I am a keeper. I wish I had the time to upcycle as much as I would like to. Trash? Hardly.
I do imagine that bottle of perfume someday (not far) at the MOMA.
Abraham: Why is the colour and the form of the recipient so attractive to you?
Hector: You said the pieces seem futuristic, why dont you look for the characteristics that make an item futuristic?
Marco: Good job! Can you describe how you think the perfume smells like?, and also, why do you think it smells good?
Aldo: I really liked your comment on the Veteran´s flame, in the other one, I think you should write more, I know you have very intereting ideas to share with us.
Luis Mario: Very good comments, I wonder why former soldiers would feel as well. On the other comment, I like how you say that you like the curves and the way you can hold the container, the word for describing that is sensual because you are appealing to senses.
César: Do you think modern and futuristic share the same attributes?
Mr. Martin: You say that the bag sent you an idea, arent beauty and sophistication ideas as well?
Azul and Melissa: Share more thoughts with us, dont limit yourself.
Mariana and Andra: Why did you decide that the perfume is for man? What characteristics made you think that?
Mayram: Good job! but only one comment!
Jorge: Liked your comments , you have good ideas but you need to express yourself beyond the first comment. Why do you think it is weird?
Paco: Is it possible that there is an intention and you missed it? I LOVE the idea of the real flame. Museums show clothes and other items from popular culture as pieces of art frequently.
Paco and Alex: Congratulations! you are the only ones who actually used the information we have discussed in class. Im quite happy with your work.
Charlie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to Charlie (obviously):
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm sure they do show clothes and items in museums... But there is a great difference between something shown in a museum, and something you use.
I might be a little hard with my opinion, but to me a piece of art is not wearable. The moment you wear it, it stops being art. And those items you showed us were meant to be used, not behold.
I'll give you an example: If I go around wearing a black hat, it is just a hat, just another cloth; but if I put my hat in a desk, inside a dark empty classroom... God! That'd be very artistic. That, because there you are beholding the hat. There is a context, a situation. There is an intention. The hat in the desk is telling me something that the hat I’m wearing does not. And yes, it might be art while using it, but not for the user, only for the artistic eye which sees it.
Psssch... I've just realized that the art actually IS in the eye of the beholder. And what I was trying to describe is that the art made by an artist is art, because the artist has a responsibility: To make his art beholdable. This way, the other people can concretize your artwork, and acknowledge it as art itself. That would be the same as having the ability to make an analogue of what is in your head, in wherever (as Sartre said, now that I think of it...).
Anyway, despite of the responsibility of the artist of making his art beholdable, anything can be art. That, of course, for someone who has the ability to concretize anything he has in front.
Anyway, what I was saying is that those items are not art because they are not beholdable; not intentionally, at least (though anything can be, as I’ve already said). So they are not art. Or maybe they are intentionally beholdable, but failed at it, because that does not happen for something wearable.
I hope I explained myself accurately.
Off-topicly; I've just realized that we're such a big FAILURE, in Art and Culture subject, compared to the other group. xD I've just read them, and... Well, just by reading Charlie's comments you can tell... x)