After reading Big Ideas and Artmaking, I feel excited to begin on our first class project in Art Education 2520. The article was very interesting and linked different techniques through the real-world experience of countless individuals who are mentioned throughout the article. The great thing about art, is that there is no right or wrong way to pursue it. Some of the pieces of art that I read about in this article were met head on with criticism when they were first introduced. In other instances, the projects may have sputtered before truly coming to life. One interesting thing I read was how Jennifer Bartlett was set to build a garden, but the plan was cancelled. Instead of giving up, she instead built the garden on her rooftop. This was inspiration in my eyes for the relentlessness that artist must hold in order to do what they love and not be affected by those who could hurt your passion.
While there was a lot that I liked about this article, it dragged on a bit towards the end. It felt as if some of the attempts at reinforcing the critique of art rattled on and became overkill. They also started at Bartlett and transitioned to other artists that were similar in style to her, rather than diversifying the types of art that were covered. I would have liked to see less depth with each artist and more variety. I also didn't particularly like the "artist talk" and "teacher talk" that went on along the right side of the article. The answers they provided for the questions began to wash together and I couldn't see any significant differences between the quotes. Finally, I wasn't especially fond of the assessments that occurred throughout the article. I felt like I was learned to teach art rather than learning the styles of art. I found it a little bit confusing when it mixed with everything else that was being discussed. Overall, I wasn't a huge fan of this article.
The next article I read was Interpreting Visual Culture by Terry Barrett. Right out of the gate, I really liked the cut-and-paste sheet that was provided at the beginning of the article. The introduction about Michael Ray Charles and his inspirations was very interesting. I really enjoyed the visual pictures they were able to paint when describing the similarities and differences between different art terminology. It made it much easier to understand and much more appealing. The portion where the talk about the cover art that is portrayed on Rolling Stone Magazine was also very interesting. Overall, the article was pretty easy to follow and described how different cultures and time frames have looked at visual art in different ways.
There were a few things, however, that I wasn't as in touch with when it came to this article. At one point she is discussing the cover of Rolling Stones magazine and she describes Destiny's Child as "susceptible to being overcome by stronger or better armed predators" which didn't really make sense to me. I see where the author was going, but it felt like the comment was kind of forced in order to try and make a bold inference. I also felt like her description of students, both at the middle school and high school levels, were skewed based on personal experiences, rather than general feelings. While I do believe that kindergartners are very intelligent, I am not sure if they are looking at denotations and connotations on a severe level. Overall, the article ran on a bit, but covered a wide array of arguments and topics when it comes to visual art, specifically annotations and connotations.
No comments:
Post a Comment