Self Evaluation/Reflection

Part 1:

1. I think I was able to embody Louis Valtat's effortless style while also incorporating my own style into the piece. For specific elements, like the main tree (left), I used looser brush strokes and was not as particular in each mark. I think that a lot of Valtat's work was planned yet he mainly used an "abstract" style to create beauty in his artwork. I used bold colors, like Valtat, to show different elements of my piece. I also wanted to create texture so I used modeling paste before I applied paint. I think for the most part I used Valtat's style as a guide but was also able to depart from his direction in order to show my own vision.

2. When it comes to making art, "inspiration" and "imitation" are very different things.You can use images, ideas, people, other artist's work to inspire you to create your own artwork. When you used inspiration, your piece is still unique to you because you don't copy a picture or a piece of artwork. However, when you imitate someone's work, you are simply copying and taking the ideas of that person. Your piece will have less significance and will not be representative of your own vision.

Part 2:

I think that there are many interpretations of what "art" is but in my opinion, I think that a work of art is defined by evidence of time spent creating the piece, technical complexity, and how unique the idea was. I think that in order to be a successful work of art, these three things must be present. No matter what material is used, I think that if someone spends an extended amount of time on an original and creative idea while creating a technically difficult piece, it will be considered a work of art.

Part 3:

1. "1000 hours of staring by Tom Friedman- I don't consider this a work a art because it is not an advanced and creative idea, was definitely not technically challenging and although we don't know exactly how long it took to create, we can suspect that it would take a VERY short amount of time.

2. Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo- I would absolutely consider this a work of art. It may not be a painting or drawling but it is evident that the artist spent a lot of time creating this technically complex yet beautiful piece of art.
3. The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems by Martha Rosler- I would not necessarily consider this a work of art. I don't think it is very complex, time consuming or innovative to take average photos and put them together. I do consider some photographs works of art based on how unique the subject is or how the artist used light, shadows..etc to create a vision. In this case however, I would not consider this a work of art.
4. Jackson Pollock #8- Although this may not agree with original criteria for "art", I consider this piece a work of art. I think this new idea and technique was very innovative at the time and although it may not seem very technically challenging to time consuming, it still takes skill and time to create a vision as distinct as this. Also his use of colors is successful, and I think that the placement of the paint may be more challenging than what meets the eye.
5. Sol le Witt's wall drawings- I think this definitely is considered a work of art. Although it is a different style, and is very geometric and measured, it definitely takes time and technical skill to carry out this vision as successfully as the artist did. I also think it is unique how the artist used entire walls and other large spaces for their art work. This makes the execution and impact much more successful than if they were to use a smaller canvas.