When I saw the title I didn't really know what to think of this article. I liked that it didn't tell you right off the bat what the Nipple Jesus was and also that it didn't tell you the meaning of the artwork at first. It makes you think, why would someone make a picture of Jesus out of little pictures of nipples. To me I took it as the meaning that nothing is always as it seems. When you look at it from far away you see a pretty picture but then once you get up close and personal you are taken aback and your opinion changes. It is kind of like the saying you can't judge a book by its cover. The meaning the artist had was different which shows that artwork can have many different meanings to everyone. Something else I liked about this article was that the main characters views on the piece of artwork changed so much. I know that sometimes I will complete a paper or something reread over and over it and be satisfied and then go back the next day and I do not like it at all and I change a lot of the wording. I feel that this is that same concept. When you spend a lot of time with something you have a lot of time to think about that and your initial thoughts may not always be your final thoughts.
Something I did not like about this article was that it was too random. The order was a little confusing and the author started talking about one thing and make the character go off in random tangents about other things. I think that I would have liked this article a lot more had it not been so non-orderly. Also, I think that it started off a little slow and there were many parts that really didn't need to be added. Overall, i felt, the article was good but the arrangement was wrong.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Response to Walker and Barrett articles
One thing that I liked about the Walker article was the examples. The author provides many examples of artwork and artists to get their point across. This really helped me understand so of the ideas better rather than just saying them with out examples. I believe it is important to have examples because they help the reader understand and if the reader doesn't understand then they won't be interested in the article any more. Another thing I liked was the subject matter or big idea section. I liked this because it showed you that you can incorporate a lot of different things into your artwork but yet still maintain your big idea.
One thing I did not like about the Walker article was the theme vs big idea part. I was not fully able to understand how the theme and big idea are not always the same thing. To me it seems like they should be the same thing because a theme is a big idea of a piece of work. I always viewed the theme to be a major part of something; you always try and find the theme of a book or project which is mainly what your work is about. I did like how he used examples however I feel that that part could have been explained a little more.
The part of the Barrett article that stuck out most to me was the interpreting part. I thought that it was cool how the different ages can pick out the connotations and denotations of certain things. Normally you don't think of preschoolers able to do this but when given something as simple as a teddy bear they can. I also thought it was cool the level of ability the kindergartners had in separating the cereal boxes. I know its not a hard thing to do but it is cool to see that they understand at such a young age how the look of something targets a different audience.
Something that I didn't really like in the Barrett article was that he didn't define connotations and denotations very clearly in the beginning. I feel that he should have provided a better understanding of what they are before just jumping in and talking about them. I believe that it turns readers away if they don't have any clue what the author is writing about unless it says in the beginning. The idea of connotations and denotations itself is great but how is someone supposed to understand an article if they don't know what it is even talking about.
One thing I did not like about the Walker article was the theme vs big idea part. I was not fully able to understand how the theme and big idea are not always the same thing. To me it seems like they should be the same thing because a theme is a big idea of a piece of work. I always viewed the theme to be a major part of something; you always try and find the theme of a book or project which is mainly what your work is about. I did like how he used examples however I feel that that part could have been explained a little more.
The part of the Barrett article that stuck out most to me was the interpreting part. I thought that it was cool how the different ages can pick out the connotations and denotations of certain things. Normally you don't think of preschoolers able to do this but when given something as simple as a teddy bear they can. I also thought it was cool the level of ability the kindergartners had in separating the cereal boxes. I know its not a hard thing to do but it is cool to see that they understand at such a young age how the look of something targets a different audience.
Something that I didn't really like in the Barrett article was that he didn't define connotations and denotations very clearly in the beginning. I feel that he should have provided a better understanding of what they are before just jumping in and talking about them. I believe that it turns readers away if they don't have any clue what the author is writing about unless it says in the beginning. The idea of connotations and denotations itself is great but how is someone supposed to understand an article if they don't know what it is even talking about.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Response to the Kidd, Hickey and Weschler articles
Something that I found useful in the Kidd article was that it shows you that you don't have to use many standards in art. For instance, normally the more important thing goes on the left, but in art it doesn't have to. If you are creating a piece of art work with different images or drawings within the same piece there are no standards as to where the most important picture goes. The artwork as a whole is important. In fact, I believe it is more important to place the more extravagant side of your piece on the right since most people may read or look at it from the left. That way the viewer will see the better part last.
Something I didn't really like about the Kidd article was that it was a little confusing. Some parts I didn't understand as well. When the author said that the enemy was always coming from the left I didn't necessarily agree. I guess I just don't understand his thought process on this. I was able to see connections to art in the article but I don't believe I completely understood what the author was talking about.
Something I found useful in the Hickey article was that we can define our own art and what is acceptable. Rules are always changing and Hickey shows that we can define what is acceptable as we go along. We don't think of every possibility until it happens so you will never have every rule set in play. I believe that art does not have any rules. Many things can be considered as art so it is hard to limit yourself when working on a project. You will never know until you try something if it will work out or not.
Something I did not like about the Hickey article was that I don't really think I got the full connection with art as there was. When he says that "art wins" I don't fully understand what he is talking about. I don't really think of basketball as art. Also, I don't understand how rule changes make basketball art unless I am just missing the point completely which is always a possibility.
In the Weschler article I found that the complexity of the face in animation is engaging. When you think of a face, something you see everyday and many of, you don't think about how much detail there is and how much expression it has the potential of. Weschler talks about how animators have a hard time creating faces and expressions. This makes sense but it is something I have never thought about before. An actor/actress and move their face any way they need to according to the motion they need to portray but creating an emotion from scratch is hard to do since the animation cannot do it itself.
One thing I didn't really like in the Weschler article was the milk analogy. I had a hard time following along with that and I don't think I fully understood it. I feel that he could have just explained what was going on without referring to the milk. I took milk as being the lighting of the face and the glow that it has, which could be wrong but thats what I got out of it. In that case I guess the skim milk would be a duller lighting, I really am not sure.
Something I didn't really like about the Kidd article was that it was a little confusing. Some parts I didn't understand as well. When the author said that the enemy was always coming from the left I didn't necessarily agree. I guess I just don't understand his thought process on this. I was able to see connections to art in the article but I don't believe I completely understood what the author was talking about.
Something I found useful in the Hickey article was that we can define our own art and what is acceptable. Rules are always changing and Hickey shows that we can define what is acceptable as we go along. We don't think of every possibility until it happens so you will never have every rule set in play. I believe that art does not have any rules. Many things can be considered as art so it is hard to limit yourself when working on a project. You will never know until you try something if it will work out or not.
Something I did not like about the Hickey article was that I don't really think I got the full connection with art as there was. When he says that "art wins" I don't fully understand what he is talking about. I don't really think of basketball as art. Also, I don't understand how rule changes make basketball art unless I am just missing the point completely which is always a possibility.
In the Weschler article I found that the complexity of the face in animation is engaging. When you think of a face, something you see everyday and many of, you don't think about how much detail there is and how much expression it has the potential of. Weschler talks about how animators have a hard time creating faces and expressions. This makes sense but it is something I have never thought about before. An actor/actress and move their face any way they need to according to the motion they need to portray but creating an emotion from scratch is hard to do since the animation cannot do it itself.
One thing I didn't really like in the Weschler article was the milk analogy. I had a hard time following along with that and I don't think I fully understood it. I feel that he could have just explained what was going on without referring to the milk. I took milk as being the lighting of the face and the glow that it has, which could be wrong but thats what I got out of it. In that case I guess the skim milk would be a duller lighting, I really am not sure.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
About me
I am a senior at The Ohio State University graduating June 10th, 2012. My major is zoology and I hope to pursue a career working with endangered species. I have previously had an animal specialist internship at COSI Science Center. This spring/summer I will be interning at the Columbus Zoo. I also volunteer at the Ohio Wildlife Center hospital and help care for the animals until they are able to be released back into the wild. I am original from the Youngstown Ohio area. I have one older sister and one older brother. I am very family oriented. I also have 2 large dogs, Banshee and Bandit, and a 19 year old cat, Bugs. My favorite colors are orange and yellow. I hope that one day I can open up a non-kill shelter for homeless dogs and cats. I like to take pictures and create art when I have some free time. Basketball and volleyball are are my favorite sports to play but football is my favorite sport to watch. GO BUCKS!!
My top 5 favorite animals are
1. Wolf
2. Dog
3. Horse
4. Cat
5. Eagle
My top 5 favorite animals are
1. Wolf
2. Dog
3. Horse
4. Cat
5. Eagle
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)