Studio Visit 2

On Friday I had a photo major come and talk with me about my work that I am doing right now. He pointed out that the folded flowers could be taken as some sort of statement on Japan or the Asian culture in general because of their origins in origami. This could be a problem but I wanted to keep the orderly aspect of paper folding as a contradiction to the chaos the storms cause. In the end I decided to mix making paper flowers by cut outs and folded flowers. He and I felt that some of the image should be recognizable and was needed if I wanted people to get the connection between the storm and the organized flower.

Studio Visit

Friday was my studio visit and I have to say that it was very helpful. I am currently focusing on monotypes related to home (Kansas). I told my group about how I wanted to create these destructive images and then make them into some type of sculptural object like flowers. It is a representation on the cycle of nature- destruction turning into life.

I received suggestions such as: the movement of storms and how it relates to me, digging deeper into the storms and destruction itself, perhaps making it more violent, using film as a medium, and making the prints into something other than the flowers.

I did like all of these suggestions but I am not sure if I will go with any of them yet. I want to keep the idea of making them into flowers because the flowers are a symbol for me of how life returns after the destruction. I prefer to make soft sculptures though I probably could not tell you why at this time. I need to do a bit more digging on why I make all of the decisions I make so I can give people a better idea of where I am coming from and where I want to go with this.

Reading Response 2

These two essays work well together; they touch on pretty much the same topic but have different ways in discussing it. Halley writes about why art and ideas change so much (especially Western art) and how these changes come about. Benjamin writes about a similar idea but focuses more on the industrial age specifically and how new inventions change art.

Interestingly enough, both writers had a similar idea of what “old” art possesses. Halley calls it the soul or essence while Benjamin refers to it as an aura. The soul and aura seem to be two sides of the same coin but each writer describes it differently. Halley describes the soul of art as a way of returning to nature. Benjamin talks about the aura being particular to each piece of art in its original time and form. It would have been interesting for me if Halley had written more about the soul’s position when he was elaborating on how the ideas of art came to change so drastically.

I was more interested in the idea of an aura and how an abject would lose its aura if it were reproduced. We see so many reproductions of art nowadays, does that mean that the original no longer holds its aura or value because of all the reproductions that are made and distributed? I think the aura is never lost but at the same time I don’t think we can fully appreciate it if we were not a part of the time that the piece was made in.