Part One:

1. I feel I was successful in some ways more than others incorporating Emil Nolde’s style into my piece. I think my use of texture and mixtures of color in the flowers reflected his work and the use of bright unusual colors. But I feel I could have done a better job with the tree aspect of my piece. I loved Nolde’s trees because of the false colors he used in them and I didn’t fully capture that aspect of his work.

2. If you imitate someone’s work you are literally just copying the same exact piece they did and calling it your own. If you use someone for inspiration, you try and use their techniques or color pallets but you make your own piece from your own idea.

Part Two:

There are so many different ways to view art but for me I think the most important aspect is either the skill/technique or the concept. I don’t think a piece that is just a colored canvas can really count as art, but I also don’t think every great piece of art needs to take tons of hours of work. I think a piece with a strong meaning behind it can be more powerful than something that took 50 hours. But the piece needs to have good craftsman ship and technique.

Part Three:

1. I don’t think 1000 hours of staring is art. There is literally nothing on the canvas. He may have stared at it for 1000 hours but he didn’t make anything and there is no meaning or technique.

2. The Sistine chapel is definitely artwork. It shows technique and has meaning in the religious figures. And even though immense amount of time isn’t always necessary, this ceiling definitely took time.

3. I think The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive is art in the sense of photography. It had meaning behind it, trying to show the rawness of that neighborhood and it took technique to photograph each piece with no people in it to show who the piece is about. So in the photography sense I would say its artwork.

4. I can’t decide whether I consider Jackson Pollock #8 artwork or not. I realize that it is not easy to make splatter paint because it is very uncontrolled so it may take practiced technique. But if he had a meaning behind this, I can’t tell what it is and that makes it hard for me to decide if this is real art or not.

5. When first looking at Sol le Witt’s wall paintings I would say they are art because they took technique and are planned out and specific. But because of the fact that le Witt never did any of the artwork himself, but sent the description and had other artists do it, I don’t think it can be counted as his artwork. The pieces themselves are art, but leWitt shouldn’t get the credit.