Self Evaluation

PART 1

1. Yes I feel I was successful in incorporating Andrew Wyeth's style/technique. While I planned on not using it in the background, I wanted to showcase his style in certain object. I incorporated his realism in the wood and the person jumping (the fabric, especially) and I think I did a great job with making those realistic.

2. For me, inspiration is looking at anything (photo, nature, painting, etc) and then creating your own work but incorporating certain elements from the inspiration. An imitation, however, is an exact replica of a photo, painting, etc. without any original thought or idea behind it.

PART 2:

I feel that all aspects of art aren't necessarily equally important. I say that a piece can be considered a work of art even if it took 5 minutes to make because it could have a strong message or be very meaningful to the artist/viewers. Obviously, I feel that there needs to be some evidence of craftsmanship/purposefulness, but I think that if it has meaning behind the piece than it is considered art, no matter the length of time it took to complete. My reason for this being that a painting that took a year to create may be visually pleasing, but a piece of art that took a week and has meaning, for me, is much more powerful. If the artist doesn't make anything, then I don't feel that it is art because there is nothing.

PART 3:
1. In all honesty, my initial reaction to 1000 hours of staring by Tom Friedman was "is this a joke?!". My reaction still remains. I don't understand how this is considered art because it is literally just a white canvas. I don't feel any meaning, nor do I sense that a whole lot of effort was put into this, which causes me to look at it as nothing near art.

2. The Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo is definitely art. While I don't feel the time it took something is necessary in art, I believe that this took quite a long time to complete, but it was very skillfully made and has meaning. The religious figures in the ceiling painting are very relevant to its environment and obviously have meaning, which makes me view this as a definite work of art.

3. I definitely think that The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems by Martha Rosler is art but in a photographical genre of art. There is definite meaning behind this and its execution was great; instead of using photographs of people to portray the poverty, I think it was very clever of her to use absence in objects to personify this, which is very powerful. I think this work is a very successful photographic work of art.

4. I have a hard time with Jackson Pollock's #8. I feel that Jackson Pollock wasn't careless enough to just splatter paint composition board and that every splatter had a purpose behind it, but that deliberateness is hard to find. From doing splatter paint before, I definitely know that this took time to accomplish but I just have trouble viewing this as art. However, at the same time, his splatter paints have become so iconic that I can view them as art. He definitely pushes the boundaries with his works, especially #8, which makes it very successful.

5. Sol le Witt's wall drawings are quite interesting. I can't see much meaning behind them but I can tell that they were very well-thought out. To me, though, they just feel like doodles on a larger scale, causing me to overlook them as art. They are creative and artsy, but I can't say that I would qualify this as art, for I do similar things on my notes in class when I'm bored. I have a huge problem with Sol le Witt because I feel that le Witt shouldn't be given full artistic credit though. He would send different artists descriptions or images of what to do and those artists would execute them.