Pirates of the Smithsonian

         The debate over the morality of recovering and presenting the treasure findings from a shipwreck in the Indonesian Ocean has given the Smithsonian Museum an immense amount of hype! Whether it was the hype the Smithsonian was looking for, is a different story. 
            I watched the trailer for the exhibition and listened to the news reports on the NRP media player regarding the controversy. Hearing both sides of the story from the NPR news report gave me a little more insight to where the Smithsonian thought they had the right to display these artifacts. However, as I see where those on the Smithsonian side are coming from, that these artifacts are being used to educate, I still believe that the Smithsonian has no right to these findings. I understand that it is a controversy in its own whether or not the discovery of these trade items were looted or not. I also believe that they should be considered looted items and one of the Smithsonian's own regulations is not to display any looted findings. The country they came from  (China) has the right to obtain these beautiful trade items. If China agreed that they should go to be shown and preserved in the Smithsonian Museum, then I see no issue. On the other hand, China is the owner of these items and if they would like them back, they deserve full rights to them, without debate. 
         In our "Practices of Looking" textbook, a couple examples were given for situations similar to this. Saartje Baartman. Before reading the textbook, this was just another name, and one that I certainly had difficulty pronouncing. Although, after reading the section about her, I felt an incredibly heavy feeling in my heart. This woman was on display in French slideshows and society events, "hawking her as an anatomical curiosity on the basis of her buttocks and labia (described as unusually large)" as stated in the textbook. Then when she passed, efforts to have Saartje's body returned to South Africa were rejected for almost 40 years. This woman did not belong to the Musee de l'Homme where she was put on display after her death. She belonged to be back in South Africa where they wanted her body returned in order to give a proper burial according to her Khosian tradition. The museum should be respecting the traditions, not treating Saartje as an inhumane object and be thankful for being able to hold the display while they were allowed. However, her body did not belong to them. South Africa, I believe, did the right thing, holding a burial to the proper tradition. 
         I tried to use logic to further understand the side of the Smithsonian by placing myself in the situation. Lets say I was  traveling to another country and I dropped some beautiful artifact into the ocean while I was on a boat, and several years later, I die. If someone found those artifacts, I would want my mother and family to have them because thats where they came from. If my family thought it was important enough to be displayed in a museum, that would be okay, but if they refused to give the items to my family and they desperately wanted them for tradition or whatever their reason, thats where they should be. 
         In my opinion, the Smithsonian had no intention of looting these trade items or taking what isn't theirs. I understand their reasoning for wanting the treasures, even. However, I don't think they should be displayed there. They should be given back to the country they came from. Part of the fun and interest of going to a museum in any place is to learn more about the area you are in. China could set up a museum and place these findings there. After all, they are part of their culture, not ours. 

Milton Glaser

     While watching the documentary about Milton Glaser, I became completely fascinated with this man.  His ideas were so unique and different. His definition of art was "making things to sell for money". However, when he came up with the I ♥ NY idea, he did not make any money from it, so I don't feel this was his REAL definition of art as time went on. He later found a definition of art that he began to love, which said, "the purpose of art is to inform and delight". I think with all of Milton's ideas and creations, he achieved the second definition and it applies to his life better than the first definition does.

      Later in the documentary, Milton makes a statement "We should always operate by interruption". I think this means that he loves the multitasking and background noise that comes with creating his work. This is why he will work on something while he is on the phone and why he chooses to stay in his building, next to the school yard, where children play and scream. The best ideas come when you aren't constantly focusing on what will make it the best. The unexpected happens for a reason. For example, for the 40th anniversary poster that was designed with logos altered on the poster at different angles, the edges of some of the logo's began to lift. He decided that it looked better with the edges coming up than it did with everything pressed completely down. The interruption of his artwork/design is what made it more interesting and what might capture the public's attention. "It's much better than what you thought it would be," is another quote Milton made and I think it pertains to this example perfectly. A final quote from the movie that I think corresponds to the interruptions in which we should operate is when he said, "If you pass, great. If you fail, even greater". Failing is an interruption in life but it makes room for improvement which can make any artwork or design (or anything in life, really) greater than it was, had you never failed. 

    Milton Glaser is a very interesting man and I think he has great ideas that the world needs to be more exposed to. 

Ambient Advertising

          "What the HELL is ambient advertising?" These were my exact thoughts as my teacher brought up the topic in class. However, she sent out a chapter from a book with examples about what it is. Now I actually understand it! Ambient advertising is the advertisement that is found within our surroundings. This could be something like floor stickers or ads at the bus stop. So in other words,  in some place you wouldn't EXPECT to see an advertisement. I think this kind of advertising is effective to anyone, especially the Otterbein community because it will catch the student's attention. As a student myself, I am so used to advertisements on the television, and in magazines that I no longer pay attention to them. I do, however, notice the chalk drawings on the way to class, advertising a program going on at the school or the statistics of poverty, suicide deaths, etc because it is not in a typical place that you would see advertisements and it is making you aware of it since it is outside of the typical media. 

          I went and explored the website http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/ and looked at ambient advertising examples and I found some that really struck my attention. 

       This ad was designed and used around chandeliers, light switches, doors and plants. The ad is not targeting a specific person or age group,  but to anyone to show that inspiration can be found anywhere, in everyday things.  I chose this example of ambient advertisement because I would never expect to see an advertisement at an office desk or by a chandelier. I think this is most effective because others also wouldn't expect to see an ad in these simple, every day places. 

        This was my favorite example of ambient advertising. This ad was meant to show the "wrinkle free" steam wash that this washer provides.  The laundry bag was given to neighborhood laundries to deliver their ironed clothes in. The ad is targeting adults that want to have clean, wrinkle-free clothes right out of the washer so they don't have to take the time to iron clothes. I chose this ad because I thought it was very creative. This became a walking advertisement, which is why this advertisement is so effective. It looks like the ironed clothes are inside the washer. It catches your eye, thinking someone is carrying a washer. It would make you stop and look. I love this advertisement and how effective it is!

Pablo Picasso

Provide us with a brief bio the abstract painter, explain why you chose them, 5 samples of the artists' work. Make sure the report is in your own words.

Pablo Picasso was born on October 25,1881 in Magala, Spain. His talent was recognized early in his life because his father was a drawing master. When Picasso turned 15, he had his own studio and in 1904 he moved to Paris to continue his career in an artistic place. One of the many reasons Picasso was more intriguing than his competetitors was because his art was always different, there were many different sides of him and his paintings. In 1925, Picasso began drawing and painting distorted. Picasso also expressed himself in sculptures and ceramics. In the 1930's Picasso's work seemed to be results of events, such as Guernica which was to show the response to the horrors of the Spanish Civil War. At age 91, Pablo Picasso died on April 8,1973. Although Picasso has passed, his legend and his works of art live on.

I didn't start off wanting to research Picasso. I was hoping to do an artist I have never heard of. I had a lot of great choices in mind! However, the library by my house did not have any books based on those people. They did have Picasso though. So, I thought about Pablo Picasso because we have heard so much about him throughout school and when I took a french class, we discussed art and Pablo Picasso was one of the artists we talked about. However, we saw his paintings and knew he was an abstract painter. But what else did I know about him? Nothing. So, after trying to be origional, I became more interested in Pablo Picasso. I have included some of the pieces by Pablo Picasso that I found to be most interested in.

Harrell Fletcher Convocation (Attended)

Discuss the concept about Harrell's Garage Sale Series. What kinds of relationships were identified? What was his reasoning behind it? How was this project a reflection of community arts?

 

 

      Harrell Fletcher is a creative artist who is very community based in all of his work. I thoroughly enjoyed this convocation. He was a little monotone and had thousands of projects to talk about all in about 200 slides and to be completely honest, I was expecting to be bored. However, it was quite the opposite. The projects this man has participated in and the stories of how it came to be were incredibly intruiging. I was most impressed when listening to the story about the french boy who got to create his own sculpture... a turtle. How simple?! Harrell made this little boy an atist all from an idea, as he got to follow the entire process an artist would go through.

     Although Fletcher had many interesting projects, another one he discussed was his "Garage Sale Series" where he went to a garage sale and would pick an object that was random or interesting to him and put it on display. Each trinket had a tag on it that described all about that piece, which he got from information from the family it came in. There were many relationships that could be indentified from this project ranging from the relationship between Harrell and the owner of the object, the relationship between the owner and the object and the relationship between Harrell and the object. Harrell would listen to all these stories about these objects, and he typed the stories up on a type writer and made the tags about the objects all himself. He was able to understand the owner and take one a new view point to connect to the owner. There is an obvious connection between the owner and the object. Something drew that person to buy, keep, or sell that object. It usually had lots of meaning behind it. Lastly, Harrell and the object. There was something that also went off in Harrell's mind, just like when the owner chooses to buy or keep an object, that told him to choose that particular object and make it a piece of art. His reasoning behind this project was to bring the community together. Many people see similar objects around, but all objects have a different story behind them.

      This project was a prime example to show the reflection of Harrell's projects relating to community arts. All these people he got objects from were able to come together and look at all the different momentos from each family. So many people participate in garage sales and no one ever stops to think about the stories each object entails. This exhibit Fletcher created gives people a chance to stop, read and react to each object...(something I know, I don't ever do when I walk around a typical garage sale)... and to learn all about what they are looking at.

 

IS Symposium assignment. (Did not attend)

QUESTION:

We see a lot of peep in our daily lives that seem harmless and celebrates life. But what about the peep that looks at the end of a person’s life? Comment on your reaction to The Bridge and the German artist who plans to display someone dying for people to witness in a museum.

Have we crossed the line? But isn’t death a natural part of life? Discuss using points in the PDf text provided to you on The Peep Diaries as well as the Practices of Looking text pgs 214-215 regarding the Fading Away photograph.

Use various sources to help support your argument, not just opinion. I want substance, not fluff, so really spend time crafting your response. Consider all angles of life and death from all points of view. Research other cultures beyond your own.

      Over share. This technology being provided to us is constantly giving us the ability to over share and we take advantage of it. We share everything about our lives and people post it on the web for anyone to see, even things that people looking (whoever they may be!) probably have no interest in viewing. Sharing is so addicting that without consciously realizing it, we begin to overshare.

       When I learned about the German artist who plans to display someone dying in a museum, my jaw almost dropped to the floor. Who would do that? Is that some sort of joke? Museums are meant to show artistic ability, interesting ideas, and various sculptures, not for human beings to be displayed on their death bed.

       Thinking back on the peep culture that I participate in doesn't seem so bad, but watching someone die? That sure as HELL crosses a line! Death is a private, personal moment, not only for those going through it, but for the family members of the loved one as well. The peep culture such as updating statuses when loved ones pass away or are sick and have just been diagnosed are acceptable. Family, friends, and co-workers want to know when something tragic happens so they can be there to console, support, and help as much as they possible can. 

      Yes, death is a natural part of life, but seeing it take place and being aware of the loss of someone are two totally different things and watching is take place is where peep culture begins to get out of hand and we cross a line.

      Family of the loved one does not want to share that final moment of their life with other by standers. Those last final moments prepare the family to begin to adapt to the big adjustment the death with bring in their lives, give them a chance to say goodbye, and start to grieve. Being watched while having to share that private, intimate moment with someone else let alone other peepers, is not acceptable.

      Other cultures are in tune with the peep culture. Just like the "Peep Diaries" mentions, Canada is just as nosy as Americans. They are peeping just as much as we are. I know people in Europe who have facebook's and blogs. We stay in touch and are caught up in each others lives this way. Peeping is so harmless until it crosses a line. People in other countries find death to be sacred. Other countries don't even have computers. This idea of peep culture would be a complete new world to them. They would be astonished at what we already share all over the web. Imagine if we started oversharing to the point where we displayed people dying on the web. Do Americans really need to be frowned upon, even more than we already are? 

      Oversharing is addictive and easy. Our attention is grabbed like when watching a bad car accident; you can't help but look out of curiosity. This explains why we constantly jump on facebook and just sit there and click on everyone's profiles. We're curiously trying to see what is going on in our friends' lives. However, THERE IS A LINE, and even though death is a natural part of life, it is not natural for it to be shared with everyone in the world as it happens.

Double Standards of Gender

Why do you think there is a double standard when we look at gender in art verses in advertisements? Women seem to be idolized in fine arts while being exploited in advertisements and commercials.

        Today, women are being exposed in an array of different media every day in things such as magazines, television, tabloids, billboards, internet and many other forms. However, compared to modern day advertisements, women being portrayed in art are idolized and not exploited.

        In fine art, women were appreciated for how they originally looked because they were not airbrushed or forced to look like the definition of what society believes is beautiful. Women were portrayed as beautiful in the eyes of the artist. Art is just there to be appreciated and make the spectator think. There is no competition trying to sell a piece of art, like there is in advertisements. Also, fine art is high class so society appreciated the art aspect, and didnt focus on the fact that the woman or man was nude.

         In advertisments, the sole purpose is to sell or bring attention to a product or organization. There is always some form of competition to try to come out "on top". For example, advertisements selling cologne ads use women as a sex icon to try to persuade men to buy their product. If men see that they will be attacked by women from using a certain cologne, they will be tempted to buy that cologne in the hopes of having women flock to them also. Today, most women are viewed as sexual if seen nude, compared to in Europe where seeing a nude woman in an advertisement is common. However, our society has standards that says its inappropriate, and if a woman is nude, shows too much skin or acts a certain way, it is scandelous, and sexual.

        So, women in fine art were idolized because they were beautiful in the eyes of an artist. Women today are forced to follow the definition of beauty from what the society decides is beautiful and so they are exploited because they use sex in order to show beauty or sell a product. Art did not focus on the subject, but the meaning, whereas advertisements focus on the subject.