I was going to sum it up in one sentence for thursdays art exhibition. But, maybe I'll elaborate on why I absolutely hated it. Let's be sure to start off on the right foot. This movement back in the 60's and 70's was radical. It was something that took the nation by storm; this was something that took the female population by surprise.
The thing i don't understand is, why did it have to be so bold? I mean, yeah this was a response to a suppressive opponent, but really? How does exposing yourself provocatively say anything except destroy the beauty of the female body. In my opinion it does. Let's look at Hilary Clinton. She's running for President of the United States, and she is doing it with her clothes on. Thats bold and thats radical in itself. It's not like females are addicted to exposing themselves, showing their sexual side and provocatively inducing themselves to sexual acts at every moment they have just to support an emergent movement. They're females, not beasts. At least they should be. That's just gross. And maybe I don't get it. so I'll say it. I just don't get it.
Ok, so it's art. It's speaking revelations. That's fine. But honestly what isn't art? Couldn't they have gotten their message across with less graphic of images? I guess I understand that it wanted to be something that no one had ever seen before. This movement wanted to shock its viewers and let them know that they were serious. But if you think about, it's not like we haven't seen a nude female before. I just didn't appreciate the way these women presented themselves in each of these photographs. I felt like the way these women were represented diminished the beauty of the female body. I like to put women on a pedestal; hold them as a foreign object; like a rare breed that's hard to lure. It's romantic, it keeps the game interesting. it keeps a driving passion. Maybe thats my closet romantic side talking. It's also interesting to note that this is probably what they wanted. They know that the female body is beautiful so they're agreeing to disagree with everyone, and show them that they are more than just an object of beauty. But of voice, power and attitude. I think this art still has relevance today because this art form still has not become a norm in todays society, and will always be knocking at societies door until it gets let it. And that may never happen, so thus Whack! exists and will probably continue to exist in future societies. Once this art form is a norm, well, the end of the world is probably near. I just thought this style of pronunciation was overbearing and in your face sexual. I apparently was unaware that we communicated with our genitalia. I like the idea behind it, way behind it. It's powerful. Im just still 13 and can't appreciate this style of art.
Sculpture Center
Each installation within the sculpture center had to do with the idea of what is Modern. Let along, what makes it modern? The idea is that once an object is taken out of its natural environment how can it function as it is supposed to since its design is manufactured for specificity. Or is it? Once an object is taken out of its environment does it still function the same way? does it still serve its design purpose? And is it still modern? Then what is modern, and what makes it modern?
One of Tim Burrs installations that really got me was this one.
He used redish stage lights that transcended upon the wooden stage of this piece while a black american flag hung over pipes that encased the red, wooden floor. i found this incredibly intriguing; it plays with the idea of stage and theater: the act of depicting a story. The black american flag appears to be drained of its color which has now been bleed onto the floor. While the floor and whole piece is encased by prison like bars; perhaps indicating limited freedom. Again, the poles also seem to add a stage like attitude. There are many theatrical elements taken out of their habitat, and now serve as an installation in the sculpture center. So is it modern art? Are they still functioning? This is the question. In my mind they are. So does that make it modern? Technically. In my opinion. There is also a knocked over chair representing something of a struggle or opposition. Its quite the political piece. Tim Burr Incorporates many objects that have been taken out of their natural environments, he includes many theatrical elements incorporated into a space that blend as one to narrate a story. He seems to maintain the idea the life is a script. Wow, that's deep.
No comments:
Post a Comment