Focus Statement (For Design III)

My goal is to conceptualize what a sustainable society in the future would look like.

The Sky Opens

This image by Gary Tonge called "The Sky Opens" is really inspiring for my type of art style. It is very futuristic with a lot of nice details and colors. My favorite part about this image is the interesting symbiosis between nature and human civilization. (Artist from UK)

White Tower

Swamp

Drow

All these images are by the same artist. They are very beautiful and well balanced images. I also like the color palettes this artist uses. I'm not sure what the name of this artist is but I know his is Russian and I like his style a lot.

EnTree 1

EnTree 12

This artist is from Australia and I think his name is Ggraeme Balchin. I really like the detail he puts into his artwork. It is also very peaceful and creative.

Welcome Back Show Review

This was a very enjoyable piece to look at in the welcome back show. These pictures might be lacking something in the composition from far away. In the top picture the white against the background seems awkward. In the bottom picture the top and the bottom do half do not mix very well. However these are minor shortcomings because when you get close to these art pieces their astonishing depth becomes clearly visible. Large variety of textures, colors, and mediums that are used show an interesting mix between all the elements of the pictures that make them great. The different consistencies used make every piece of the painting unique. Some parts look like lava, others like mountains, however the overall feel of both pictures is other worldly. The glossy finish was a great way of bringing both pieces together.

The top piece, my favorite of the two makes me feel as if I'm looking at a landscape on another planet, and it has a very natural feel to it. All the forms seem to represent something organic. Cracks in the paint can be veins of some plant or animal and the flowing material can represent liquid of some sort. In this aspect the piece is very strong because it stirs the imagination. In contrast the bottom piece is much darker and uses blue and black which distinguishes itself sharply against red and white. I don't think I understand why the piece is on the floor, it seems very out of place and I do not feel it is a good location for that particular piece.

One thing I'll note is that it is not fun to kneel down to look at an art pieces.



Perhaps my favorite piece at the show. To me it represents the fusion between man made materials with nature. What is really awesome about this piece is now subtle it is. It seems to represent so little, yet it says so much. The wire extending from the geometric shape to the natural rock seems to state that "we are now one."

One side is clearly mathematical and perfect. The other side is uneven and imperfect. It is the collision of these two elements that make this art piece so great. What is the artist trying to say? Is something I wondered for a long time while observing this piece. The conclusion I came up with is that this great universe that we live in can support both, the randomness of nature and the calculating ingenuity of mankind.



This piece is a little irritating because it has a great concept but there are things that can be done to improve it. The middle of the picture, which is the focal point of the image leaves a lot to be desired. In my opinion the structure should have been a lot more complex. In the artist's defense, maybe making the structure too complex would have made it seem out of place. However the very geometric ground and the natural sky are superb together. This dualism between randomness and precision can potentially be a part of my thesis.

The structure itself is also quite interesting as well despite my criticism. It can be a gazebo, a boat, or an above ground observatory for an underground base. I am also very appreciative to the good clean craftsmanship and the smooth composition. This is a very fluid and serene work of art.



One last piece I enjoyed was the poster with the statue of liberty. (I believe it was made by Ortiz.) I liked this piece for its poetry, not so much the imagery. Although the statue with its hand down is extraordinarily powerful as an image and the overall design is nice, it falls apart when you examine the poster in detail. Mostly due to technical things like the unnecessary symmetry and the very obviously photoshopped images that were pasted into the poster. (which might have very really been intentional)

It is the one piece in the gallery with a really clear and powerful message. I partially disagree with the message that illegal immigrants should just be allowed to live here on the basis that people should come here legally. However, I agree with the bigger meaning of the poster which seems to say America is becoming more and more closed minded and racist towards "non-Americans" when in the first place, all Americans were technically "non-Americans" at some point.

Overall the Welcome Back gallery worked well, it has a very good balance structurally and between many different types of art. Some pieces had a connections, for example pieces with a scientific theme or an abstract theme were put together while portraits and figure drawing were put elsewhere. Certain artists got larger spaces than others, one artist in fact got almost an entire room to herself. It seems that the core decision that was made behind every installation was "does this piece look like it belongs here?" In a sense it is almost like a puzzle that was put together out of random artworks.

Zimmerli Water Show Review

A very diverse presentation was made at the Zimmerli Museum Water Exhibit. As I dwelled deeper into the exhibit the walls and atmosphere got darker. In a way it felt as if I was going deeper into the ocean. There was a very nice contrast between all the works presented. The older pieces were put next to the newer ones and the pieces from different cultures were mixed together. In a way it showed how much people all over the world loved water. One memorable photograph that I saw was of a girl playing by the shore. In another art piece I saw a detailed drawing by Hiroshige of a waterfall. The exhibit tried to establish a very personal relationship with water and one of the ways it did that was by showing how people interacted with or observed water. One can almost feel the joy of being around water.


One thing that was very enjoyable was to see all the different mediums at work. There were glass sculptures in the form of droplets placed randomly on the floor. Elsewhere were projectors showing the front and the back of a motorboat. One piece was made entirely out of nails nailed to the wall and light from the top created a nice distinct shadow. All these different mediums represented the versatility of water and how free flowing it is. Water embodies a lot of different things and it was very interesting to see all of these things in one room. My favorite piece was a clear box with an inch of water inside it. The water evaporated and condensed at the top forming beautiful crystals.

(No photos taken yet)

Interview

Gabrielle Ambrosia, Sculpture Concentration.

Me: How long have you been doing art?

GA: I’ve been doing art seriously since 2003. However I got into art in high school.

Me: In your sculpture work what type of materials do you like to use the most?

GA: I really gravitate towards materials that make me feel in control. For instance with the wire I feel like I’m creating a 3 dimensional drawings. When I’m working with the wire, it’s not just using my mind to create the work; it’s my hands as well, which makes them in control. I also like to use fabric, such as nylon stockings, lace, tulle, and muslin and I feel that connects to my constant exploration of feminism.






Me: What are some other materials you like to use and how?

GA: I like to use clay, because it makes me use hands. More specifically I like molding the clay. Plaster is another material that I like to use because of the color. I like white, I like what white represents. It’s pure and clean, when I use plaster I try to keep it as clean as possible and I think that adds to the work.

Me: Your pieces are abstract, is there a reason why?

GA: I use abstraction as a form to allow the material to fully reach its potential. I don’t like to limit the material at all. When the material is limited, I feel like you can’t understand it.

Me: Your work is very organic; did you always make such organic artwork?

GA: No, there was a time where my work was very precise. For instance I had this image in my mind and I created that image exactly and I would never stray away from it. Now I don’t limit myself, I let what happens happen. If I did anything else it wouldn’t feel natural to me, it wouldn’t feel like collaboration with the material anymore. And that is how I see my work, it’s a collaboration with the material I choose to work with, and that is why my art is organic.

Me: So you try to bring out the soul of the material so to speak?

GA: Yes. My professor is always reminding us to use the material over and over again so the material starts to speak for itself. That process of working is fun to watch because you start to see the change that happens when the material is constantly being manipulated.

Me: Tell me about your process.

GA: Although now I am starting to make drawings before making a three-dimensional piece but I don’t let the drawing dictate what the sculpture will become. However, usually I start off with a material and just work with it. I do drawing sometimes, but it’s not how I usually start my process. A lot of the times it’s me constantly working with the material over and over again and whatever I have in the end is what I have. There is no precise way of how I work or what I set out to achieve in the beginning. Although now I am starting to make drawings before making a three-dimensional piece but I don’t let the drawing dictate what the sculpture will be. In my piece “Pairs” I took chicken wire and I rolled it up in to figure-like forms. I ripped tulle from a dress and I dunked it in a warm mixture of sugar and water and I draped the fabric over the wire pieces.



Me: That’s interesting, what other types of processes can you give me examples of?

GA: I would have to point out my fabric drawing. I ripped muslin and I draped it over a table and I drew on it in sections. I was not seeing the drawing as a whole as I created it, I was seeing it in sections. I started off first with a pencil drawing, and then I went over it again in crayon several times with different. Then I took paraffin wax with aloe vera and I coated the whole drawing. It actually gave it a very interesting skin like texture and that is something I did not expect.





Me: So for you part of the art is the process itself?

GA: Yes, to me it’s all about the process and the outcome is secondary. It if works if works, if it doesn’t, oh well. I’ll just start over and try something new.

Me: What type of artists do you draw your inspiration from?

GA: Constantin Brancussi for his simplistic sculptures. There is so much information in his sculptures yet no details. I also like Kiki Smith she tends to make artwork based on her own experiences. Jackson Pollock is another one. I loved how he used his whole body when making a painting. Also, Louise Bourgeois, she is a sculpture, I admire her not only for work, but also for her longevity in the art world. She was making work well into her 90’s, I hope to be that lucky.

Experimental Jetset/Superflex/Little Art Brother/But, is it Art?/Royal College of Art

Superflex
It is not quiet clear exactly what the biogas project is but I think I understood what it is trying to do. I think the article is a fine example of art in its true form. Art for art’s sake is not really art as much as artist trying to get rich, this makes it false and impure. The true purpose of art is to communicate, innovate, and explore. Something that this biogas project is attempting to do in impoverished Africa. Almost everything in history originated as art forms and later developed into its own field. This includes architecture, design, culinary art, the idea of capturing images, and even religion. Those are just the obvious examples, in reality, so much more things we do not think about came from art. I am interested the results this biogas yields.

But, is it Art?
The definition of art has always been a controversy. In the 20th century we have seen all sorts of things called art and that is why some people decided that art cannot be defined. Some people defined art to be anything made with the intention of making art. I however believe art to be something much broader, I believe art is anything made by a sentient being through a creative thinking process. This of course includes design, but it also includes things like airplanes, cars, refrigerators, etc... Today we consider many things made in the past to be art even though they served a practical purpose. So really our definition of art is always changing. One only needs to realize that everything created is a form of expression in one way or another to understand that art is all around us.

Ethical Design Education

To be frank, although I always loved nature I never quite really cared about sustainability. I saw it as a wasted effort that would ultimately get ignored by greater interests. I feel differently now that I know exactly what sustainability is, and now that I feel inspired by the power of design thanks to certain individuals in the past. (Morris, Dreyfuss)I find Szenasy’s article meaningful because I can relate to the change of heart her students underwent. This issue is so morally sound, true, and pure that it would win anyone over. It reminds me of the children’s novel “The Giving Tree” by Shel Silverstein.

Excerpt from wiki:
“The Giving Tree is a tale about a relationship between a young boy and a tree in a forest. The tree always provides the boy with what he wants: branches on which to swing, shade in which to sit, apples to eat, branches with which to build a home. As the boy grows older he requires more and more of the tree. The tree loves the boy very much and gives him anything he asks for. In the ultimate act of self-sacrifice, the tree lets the boy cut her down so the boy can build a boat in which he can sail. The boy leaves the tree, now a stump. Many years later, the boy, now an old man, returns and the tree says, "I have nothing left to give you." The boy replies, " I do not need much now, just a quiet place to sit and rest." The tree then says, "Good! A tree stump is a great place to do just that! Come boy, sit down and be happy." The boy obliged and the tree was happy.”

Although there are many interpretations, for me this is a metaphor for nature’s endless self-sacrifice and our inability to be grateful for it. It represents the need for a fair give and take relationship. Nature has nurtured humanity but now the time has come for us to return the favor. My favorite part in the article is where it talks about interconnectedness. I feel like it will be a huge theme for my generation as more and more people learn more about the great beauty of nature. This will be the fuel that will make sustainability a reality. Like the generations before mine that fought for the success of future generations ours will too, and like past generations we will succeed.

Buckminster Fuller

The concept of four billion billionaires is something that Fuller tries to say is within our reach yet I'm not entirely convinced. He makes optimistic statements without any regard for the consequences. For example, what would happen after we have four billion billionaires? Would we be satisfied with that or reproduce until we push our resources to the limit once more? Why do we need to push our resources to the limits? While I do believe a computer has the potential to make our society more efficiently and justly, what happens when the computer does not operate according to our will?

I feel that the author underestimates humanity's desire to gain power and control over each other. Once we are all billionaires we will have people who will want to become trillionaires and they will not be satisfied with equality. In this sense the author is a naive ideologist.

Our energy usage is inefficient and this is indisputable, and I fully support the idea of change in that regard. We waste so much energy that it almost becomes depressing. In fact we only use five out of 100 units of energy according to the article. This is unsustainable and definitely needs public attention. I feel that the real problem is that we are currently living in a society based on consumption and that owning a gas guzzling hummer is a status symbol. Therefore consuming more is considered to be a good thing when the reality is that the complete opposite is true.

American Apparel

I chuckled at the phrase “benevolent dictatorship” which was used to describe American Apparel. First of all, what business is not “like” a dictatorship? Each company has a boss that can command his employees to do what he wants, that is why they get paid. The statement is accusative and not grounded in reasonable reality. Rather than a critique this essay is more of a feminist rant against the exploitation of women. The author also brings up race, I found this line particularly humorous, “A large number of Asian and black models, as the sexual nature of the imagery can be seen to encourage the belief that non-white women are more sexualized and/or submissive.” Can one be anymore dramatic and irrelevant? Maybe Charney (owner of AA) likes Asians and black women. What about all the sexual portrayal of white women, which is exponentially more common? I just don't see the need to always make things about racism.

Anna Kealey's self-righteousness is very opinionated. I do not think it is anybody’s right to dictate how a company promotes itself. People who do so are the reason unconstitutional laws get passed. Although I can understand the frustration of seeing clothes promoted through sex (in some people’s eyes), it is not the company’s fault but the people's who are attracted to such advertising. If anything, I am angrier with outspoken critics who criticize sexual provocative imagery. I for one do not find sex unethical or immoral, but natural and beautiful. I believe American Apparel is perfectly ethical in not only producing its products but promoting them as well.

We're Here to be Bad

This article was particularly interesting because of its insightful understanding and depth. Not only does it make controversial claims about our current design paradigm but it goes beyond it to offer a solution, incite rebellion even. The article brings up several important issues. My favorite is the issue about the illusion of choice. Coca-Cola versus Pepsi for example both offer the same product with a vastly different image. What drives me mad is that neither is good for people's health yet those are the drinks offered everywhere, before water, tea, or any other drink for that matter.

Illusion is just a minor issue however; there are also the issues of image, information, art, and greed. How we deal with each of these issues has important impact on the future and for the most part I agree with almost everything this article tries to say. Unfortunately, for the life of me I cannot see the practicality of all the solutions brought up. Designers who do not want to follow the marketing goal of selling as much products as possible will simply not get paid. The only way this solution would work is if all designers rejected the system all at once, but that simply won’t happen. And even if the best designers rebel there will be numerous bad designers who will be eager to replace the good designers. At the beginning this article points out how easy being good has become.

Branding the Individual

Jane Pavitt tries to imply that consumers can customize themselves to make themselves unique, that consumers have limitless possibilities and choices... I disagree. I disagree more with the message the article tries to get across than the reality it tries to describe. Although I can accept the reality described in the article I don't appreciate it. I hate consumerism and I hate that society is obsessed with it. I do not think we have a wide variety of choices, instead I think we lack them. I don't think that anything anyone wears is unique unless they themselves crafted the item.

To be specific, I thought the message this article was trying to get across was that consumers have the power to choose and determine the direction of the market. It was a message intended to empower consumers and inspire them to take shopping more seriously if they weren't already. It portrayed our ability to design ourselves as endless and limitless, but for me the limitations are all to obvious. I'm not talking about the obvious financial limitations which implies that only the rich truly have freedom of expression. Not only because they can get high end products but also because they can probably order customizable ones. In this case, yes the consumer truly has limitless possibilities.

However, what about the regular Joes? Although this article does touch upon socio-economic classes and counterfeit products it doesn't mention the fact that we can only choose from a selection of products that were already design. We can never truly have what we want but only get what we think is the best design out of the designs already available... What we (consumers) lack is the ability to customize and improve on already available designs. Fortunately, I think this is something we are slowly beginning to realize.

The Impotence of Being Earnest

My first reaction to “The Impotence of Being Earnest” was that it’s sad but true. My favorite part was the one that stated that nihilism always beats ideology. It made me laugh and feel all warm and fuzzy. Mainly because I think it’s true because to me it seems like we are always under the illusion that things matter but they rarely if ever actually do. Granted, I’m probably more of a nihilist than anything but my worldview usually depends on my mood. Sometimes I believe God exists sometimes I don’t, sometimes everything seems interconnected other times everything seems disconnected. I don’t have a problem believing in all possibilities.

Unfortunately the article doesn’t go beyond pointing out the hopelessness of first things first manifesto. I would like to argue and say that this article is wrong but I can’t. I completely agree… everything has been more or less reduced to a joke. Words that used to carry impact 50 years ago now mean very little. The article humorously points out the word revolution describes clothes more than any movement in society today. This just goes to show how little words are beginning to mean and as I go through life I find our language less and less descriptive. I sometimes find myself unable to adequately describe my feelings or my thoughts and ideas. This is an exaggeration of course… I’m just suggesting that communication is evolving beyond language. Music and art can sometimes represent my mood better than words.

Modernism in Design

Modernism is many things and has without a doubt changed the world in major ways on a major scale. It is the perfect example of the potential art has to change the world. Unfortunately it was more of a cosmetic change, however, surprisingly a real change followed. (Although that’s debatable…) Our generation has a vastly different outlook on life than the people living back in the days when the modernist movement was taking place and this could be the result of the new image they have created. Meaning that the change wasn’t instant, but actually very much delayed. Would we really “feel” different if things looked the same way they were in the 1800’s? I doubt our mentality would have had the drastic shift it did if not for the change in image society underwent. We literally feel like a modern society and therefore try to act like one by protecting human rights and freedom. That means a cosmetic change can cause a real one.

The reason it might have been more of a cosmetic change is because a lot of the same problems exist. You cannot change human nature overnight or over a century for that matter. We still lie, cheat, hate, and discriminate. It might only seem like things changed but did they really? Our disdain for the past and hope of the future is what drove the movement at heart. (It seems) That’s why we stripped our products from decorations, to destroy anything that would reference the past. It worked, today’s buildings, furniture, and designs have almost nothing in common with those of the past. Yet if feels like a lot of the old problems persist.

Truth was another major theme in the modernist movement. We have been lied to, manipulated, and dominated by our governments for centuries. We sought to erase that. In fact we sought to erase hierarchy altogether if not history itself. I am doubtful that design has anything to do with truth though. Truth is important and takes us in the right direction every time, but how do we know that modernist design isn’t a lie pretending to be the truth? Design is a façade by nature so it can’t exactly be truthful.

First Things First Manifesto

Although Ken Garland’s manifesto is inspiring it feels a bit hopeless. It’s true, our current economic system fuels design for the single purpose of profit and almost nothing else. You know we have a problem when we create beautiful artworks to convince people to buy their own deaths. Soda companies? Terrible. Tobacco companies? Terrible. Drug companies? Not only terrible but most of them need to be tried for crimes against humanity. Not only because they made it nearly impossible for natural cures to exist legally but also because they create cures for diseases that don’t exist. ADHD for example cannot POSSIBLY be a disease. Yet we prescribe adderol like it’s candy. (Adderol has a healthy does of amphetamines) Yes there are extreme cases in ADHD that might benefit from it but the majority of people who “have it” are in no way helping themselves.

That is the reason his manifesto feels so hopeless, it simply has no grounded reality unless designers suddenly decide to do charity work on a massive scale. Government action would be the best hope for this manifesto, but why would the taxpayers agree to fund artists? The average person does not look at minimalism and think “wow how refreshing” but something more along the lines of “wow is this a scam?” Not to mention the fact that government is often mismanaged, corrupt, and funds the dumbest projects. This is why artists do not have government funds in the first place. (Who was the genius who approved piss Christ?) Modern art has disenchanted people and caused them to lose faith in artists. The last century has made little progress in regards to beauty.

On a brighter note, I completely agree with the manifesto despite its bleak prospects. Design can change the world and it has. It has been for thousands of years from the time pharaohs decorated their palaces with symbolism of domination. More importantly, I love the idea that we can walk down a street and feel sensual bliss because it is decorated with sculptures, colors, designs, and has a nice melody playing in the background, but how can we achieve this? I have no doubt in my mind it is something we’ll achieve one day but not anytime soon.

No Logo

The most interesting aspect of Naomi Klein’s article is the distinction between the physical existence of a corporation and its meta-physical existence. To be clear, the physical existence of a corporation would be the factory itself. The meta-physical existence of a corporation is the brand or logo. The reason I use the term meta-physical is because companies today exist mostly on paper. Since they do not have a manufacturing base their existence would disappear if the economic system breaks down. As opposed to the existence of companies 50+ years ago; they would still exist and produce as long as they had workers despite the state of economy.

There is a deep philosophical discussion that can be had about this type of existence. Metaphorically it would be like asking: would it matter if my current body was replaced with another body? I’d still have my brain therefore my consciousness, thoughts, and opinions. However my body will be someone else’s and would have a completely different outward appearance so am I really the same person? I feel that yes I would be the same person and the same goes for corporations. (Although corporations are technically existing without a body...) Sadly she did not expand on this topic because it was more of an informative piece about outsourcing.

There is technically nothing wrong with outsourcing. Since headquarters of companies are all that matter. The problem is not us outsourcing, it’s why we outsource. Outsourcing makes no sense really… especially if the system is fair, why would we produce goods thousands of miles away? The reason is the cheap labor it provides. However this has a HEAVY cost that we don’t even consider. There is a reason why companies here made a 100% margin profit while operating in the U.S. as opposed to a 400% margin profit while operating in China. The countries we go to for our contracts have almost no wealth in the western sense of the word and even less human rights. The people who make our shoes are also the people who have to choose between life in a factory and starvation. Granted, capitalism is vicious at the core and only benefits the smart. However this is really no different from slavery. Wage slavery would be the proper term. Really, what is the difference between having black guy pick cotton and paying for his survival and having an Asian guy make cotton shirts and pay him money so he can pay for his survival?

To me this is the most outrageous aspect of outsourcing. The fact that this is not a mainstream issue makes me wonder how corrupt the news network really is. Although it wouldn't be surprise me if complicated matters like this simply fly over those people's heads. Finding a good informative unbiased news article is like looking for needle in a haystack.

Bauhaus Exhibit in MoMA

The Bauhaus exhibit in the MoMA is very engaging and thought provoking. While the works of art are great as stand alone pieces without any explanations they become a lot more awe-inspiring when put into their context. The context being the time period the works of art were made in. To say that the Bauhaus movement was ahead of its time would be an understatement. If we were to compare this exhibition to other artworks of the time it would be like comparing the submachine gun to a revolver. It doesn't just represent humanities shift to the modern era, it lays the groundwork for it. In fact, to my surprise a lot of the art pieces were basically the same as the art we produce today. This either says little about the progress we made since the 1920's or represents the groundbreaking revolution the movement accomplished. I believe the latter to be true.

The furniture pieces in the exhibit look like extra comfortable versions of the cheap stylistic rip-offs we buy today. Ironically, manufacturers missed the point of the style completely. The Bauhaus was less concerned with style and more with practicality. That isn’t to say that style wasn’t important, on the contrary, but the style was a result of comfort. The chairs they made were built for sitting down; the simplicity was a rebellion against the gimmicky styles that plagued the time period. Now it seems we are back to gimmicky styles without the comfort. This is probably where Morris influenced the Bauhaus movement most. In his quest to make perfect books he stumbled upon the field of design. Although humans have constantly designed their environment it was never a conscious process but something instinctual. (Like a beaver building a dam.) Morris was very specific about his works however; to him it was as if beauty was a science and everything had a reason for existence. If he didn’t invent design he definitely started to bridge the gap between our emotional sense of art and intellectual sense of art and then the Bauhaus movement finished it. Morris’s unrelenting desire to create comfortable visually pleasing books can be felt through-out most of the exhibit.

Although not all works at the exhibit were about logic and practically. Some of them simply explored the unknown. One thing is certain, traditional concepts about what art is supposed to represent were tossed out the window. There is an overwhelming sense of freedom that art before it simply doesn’t have, and for the first time the concept of less is more can be seen. As opposed to the renaissance artists who would try to fit in as many things as possible into every square inch the exhibit displayed art pieces that were not afraid of being bare. They played with the empty space and created geometrical compositions with stark contrasts. Some pieces did the opposite and convoluted the design with interweaving geometric shapes to create chaos. What is beautiful about the chaotic pieces is that all of them found harmony in the overall result. The chaos could only be seen up close; from far away they melted into coherent compositionally pleasing images. And this seems to be the hallmark of almost any Bauhaus work of art – the intentionality of the design element.