Dada Manifestos
In Hugo Ball's interpretation of what dada is, it doesn't quite make sense. He defines the word "dada" as being terribly simple and that it is just a word. It seems as though he is just making fun of what the word dada means. How it can make you famous or how it can give you eternal bliss. But at the end of the reading, it makes sense of what he is trying to say. That dada doesn't really mean anything at all but at the same time it means everything. It means art and life. It can mean anything you want it to mean. He wanted to evoke emphasis on the meaning of dada. Tristan Tzara explains that dada means nothing. Compared to Hugo Ball's written piece about dada, it is almost opposite. Dada means a lot of things to Ball as where Tzara is saying that dada meanings not much. "Dada Disgusts" He thoughts sound a little all over the place and is hard to follow. He gives plenty of example of why dada doesn't mean anything but then ends the manifesto with LIFE. Overall Tzara made it seem as though he was trying to show his readers the definition of dada by writing something that means nothing in the end.
Situationists
What is everyday life? People go throughout the days just living, not having any specialized
activities. Everyday life isn’t everything there is to life. The author is saying that everything stems from everyday life. Everyday life is governed by the fact that people have little free time and what they do with that free time. There is a poverty of creativeness and expression that lends to everyday life beings meaningless. “There is nothing accidental about this poverty of everyday life: it is a poverty that is constantly imposed by the coercion and violence of a society divided into classes, a poverty historically organized in line with the evolving requirements of exploitation.” People’s lives having big parts of their lives missing but they can’t tell. People are running this world and our society without any means of what is real. They don’t have the power over what has happened in history. Now that technology is a big part in society, it is almost taking over. People are not getting caught up with the fact that technology is getting smarter than them. Everyday life uses technology constantly. The author says that drugs for example are the only way to question life. That capitalism is ruling the world. So what would people do in life that wouldn’t be a waste of time? I didn’t get the answer to that question through the reading but I guess we are all in the modern form of slavery.
Hito Steyerl The world is filled with poor images. They are taken from place to place throughout the digital world, reformatted, and changed from what it started with. Low resolutions are a problem in the world. Low-resolution photographs or videos are not pleasing to neither look at nor have as much power as a high-resolution picture. Poor images that have been resurrected are still not worth showing to some people. You can find pretty much anything online that you could ever want to see. People have copied it over and over into different formats to put in different places on the Internet. This leads to piracy. “Poor images are poor because they are not assigned any value within the class society of images.” Their status is degrading to the image itself. There are so many bad poor images that are circulating throughout the online world. There are so many experimental and artistic materials that are being downgraded in a way that makes it a poor image. The author is leading to the discussion that poor images and popular images and that can be seen by a mass of people. Steyerl is trying to defend the poor image. The digital world has come so far from the beginning of photography and photographs. Photographs now have less meaning then they used to. Especially when advertisements are seen everywhere and photos are passed around and edited and than edited again over and over.
Maria Lind
In Hugo Ball's interpretation of what dada is, it doesn't quite make sense. He defines the word "dada" as being terribly simple and that it is just a word. It seems as though he is just making fun of what the word dada means. How it can make you famous or how it can give you eternal bliss. But at the end of the reading, it makes sense of what he is trying to say. That dada doesn't really mean anything at all but at the same time it means everything. It means art and life. It can mean anything you want it to mean. He wanted to evoke emphasis on the meaning of dada. Tristan Tzara explains that dada means nothing. Compared to Hugo Ball's written piece about dada, it is almost opposite. Dada means a lot of things to Ball as where Tzara is saying that dada meanings not much. "Dada Disgusts" He thoughts sound a little all over the place and is hard to follow. He gives plenty of example of why dada doesn't mean anything but then ends the manifesto with LIFE. Overall Tzara made it seem as though he was trying to show his readers the definition of dada by writing something that means nothing in the end.
Situationists
What is everyday life? People go throughout the days just living, not having any specialized
activities. Everyday life isn’t everything there is to life. The author is saying that everything stems from everyday life. Everyday life is governed by the fact that people have little free time and what they do with that free time. There is a poverty of creativeness and expression that lends to everyday life beings meaningless. “There is nothing accidental about this poverty of everyday life: it is a poverty that is constantly imposed by the coercion and violence of a society divided into classes, a poverty historically organized in line with the evolving requirements of exploitation.” People’s lives having big parts of their lives missing but they can’t tell. People are running this world and our society without any means of what is real. They don’t have the power over what has happened in history. Now that technology is a big part in society, it is almost taking over. People are not getting caught up with the fact that technology is getting smarter than them. Everyday life uses technology constantly. The author says that drugs for example are the only way to question life. That capitalism is ruling the world. So what would people do in life that wouldn’t be a waste of time? I didn’t get the answer to that question through the reading but I guess we are all in the modern form of slavery.
Hito Steyerl The world is filled with poor images. They are taken from place to place throughout the digital world, reformatted, and changed from what it started with. Low resolutions are a problem in the world. Low-resolution photographs or videos are not pleasing to neither look at nor have as much power as a high-resolution picture. Poor images that have been resurrected are still not worth showing to some people. You can find pretty much anything online that you could ever want to see. People have copied it over and over into different formats to put in different places on the Internet. This leads to piracy. “Poor images are poor because they are not assigned any value within the class society of images.” Their status is degrading to the image itself. There are so many bad poor images that are circulating throughout the online world. There are so many experimental and artistic materials that are being downgraded in a way that makes it a poor image. The author is leading to the discussion that poor images and popular images and that can be seen by a mass of people. Steyerl is trying to defend the poor image. The digital world has come so far from the beginning of photography and photographs. Photographs now have less meaning then they used to. Especially when advertisements are seen everywhere and photos are passed around and edited and than edited again over and over.
Maria Lind
In this article, Maria Lind is trying to prove that artwork
could actually form a community. Using bikes to get people to come together the
artist used social practice in this work. She got people to come together on
their bikes and be social with each other. Social practice as an art movement
could be described as art that involves more people that objects and that
pushes social and political change. I think that this art movement is a nice
change from other normal practices. It gets people involved and gets people to
make changes in the world. Instead of just making a sculpture that no one
understands or doesn’t care about, these artists are trying to get people to do
something for their country or the world that we live in. Even though this art
practice is questioned that it is even an art practice is normal. Everything is
art is questioned. Social practice has opened up new forms of education. But
social practice is just like any other art movement. Some of it might not
matter but a lot of it makes a difference.
Moyra Davey uses her photography to show in depth of how
photography should be used and how much potential is actually has. She leads us
through her favorite writers and how they describe photography. Davey has a lot
of struggles throughout the notes. She has multiple sclerosis and she has to
get eye surgery. She also struggles with taking photos and making them what she
wants them to be. She seems to focus more on the image itself rather than the
quality of the actual photograph. She is more interested in what is in the
photo. She has a very unique outlook on photography and how she views herself.
I really liked reading this piece. It showed her personality through what she
wrote and I got a better understanding of what she does with her work. Her
photographs seem to focus on mostly daily life. She takes pictures of
newspapers and books, things that are just lying around. I find this type of
photography different than most. Usually people search for the perfect place to
take a picture or set up a scene to make it perfect. A couple of people in our
class used this a take off for their final project. I really like the idea of
taking pictures almost randomly and getting an unexpected result. It gives it a
different type of meaning.
Clusterfuck
Clusterfuck Aesthetics is a newer form of art that pretty
much explains itself. The article called it a new type of thrift store. Just
having different chaos and junk for the art pieces. Mike Kelly was one of the
main artists that started the Clusterfuck art movement. He created his own form
by using found objects or made objects and stacking them on top of each other
or just chaotic. He wanted it to be almost a madhouse of things everywhere.
Kelley wanted his audience to feel as though they were at an exhibition that
was theatrical or felt very staged. His piece included parts from a high school
yearbook. I think that this art movement is very interesting. It is open to so
many different ideas and is opened up to your own imagination. The artist use
chaos as their driving force for their work. I like how these artists use found
objects or made pieces instead of buying things or searching for specific
parts. Instead they see something and put it in their art piece and it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment