to strive for in our titling of things. Also, I liked her question, which is as follows: Do you think that any sexual fantasies should be considered "wrong"? How do you define or support what should be considered inapropriate vs. what is acceptable?

I think very few sexual fantasies are actually morally wrong, if that's what is meant by "wrong." Everything is just a matter of preference. I know some people might argue that slapping/hitting/whipping/suffocating/other stuff of the sort is barbaric/inhumane/immoral/phucked-up/[insert your word here]. I feel, however, that if everyone consents to such things and it's what people enjoy, then it isn't wrong. After all, the same sort of things are involved in ultimate fighting and whatnot and nobody frowns on those guys. The only difference is that fighters aren't (usually) getting sexual pleasure out of being beaten up, and they are instead receiving money--like prostitutes. If pain is what excites people, then they should explore it with other like-minded people. As I said before, if everyone consents and it doesn't go too far (like to the point of hospitalization) then I don't have a problem with it.

On the other hand, because I think everyone should consent to sexual activities in order for it to be okay, I do not think bestiality is okay. Animals cannot consent, and therefore should not be involved in a person's sexual pleasure. Likewise, rape is bad--statutory rape included. If the person you are having sex with is too young to know what sex is, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

So I guess that's my quick overview of what is okay during sex and what is not. To round off my monologue I would like to say that we should all be open-minded and not judge what other people are into.

Oh, and as for "supporting" what I find acceptable vs. unacceptable...mostly I support it by doing it. :-p

Response to Jenna Haley: Experimentation

Jenna asked the following: Do you believe that art is a way for an artist to experiment with emotion in order to present how they personally are feeling or do you think an artist doesn’t necessarily have to show what they personally feel, they just show it the way they want the audience to feel?

I think a lot of this comes down to sell-outs who are only trying to make money and artists who create things because they love to. If the former is true, the artist will focus on meeting the audience's wants and needs. That way, they will make more money because more fans will enjoy their work. A good example of this would be the Harry Potter series. Maybe it's just me, but it seemed like the entire seventh book was just J.K. Rowling giving the fans what they wanted. Her characters ended up in the couples that everyone was rooting for, none of the characters we were especially devoted to died, and good conquered evil once and for all. You can also find this problem a lot in the music industry. Avril Lavigne's song "Girlfriend," for instance. It doesn't have particularly good lyrics or any deep meaning, and the music itself isn't that intricate or amazing. However, it's a catchy beat and a relatable theme, so it gets stuck in people's heads and they request it more frequently on the radio and purchase the song and whatnot.

On the other hand, people who are creating art because it's what they love to do and they want to express themselves do just that--they express themselves. Art is a reflection of an artists' emotions, and I believe the best pieces are ones that come from such circumstances. Someone who has a broken heart would sing much more powerfully about it than someone who has never experienced true love or a breakup. I think too often feelings are manufactured and produced instead of just being FELT. I mean, how many fricking 12-year-olds are going to keep coming on the radio and singing about losing the love of their life?

My question in response to this topic is: Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great?

Animals and Art

I realize that Emily Follin already touched on this subject a bit, but I wanted to discuss animal art as my underground art form of the week. That being said, this is not really a response to Emily, so much as it is an add-on.

There are a couple animals who create art--and not just because it is instinctual or because they need a home. Elephants are handed paintbrushes and use their trunks to paint actual pictures on paper. They do this for no other reason than to create a painting. You're probably familiar with this if you read Emily's post. The paintings that the elephants create are exhibited in some places.

Emily mentioned in her post that, "Elephants have a much more complicated brain and are much closer to humans mentally." On that note, there is another animal that creates art that is even closer mentally to humans than elephants are. What is this artistic creature? The gorilla. There have been many studies done on gorillas and their ability to learn and do tasks that were once thought to too complex for any lifeforms but humans. Scientists are teaching them sign language, for instance, and communicating with them. They are also studying the gorillas' ability to create art. Like the elephant, the gorilla is handed a paintbrush and paper and they create pictures.

While the paintings animals are creating are nowhere near Picasso level right now, it is possible that they might get there. My question to you is this: If animals were able to create art that is as complex as a human's, do they deserve a place in our museums?

An Unconventional Canvas

Underground art form of the week? Body-painting.

For those of you who don't know me very well, I am deeply immersed in the hippie culture. My boyfriend was raised in "the scene" and has dreadlocks and his mother had seen the Grateful Dead live over 800 times before Jerry died. It is their entire life, and it's a big part of mine.

Because I live in the hippie world, I go to a lot of music festivals and shows. One thing that stands out about these shows that is different from most concerts is the abundance of naked people. There are women and men in various states of undress--whether they're just topless or went ahead and removed EVERYTHING.

A lot of the naked women at these shows will paint their bodies. You see intricate designs of flowers with a breast as the center and vines wrapping around her waist, or Dead-Bear heads smiling at you with nipples as their mouths. Things like that. Some of the designs are crude, some of them are beautiful.

I view this as a similar expression as tattoos, but less permanent. I think it's a great way to express yourself if you are comfortable enough to do it, and it sort of supports the older art forms in the sense that it emulates the beauty of the human form--like the statues of the Greeks or the paintings of nude women that you see hanging in museums.

My question to you all is this: Do you agree or disagree that it is an appropriate form of self-expression and how do you feel about nudity in art?

Response to Skyla Seamans: Mother Nature

Skyla wrote in her blog, "What aspect of nature (whether it be a tree, flowers, the sky) do you find most appealing to view as a piece of art work and why?"

My answer is the sky. I love taking photographs of rays shining through big fluffy clouds (see images). I think sunsets and sunrises are beautiful to look at in person, paintings, or pictures, as well. They are bursting with beautiful arrays of colors and are always unique. Furthermore, the sunsets and sunrises look different from every place you go.

There are many different mediums within the art world. One person might use watercolors to paint the sky, while another chooses to use chalk. The sky can be painted, photographed, sketched, etc. Therefore, my follow-up question is such: What medium do you think is best for creating a representation of the sky? When do you think would be the best time to create it (sunrise, midday, sunset, nighttime, etc)?

Graffiti?

As I mentioned in my blog about tattoos, my first couple of posts are being focused on more controversial artistic elements. This week's subject is graffiti as art.

From the murals of Diego Rivera and Grandma Moses to the tagging of buildings in New York City by gang members, graffiti is an art form that has always been questionable. Some people say that it is no more than vulgar vandalism, while others believe it is as legitimate as any other painting. In some instances--as with the gangs of New York City--it is punishable by law. In cases such as Grandma Moses, however, it is condoned.

To complicate matters further, some museums are now exhibiting "tagging" on their walls. Many graffiti artists are speaking out about their art, saying that it is another way to express oneself. In fact, some graffiti artists are actually becoming legitimately famous for their work.

My question to you all is this: Do you consider graffiti a legitimate art form? Where does the line get drawn?

Response to Matthew Visser: Art the Immitation

Matthew asked the following series of questions: If art is just an imitation then why do we need art and not the real thing? What is the significance of even having art if it is just an imitation of something that we can have in real life like a chair? Whats the point of having a painting of a chair instead of the actual chair?

True, art is an imitation in some cases. In other cases, though, it is not an imitation. Some artists create entirely new images instead of painting things that already exist. I included an example of such a painting to the right. It is called "Hell of the Birds" and it was painted by the Jewish artist Max Beckmann. I seriously doubt any of you have seen anything like that in real life. This is part of the reason we need art--because art allows people to create spectacular images that no one has ever witnessed before.

On the other hand, there is a lot of art that is imitation. Landscapes and still life paintings, for instance. What reason do humans have for these works of art? There are two reasons, actually. The first is that these images can show us things we've never seen before. Although a person knows mountains exist, he may never have seen one. He therefore may want to view a picture or painting of a mountain. Like books, paintings can take us places we've never been.

The other reason that we need imitation art is because human beings are individuals with different views, feelings, and perspectives. If five artists set up their easels in a room and are instructed to paint a chair that is standing in the middle, they will all paint different paintings. The images they create will be different based on their feelings, perspectives, and mediums.

My question in response is as follows: What sort of feelings did the picture I posted here evoke for you? What do you think the artists' intention was?