Posts

Showing posts with the label art

recent art-muckings

Image
(excuse the low-quality images; everything looks cooler in real life) (this same reason should be used to actually go hiking, however cool someone can make a landscape look through photoshop) comic relief series (these are cooler in person because they are fun to touch) he lives in you (lion king + spiritual element + paper play) these are terrible photos. all the more reason to come hang out in real life. have a wonderful saturday. i will. i'm going on two nights of eight-hour sleep! (this is unheard of, you realize, in the world of an undergrad sophomore) and i am done with my big paper. i'm not going to post it here; it's like twenty pages. places to pray for today: france, japan, santa barbara.

more paper posting: public art

Image
Art Apologetics How Maria Alquilar’s “The Doors” demonstrates the relationship of public art, public artist, and public, and why each of these should be sorry when the relationship fails Like all personal or museum-quality art, public art faces the challenge of straddling several relational situations. Upon presentation, each piece begs a series of questions: Whom is the piece meant for? Which conversation is it a part of? What is the audience trying to say to the public? What is the artist trying to say to a specific group or person? What is the artist trying to say to his or her self? Is the artist even trying to say anything? Was the artist asked to say something? Was the artist forced to say something? After the original placement of an art within the public sphere, these original questions settle and yet, a dialogue still remains. Some public art (like Biola’s own “Jesus Mural”) is a gift; other art (think graffiti) is a statement. Thanks to the sense of “shock value” brought int...

speaking of art...

Image
this is probably my favorite painting. "Peter and John Running to the Tomb," by Eugene Bernard, a reference to John 20:3. i actually found the picture of it on a few other blogs, and it seemed like very few people were aware of it's existence, so i wanted to share it. it lives at the Musee d'Orsay in france; i hope to go visit it again one day. it hangs right next to the best rendition of the cruxifion i have ever seen (and there are a lot of crucifixion paintings. a LOT) by Russian painter Nikolai Gay. there's a lot to be said for "Peter and John...", and i feel like i should say a lot for it, given the post about learning about and understanding art, but i'll just leave it at: i'm not resistant to doing that and there is a lot to be said for a piece that can communicate so much so powerfully so well. kind of like God ("Here's the World. Here's the Word. Go for it.") this piece is particularly stirring in light of Korrine's...

i never actually draw in art class

Siedell, right off the bat in “Altars to the Unknown God,” makes a reckless assertion: “We think we know what art is. And that is the problem.” The word “know” makes me think of the old adage “ignorance is bliss.” I’ve been wrestling with the basic impression of “ignorance is bliss,” which tells me that if I want to be happy, I shouldn’t seek knowledge. This is immediately frustrating given that I am attending a private university for undergraduate-level education: I am paying loads of money to become less content. That doesn’t seem logical; it (the concept of seeking to become sorrowful) doesn’t seem the sort of institution that should have lasted since the foundation of Oxford around 1100 AD, particularly since institutions like this teach what is logical. What am I missing? A few days ago my mother, in discussing her education, said something along the lines of: “All my Master’s taught me was how much I don’t know.” A friend’s father echoed the same notion, that his “education j...