Hello! As most of you know now (many have called concerned about our health) Cristy and I are not hand-crippled, we have just been extremely busy. This last weekend we had so many things going on that we had to cut things out because their literaly was not enough time in the day. Like when I called the Mississippi clan and told them I would call right back, then called them the next day. Oops.
Well, since the middle of May (our last blog post) Cristy and I have ammassed 159 pictures that we feel are blogworthy. In order to stay sane, I am not going to blog all of these at once, but rather ten seperate blogs over the course of July. Add that to our anniversary this weekend in NYC (a year already!!!) and the week after in Mississippi, and we will have 12 blog posts in July. Does that help make up for the dirth last month?
Here's the super-watered down version: Cristy continues to work 12-14 hour days (although yesterday she pulled an 8!) and hasn't had much of a social life outside of the weekend. Church obligations and family commitments have filled our weekends (and Cisty worked at least one full weekend a few weeks ago). My sister graduated (twice) and my Mom had a surgery. As later blogs will show, I went on a work trip the first week of June and took about 100 pictures that we kept. I applied for two government jobs, which took forever.
And that's it. Hopefully in July I can return to daily blogging, but until then.........no.
Because I don't remember a lot of things that happened (and I am going to be blogging enough that I don't care) I am going to write captions for the pictures and little else. Enjoy!
Remember the day Cheney and Obama give "dueling" national security speeches? Well Obama gave his speech at the National Archives, just across the street from me, so I took a gander over there for lunch and...well...I didn't quite get in. Hundreds of Secret Service agents, 25 SUVs, a firetruck and a bomb squad. Just in case, I guess.
I spend the rest of my lunch walking through art galleries. I discovered (or rather remembered) how much I dislike much of modern art. Below: good modern art.
Good art. A 10+ foot statue of a nude man, looking upset and pensive. Not convinced it has artistic value?
The close-up of this man is amazing. When I stood near him taking this picture of skin imperfection, blemishes, pores, and veins, I thought he would come alive and start talking to me. One of those irrational fears I guess. You can even see the "oil" on his nose.
And then there was this room. The room with the shapes. Hung. On the wall.
Wow. Modern art. Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Somewhat better (it has balance) but nothing compared to Impressionism.
Oh look. The Poteets sent Paper Georgey on another vacation to the Hirschhorn Musuem. Oh wait, it's more modern art. (I'm only bitter because my tax dollars benefit this thing.)
11 comments:
Ok, that naked guy is just plain creepy. Seriously? That's art? Why a naked old guy?
I'm totally with you on modern art. It's like "hey, let's see who can make the creepiest, weirdest, most pointless thing and call it art!"
Good thing I control my children's curriculum- we only have to study the artist I like! :p
Nice to have you back!
Well, I guess that's a valid comment about the guy being creepy and old and all, but the debate over what constitutes "art" and "literature" is timeless. I consider artistic value intricately linked with talent, quality, and somewhat less importantly, level of effort.
Nude Guy = Good Art
Green Canvas = Not even in the same conversation as art.
By the way, the guy isn't naked--he's nude. There's a difference Mrs. Art History Teacher ;)
Nice to have you back - You have given the reasons why I like or prefer photograghy. It is real - but that big guy is just ready to move and scare the pants off of you. You can see his veins and wow the work that went into that!
Yay, you guys are back! I almost didn't click on your blog today because our computer is having issues, and I wanted to check the blogs I thought were most likely to update before it fritzed out again. Now I'm glad I did check! I agree 100% on you modern art views. I'm not really a "hang it up in my house" type of person, but there is some modern art that you see and you know that took real talent to create,like naked man, even if it is not the most beautiful picture, sculpture ect. It can't all be mountains and flowers,that would get boring.
i did miss your blogs, but you made me feel better about my lack of bloging. it is always nicer when you aren't the worst one. so for that i thank you :)
A naked old guy is a naked old guy... ;P
Don't call me Mrs. Art History Teacher! It makes me feel like you're making fun me!:P I am certainly no expert- but here's my opinion.
The decision of weather any art is "good" or "bad" is completely subjective. Each individual will come to a different conclusion on what constitutes good art- I am simply NOT a fan of post-modernism.
Also, I think that if you define art based solely upon "talent, quality, and effort" you're missing something. Tolstoy (who happens to be one of my favorite authors) defines it like this: "If a man, without exercising effort and without altering his standpoint on reading, hearing, or seeing another man's work, experiences a mental condition which unites him with that man and with other people who also partake of that work of art, then the object evoking that condition is a work of art." If "naked old guy" does that for you- then I guess for you it's art! :p
For ME, "good" art needs to have beauty. Even when depicting something that's NOT beautiful, it still needs to have a level of beauty- sometimes just enough to make you cringe at the contrast. And THAT my friend, is completely subjective. Which is why one individual cannot define "good art" adequately enough for everyone.
(excuse the long windedness) :)
Another episode of "He Said, She Said, And Sometimes They Agree?" I like it.
It sounds like you would be interested in "literary theory," or "art theory," depending on how broad you want to make you definition of "art" (film, books, architecture, etc.) I took a wonderful class in college on literary theory, (and please excuse me if you know something about this already), and I learned that what constitutes "literature" is subjective. Depending on how you feel about the subject (some camps are very restrictive) literature can be pretty much anything, and on this we agree.
However, I think your Tolstoy quote (WOW--you actually know Tolstoy well enough to remember to quote him) is a little bit too restrictive. The quote leads me to believe that a person must, "without exercising effort...experiences a mental condition which unites him with that man and with other people who also partake of that work of art."
Without exercising effort? What about TS Elliot's "The Wasteland?" or Picasso's "The Bombing of Guernica?" and countless others. They are world-renowned books and works of art, respectively, and yet require tons of effort to understand. Some might even argue that without a lot of effort from the viewer that the subject cannot be considered art.
I think your blend of romanticism and "reader response" criticism is certainly classifies as counting something a work of art, yet there is a lot of other pieces that also count, including the highly technical "creepy naked old guy."
I am giving merit based upon the technical skill required and on the beauty of the detail, not because nude guy warms my heart.
MY beef, primarily, is with the big green wall canvas, though, and that was the focus of my blog post. How is that art? Am I going to show my kids that instead of some Pollock or Warhol? Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.
Cheers,
~He Said
Hey, I miss this! :P
Tolstoy's essay was discussing both literature and art- but I'll be the first to admit that Tolstoy wasn't exactly sane. :P I've read plenty of lit that required effort to read and understand, but in spite of the effort given evoked the unification of mind of which Tolstoy speaks. You're correct, it isn't always effortless- I guess I just relate to that quote because I want to be able to "feel" something when I look at a work of art or read poetry or literature-
I do take a more romantic viewpoint of both art and lit- but then again all I know is a result of reading and I haven't taken any college classes on the subject so I'll defer to you. :)
And yes, shapes on a wall is NOT art, takes no effort- evokes no emotional response. :p
- She Said
... but I think I'll keep my kids away from Warhol for a while still.... :p
That nude guy was impressive. The rest was crap. We are always amazed at the random displays of "modern art" we see all over campus. I always wonder who it is that is out there approving the making and displaying of this stuff. I mean, who in Cd'A was so excited about those giant feathers?? And those are much better than the stuff we have down at school. Weird, weird stuff that takes tons of money to construct and put on display and I don't know a single person who likes it or really considers it art. But someone out there keeps allowing it. I wonder who that person is and why they get to keep spending tons of tax dollars putting this junk out there while the rest of us are just wondering "what the hey?"
P.S. 11 comments! Yay for you guys!
Post a Comment