Jenny Holzer "Language Games: Interview with Jeanne Siegel"

I really like Jenny Holzer's work. It's just words, but they are statements to grab your attention. I like how she used posters and signs to display her work. She didn't want to use an art gallery to showcase her work, because it seemed to planned. Jenny preferred the idea of her work being stumbled upon. "I think it has the most impact when someone is just walking along, not thinking about anything in particular, and then finds these unusual statements either on a poster or on a sign."

It's also interesting why she chose to use language. She felt that her ideas and thoughts could be expressed no other way. With language, it was forward and to the point, so no one had to wonder. "I was drawn to writing because it was possible to be very explicit about things. If you have crucial issues, burning issues, it's good to say exactly what's right and wrong with them, and then perhaps to show a way that things could be helped."

At the end, she is discussing how short of a period her audience has to see her work. "Since most of my experience is trying to stop people on the street, I'm very aware of how much time you don't have with your audience." I like that she took the challenge and ran with it. Instead of staying safe in a museum, she went out into the streets to grab your attention and change your ways of thinking.

Group material caution! Alternative space! And statement.

“Group Material started as twelve young artist who wanted to develop an independent group that could organize, exhibit and promote an art of social change.”

This is what I’m shooting for.  I want and need a community of artist.  I thought about making an art center of sorts, one that could be ran by artists, that could give artistic lesson, have exhibitions, and hold activist organization meetings, and other events as well.  I feel as though if I worked for a place like this I could live a meaningful and eventful life.

The main problem a came across was location, not that I could not find one in the city that I live in that could capture the attention of the residents here but the problem was the city itself.  There are not enough people that see the importance of the arts so that an establishment of this sort could survive.  The only groupings of artist out here are that of street artist and they are few, young and scared of what is called “fine arts”. This realization was disappointing and is one of the reasons why I need to leave.

This kind of establishment might be possible in an area like this but it would take years. First the city would have to develop more, and more things would have to happen so that the city could incubate a group of people like this. Then finding and gathering them and picking out a few that could help in the development. The next step would be in finding ways of financing something like this, which I have no idea how to do besides small art fairs, art lessons and other events but it I don’t think that alone could fund it.

I also worry that trying to make this happen would eventually take all my attention and I would eventually forget about my own art.

fermin jimenez

Sol LeWitt "Paragraphs on Conceptual Arts"

I really liked how Sol LeWitt talked about conceptual art. "I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea of concept is the most important aspect of the work." I have never really thought about ideas and language as art. I've always just thought about the classic paintings and sculptures. It's interesting to see artists who have done something other than traditional.

I still find it slightly odd that LeWitt didn't actually paint his works, but came up with the idea and instructions. I mean, I guess that's the best way to do it. You get credit for a wonderful work, but you never have to do the manual labor. It's the idea that makes the art. "Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of idea the artist is free to even surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition."

It's also the viewer that interpretes the piece. The artist can present the peice as the way he thought it should be, but the viewers will all have different interpretations. "It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once out of his hand the artist has no control over the way the viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way."

Sol LeWitt " sentences on conceptual art" 1969

I really enjoyed this list of sentences by Sol LeWitt, they where very true, short and easy to apprehend. I have come across very similar thoughts as her' s. All together there where thirty-five sentences, but a few stood out more then the others.

The first one that stood out was number 17. “All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within the conventions of art.”  I have a very similar idea.  I believe that any idea can be art if one perceives it to be, but its up to the individual to accept it or not.  Art has no actual boundaries, no actual rules it has to go by.  Art is a human made idea and it cannot exist without consciousness.  The only set of rules art has is by the ones the individual gives it, but it is only true for the individual.

20. “Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by altering our perception.”  This is usually my goal every time I set out to do a serious work of art.  I feel I have nothing else to give to the world but my ideas and my point of view, and I feel as though it is very different.  However, it can be a burden trying to focus on if a work of art does that or not.

25. “The artist may not necessarily understand his own art.  His perception is neither better nor worse then that of other.”  There are some works I have no idea why I did them.  I just liked doing it, maybe because it was a nice pattern or shape or color.  Honestly I feel as though a lot of work one makes is very influenced by the subconscious, and may not even realize what has been created till one points it out.

There where many more that stood out, but considering its 6:30 in the morning and ive been up all night; I think I’ll stop at three.

- Fermin A. Jimenez (don't get it twisted)

Karen Finley "I Was Not Expected to be Talented"

This article really spoke to me. Being a woman, I can identify with what she is saying. The majority of this piece screams what I have thought at one point or another.

Karen talks about how she wanted a daughter so she could give her daughter the opportunities she never had. I love having a daughter, so I can do those things for her. Karen said, "I feel if I have a daughter I can give her the chances I never had. This is something perhaps only women would understand -- that up to this very day, girls, daughters are killed for being just that. Girls. Daughters. Females. No wonder the entire psyche of women is universally coached to be as desirable as possible, as boring as possible, as cute as possible. Obviously, it's for the survival of the female species." The second part of that quote hit me. I totally understand that. We are trained to be a certain way for approval, for survival. Men still cannot accept women as being strong and equal.

Karen also speaks about not being expected to be talented. I feel the opposite. I feel as if I was expected to be very talented, but I've failed. I understand her, but feel the opposite. I feel as if I have disappointed people. "You know why I only feel comfortable around the collapsed, the broken, the inebriated, the helpless, and the poor -- CAUSE THEY LOOK LIKE WHAT I FEEL INSIDE!" I completely understand that quote. I feel like that the majority of the time. I just put on a mask and pretend everything is okay. That's how society, especially women were trained to act.

"I've been needed, rejected, and desired, but never valued by anyone."

"Women in the Year 2000" by Carolee Schneemann

            In this excerpt one thing caught my attention Carolee Schneemann said "I thought the bare breasted women  bull jumpers, carved in ivory, painted in frescos about 16000 B.C. in crete could have been made by women depicting women. And i considered that the preponderant neolithic fertility figurings might have been crafted by women for themselves-to accompany them through pregnancy and birth-giving." she proceeded to say that her professor disregarded this statement and that she could not prove anything of the sort.  

               this got me thinking of the Venus of Willendorf. i've always imagined it as "man's ideal woman" of the time, it had all the characteristics of a fertile and strong woman. so, who would be better suited to sculpt the ideal woman that could survive at that time then a women. the idea of a women crafting these works of art for women to me, gives it a much stronger impact.  i guess because it would mean that women creating there own image to form themselves to become stronger. creating there own identity! 

              in the neolithic era (i could be wrong in my assumptions) man played a specific role one that had to do with hunting and protection not that of a birth giver or caregiver so why would man create an image of an ideal woman. anyway i could try to convince the reader how this idea makes more sense, but thats not the point.  and i realize this has made such an effect on me because i have all ways imagined men making these works. and i feel that its this automatic assumption, this unknowing sexism that holds women back in the art world.  i assume art is made by men.

"Untitled Guidelines for Happenings" Allan Kaprow

"The line between art and life should be kept as fluid, and perhaps indistinct, as possible."

I really like this quote from Kaprow. I wasn't sure what to get from this article, but I'm going to try.

I feel like he is giving instructions on how to have a "Happening," but at the same time he doesn't

want it to be planned.

I really like where he talked about time. That is probably what stuck out most to me in the

entire article. "Above all, this is 'real' or 'experienced' time as distinct from conceptual time. If it

conforms to the clock used in the Happening, as above, that is legitimate, but if it does not

because a clock is not needed, that is equally legitimate. All of us know how, when we are busy,

time accelerates, and how, conversely, when we are bored it can drag almost to a stand-still. Real

time is always connected with doing something, with an event of some kind, and so is bound up

with things and spaces." This is so true. Time seems to speed up or slow down, depending on how

active we are.

What I got from this is that you can have a "Happening" anywhere, anytime. The act is the art,

whether someone is watching or not.

"Rigging" Richard Serra

Serra talks about how he began by only using his hands and necessary tools to create his art, but as it grew he had to use machinery. He refers to rigging as not using machines and tools, but more of a hand-extension. "All technology is a hand extension -- electricity is a central nervous system extension. He also says that you must rely on your previous experiences to assist you with rigging; that there are no directions or guidelines to follow.

Serra also stated that sculptures shouldn't "attend to architecture" but the art that "has the potential to create its own place and space, and to work in contradiction to the spaces and places where it is created..." I like the idea that the sculpture is its own environment, not relying on its surroundings to create it.

Serra thought that art was being used as a scapegoat by political figures to avoid the real issues at hand, i.e. "the misuse of their taxpayers' money in terms of urban design." It seems that art is an easy target to get upset over and start disagreements, when there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

"Meaningless Work" Walter de Maria

"Meaningless work is obviously the most important and significant art form today." With a statement like that, it's hard not to wonder more about meaningless work. I love Walter's description of meaningless work, how it is meant to be done alone, and "it's something that doesn't bring you money or accomplish a conventional purpose." It almost seems as if meaningless work is something rhythmic, like Jackson Pollock's work; the artist gets into a trance-like state.

It seems Walter was fascinated with nature and natural disasters, thus his appeal to make a lightning field. "I like natural disasters and I think that they may be the highest form of art possible to experience." I really like that statement. I believe, in a sense, that natural disasters are beautiful art if looked at in the right way.

All the thought and research he put into the lightning field seems more like some math homework rather than art. I think it's good that he did all the calculations though. It makes it rhythmic and structured.

"Isolation is the essence of Land Art."

"Installations, Environments, and Sites" Peter Selz

These artists were all about making art in and about nature. They wanted to create the art within the earth and its environment. It seemed they were about keeping things minimal. Christo used fabric for his designs and they were not permanent. He also recycled all the materials he used for his projects. Walter De Maria created the lightning field to create "a stunning relationship between pure, rational, abstract manmade forms and the overwhelming power of nature's earth, sky, and light."

Most artists at this time were not formally trained in the arts. They created their own works on their own.

Everything at this time just seemed to be reall nature-oriented, as if the artists were trying to get back to their roots.

Blog #7 The Spiral Jetty

I remember talking about this in art appreciation, but I didn't take it in then like I have today. I have really gotten into being outside more and enjoying nature. This piece is really beautiful because it is created from element from the earth. I like how he was looking for a place with red waters, so it seemed like blood. He compared the salt lake to a body, having veins and arteries. I also liked his discussion of scale. "Scale depends on one's capacity to be conscious of the actualities of perception." Scale is all a matter of how you look at something. It is always changable. I am just really drawn to the fact that he searched nature to find the perfect canvas for his work.

I really liked where he talked about how people once tried to pump oil from a natural tar pool, but never could. "This site gave evidence of a succession of man-made systems mired in abandoned hopes."

The way he spoke about finding the site for the spiral jetty is really pretty, for lack of a better word. "It was as if the mainland oscillated with waves and pulsations, and the lake remained rock still. The shore of the lake became the edge of the sun, a boiling curve, an explosion rising into the fiery prominence."

Edward Kienholz "the portable war memorial"

in this edward keinholz describes his work " the portable war memorial"i still don't quit understand it well, but i think i might. he says the you read the sculpture from right to left. at first you see the old propaganda poster of uncle sam then a tomb stone with an inverted cross. the tomb stone is made of blackboard material with names of countries that don't exist anymore. then some tables and a coke machine a clock set to the current time (i'm guessing to the time zone the piece is in) then another tomb stone that represents the future and is pretty blank but there is a crucified man with his hands burned. he says that this is relating to our nuclear predicability and responsibility. now what interests me is the names of the countries that don't exist any more and the tomb stone for our future. might he be saying that we will eventually burn our hands fighting for something that will inevitably be come part of the past.
fermin jimenez

Blog on Jean Tinguely Untitled Statement

When I read this statement I immediately read it again and again, but this time not because I could not understand it, but because I wanted his words engraved in my mined.  The more times I read it the faster the voice in my mined read. It felt as though every sentence ended with an exclamation point. In this statement Jean Tinguely expresses his ideas about change, movement and the necessity of being static. He said “movement is static because it is the only immutable thing- the only thing that is unchangeable.”

My recent ideas in art are about the communication of ideas that feeds art and the ideas we are afraid to express, and since conversation is the way we communicate the most it is the focal point in my new body of work. Now, since I am interested in the emotions or ideas we are afraid to express, I have to dive in head first into my own.  I have been very hesitant to do so.  “Be yourself by growing above yourself.  Don’t stand in your own way. Let us change with, and not against, movement.” This statement I think has inspired me to venture into this new idea without fear or at least with much less of it. It has taught me that ideas will always change. So, there should be no real fear to say these things because eventually they will change.

Blog #6, Part 2

I googled Survival Research Laboratories, and this was one of the first images to populate. While I was reading this, I imaged terrifying machine creatures. I still think it's scary, even after looking up the work. At the same time, I feel like this is something I would see in a low-budget horror flick. I'm just not sure what to take from this group of artists. I see art in the pieces themselves, but I guess I'm just not into the shows. Some of these things just remind me of little boys playing around, causing trouble! hah! I find it quite creepy that they used parts of dead animals grafted onto machines. I don't like that. At all. They used dogs!

I do feel bad that he blew his hand off, but when working with explosives, that comes with the territory.

They also discuss the possibility of implanting electrodes in humans, much like they had done previously with animals. His only reason for refusal is because it's illegal. "However, I'll tell you something, you don't do animal experiments just to do animal experiments -- you do them to prepare for what you plan to do with humans someday."

Blog #6, Part 1 from the week of March 4th

The untitled statement by Jean Tinguely is quite an interesting way to look at life. I actually like it a lot. I read it twice, and the second time I read it, I got it. I feel like he's saying accept change, because it's natural and the only way to live. "Movement is static because it is the only immutable thing -- the only certainty, the only thing that is unchangeable. The only certainty is that movement, change, and metamorphosis exists." Then he goes on the say that we, as a society, are scared of change because it bring decomposition and throws it in our faces. But Tinguely states, "We are fooling ouselves if we close our eyes and refuse to recognize change. Actually decomposition begins only when we try to prevent it." We must live our lives and stop worrying about everything. Accept the change. It is beautiful. Death is just a transition if we believe it to be. He also said that a lot of beautiful art was created from our fear of death, because art leaves a permanent mark; it represents our existance when nothing else could.

"How lovely it is not to have to live forever."

Blog #5

"If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface: of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There's nothing behind it." I feel Warhol is saying that you take his art at face value; it's not to be read into.

I must say, I love Andy Warhol. He was such an odd character, but got so much attention from everyone in society. He changed how a lot of people view art. He even said, "what's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest." It's as if everyone is equal in his eyes when it came to viewing and appreciating his art.

I really like when Andy spoke about driving the California and everything looked Pop on the highways. "Once you 'got' Pop, you could never see a sign the same again." It's as if everything turned into Pop art once you knew what it was and understood it. Nothing was just an object, it was Pop. "The moment you label somthing, you take a step -- I mean, you can never go back again to see it unlabeled." This can apply to life, not just art. I have noticed in almost everything we've read each week, an artist says something about labels, and I feel I can really identify with this, even though I am not an artist. It makes me feel connected to the artist, without ever being an actual artist.

Talking about movies being more realistic than real life...I can see truth in that. The movies are this hour and a half perfection on screen. It brings you in and makes you feel as if life is actually like that, so once you are in the real world again, it doesn't feel as vivid. "The movies make emotions look so strong and real, whereas when things really do happen to you, it's like watching television -- you don't feel anything."

My favorite thing Andy said in this article is when he talked about being alive is working. "I suppose I have a really loose interpretation of 'work,' because I think that just being alive is so much work at something you don't always want to do." I think this is so incredibly true, that is takes much more work to keep on living than to just lay down, give up, and die. Being alive is hard and exhausting, but the moments of bliss are worth it all.

Blog #4

"...I don't think any honest artist sets out to make art. You love art. You live art. You are art. You do art. But you're just doing something. You're doing what no one can stop you from doing." This statement really drew me in. It's as if being an artist is not just a job or chore, it's a way of living, it's who you are. It's as if the artist and the art are one, there is no separation. I really like how Robert spoke about the way he produced his art, without thinking. It reminded me of Pollock, letting your mind wander and seeing what comes out.

Rauschenberg's Note on Painting honestly made no sense to me. I couldn't understand what message he was trying to convey. It's as if he was using certain words to reference something, but I couldn't figure out what.

The opening paragraph is very interesting as well. "Painting relates to both art and life. Neither can be made." I feel he is saying art is like life, it just is. No one can make it, it is just there. I think my favorite thing Rauschenberg said was, "painting is always strongest when in spite of composition, color, etc., it appears as a fact, or an inevitability, as opposed to a souvenir or arrangement," because I feel he is saying that paintings are at their best when they just happen, not when they are forced as means of trophies. I think he feels that paintings are better when they are made with feeling from the artist's core as opposed to something that was produced for means of making money.

blog on "jasper johns interview with G. R. swenson"

             I honestly don't feel like paraphrasing this interview. So, instead i'm going to talk about one part of the interview that got my attention. Nearing the end of the interview jasper johns said "If you make chewing gum and everybody ends up using it as glue, whoever made it is given the responsibility of making glue, even if what he really intends to make is chewing gum." And this is true for art. when an idea gets misinterpreted i don't necessarily feel as though its wrong or that the artist did a bad job. I welcome this  at times. as far as visual art goes i think at times the subconscious influences the art more.

Blog #3, Part 2: Francis Bacon

Francis Bacon's portraits are quite unappealing to me, as they seem to be to others as well. The way he takes photographs of people and then distorts them is not what I am drawn to. I am drawn to the fact that he does this using his friends' portraits instead of having them sit for him. He said in interview 3, 1971-1973, "We nearly always live through screens -- a screened existence. And I sometimes think, when people say my work looks violent, that perhaps I have from time to time been able to clear away one or two of the veils or screens." I really like that statement, that maybe by distorting these images of humans, he has removed their veils and revealed their true nature.

I found it surprising and enlightening when he spoke about criticism. He said he wished he had someone to criticize his work, because it makes you think, even if you don't agree with what someone said, you still sat down and mulled over it. With praise, you just accept it and move on. I think that can be taken far beyond the spectrum of art, into day-to-day life. When people critcize us, we think about it. Maybe it helps us change, maybe not, but they still caught our attention, if just for a moment. "...people are less vain of their personalities than they are of their work. They feel in an odd way, I thnk, that they are not irrevocably commited to their personality, that they can work on it and change it, whereas the work that has gone out -- nothing can be done about it." This statement was quite entertaining to me, causing me to chuckle a bit, but I feel it is true. People's personalities are always morphing, but it's like once their art goes out, it's concrete; nothing can be done to change it now.

Blog #3, Part 1: Chuck Close

I found Chuck Close's portraits fascinating when I first saw them. They seem so life-like, so close the photograph that inspired the portrait. I found his process completely different than what I expected. The way he said, "...I work very close and seldom step back as I'm not interested in the gestalt of the whole head but rather in getting involved in the process...," threw me for a loop. I expected him, as I would, to step away every couple of strokes to make sure the portrait as a whole was coming together.

"I feel a kinship with those artists who have rid themselves of painterly language, who have taken the sculpture off its pedestal, and who have allowed material to flop around on the floor." I like how Chuck is more concerned with the actual process of making the painting and transmitting an idea, than "a check list of the ingredients a portrait painting is supposed to contain."

Also the fact that he chose to do portraits of his friends, because he knows their faces was very intriguing to me. I would expect an artist to prefer strangers, for fear of offending friends. "That's one of the reasons I paint my friends' faces. They are yardsticks which help me to measure how well my marks read."

blog on CHUCK CLOSE interview with Cindy Nemser

     when i first saw chuck close's super-realist portraits i was instantly drawn in. i saw all the detail in it and thought, "man this man must have been obsessed with these people."i hate doing portraits, i feel myself slowly becoming obsessed with the subjects i draw. but as he talked about his process it seemed that he had successfully made them so large and so detailed that all that was lost. he was not drawing a person but rather just pores, wrinkle, lines, and value. he said he only backed away from them a few times.

blog on Willem De Kooning content is a glimpse: interview with david sylvester

        This interview has me really questioning the way i think about my art, the way i go about it, and the importance of some particular things in art.

         William de kooning talks about how silly ideas in art really are. He use cubism for an example he says "i don't think artist have particularly good ideas..... cubists, when you think about it now, it is so silly to look at an object from many angles." and its true its very silly to think that a whole group of artist explored this style. so, what does this say about me. i have a lot of trouble when it comes to ideas, not that they are hard to come by, but their importance gets to me. i think that every little thing matters. and i feel like i must remember this. no matter how important an idea is it's silly. otherwise i'll just lose sight of what i'm trying to say. i'll feel like the idea is above me. i'm not sure this is what he meant but this is what i got.

     fermin jimenez

blog on "For the Discovery of a Zone of Images"

 I'm really intrigued with this article, essay, paper or whatever it is by Piero Manzoni called "For the Discovery of a Zone of Images". He reminds me of how i use to go about art, very ignorant of what i could say. I've read a lot that reminds me of how I've been trying to come up with something to say in my art recently.          he starts off by stating that a common mistakes among bad artist  is that they are to afraid to take a stand, and  have a very vague idea of what art is. because of this vagueness the artist ends up making vague art that means nothing, not to the artist nor the viewer. i hated reading this part, reminded me too much of a not so younger self, maybe about less then a year ago and a few friends i know that are struggling in art, right now. i'm not so sure if this is only a problem for bad artist but rather new artists as well. so i started thinking how does one get past this, so i kept on reading. 
           he presided to try to explain what he meant by "art". this part kinda went over my head a few times, but the more i read it the more i think i got it. in a nut shell art should have "universal values common among all men". meaning that good art should be able to be appreciated by all peoples. but how, we're all to different from our physical way down to our culture that can have deep deep roots in us? however, i know this can happen. how could i a proud Chicano end up having a common ground with some white supremacist skin head? the answer in this case is punk rock, needless to say he still hates my very existence. we still share a common ground. the people of the world have many different cultures but we all share something and thats our humanity and art should be fed by this. we must remove all things to personal in our art so that we can successfully communicate with all people. but how do we find this common ground these "universal values".
          the answer i think is when he wrote "the key point today is to establish the universal validity of individual mythology." what i think he means by this is that we must look in ourselves to find these  value. we must look in ourselves and explore the things that separate us, then look deeper and find the things we all share through our individual philosophies. my favorite part of this is when he said "so it is obvious that at first glance there would seem to be a paradox: the more we immerse ourselves in ourselves, the more open we become, since the closer we get to the germ of our totality the closer we are to the totality to all men."  in simpler terms the closer we are to ourselves the closer we are to all people. 
       this is how i will soon try to communicate to people through art!
       fermin jimenez

Blog #2

So, here is attempt number two at this blogging business.

Charles Biederman definitely caught my attention with his article about Mondrian and nature. What I gathered from his writing was that art and science do intertwine. He wrote that artists may try to stray away from nature, but it is seemingly impossible to completely separate art from nature. "Yet one can say, without risk of reasonable contradiction, that no artist has ever been able to cease abstracting from nature, it being impossible...Nature remains the genetic source for all forms of the abstractions of art, whatever the artist may do." He also stated, "...then, and only then, can all aspects of nature be finally excluded, but then art has disappeared too..." It's as if the more Mondrian tried to pull away from nature, he limited himself that much more. I feel nature should be embraced in all art forms and used as an influence.

When I read Ad Reinhardt's article, I wasn't exactly sure how I felt about it. I immediately took it as a satirical piece. I enjoyed it, but it didn't really stick with me. It just seemed to slide right through the cracks in my mind. I did find the quote "a picture is finished when all traces of the means used to bring about the end have disappeared" quite interesting. It's as if to say there should be no evidence of an artist at all in the picture; that the picture has no creator, it just is. I really liked the 25 Lines of Words on Art: Statement too. Most of the statements are contradictory, or oxymorons, and statements like that always intrigued me. "The extremely impersonal way for the truly personal." "The most universal path to the most unique. And vice-versa." "The most common mean to the most uncommon end." "The completest control for the purest spontaneity." The last statement I quoted is probably my favorite, because I am such a control freak but can be spontaneous. (I'm not sure how much that really has to do with anything, but I just thought that I should mention it! hah)

So I still don't think I'm doing so hot at this blog thing, but at least I'm trying, right?

Blog #1

So, I'm not really sure that this will turn out well, since this is my first time blogging, but here goes nothing!

When I began reading the intro to gestural abstraction, I got lost in all the words and terms, but as I actually sat back and continued, it started to come together. I didn't recognize most of the artists' names in the Americans section and none in the Europeans section. What really popped out at me was the comparison made by the art historian Werner Haftmann of Wols to Jackson Pollock:

"Because of their unprecedented acceptance of the terrible events of the desolate years before and during the war, the lives and works of Wols and Pollock seem to provide documentary evidence of that period. Pollock was rebellious, Wols passive and resigned; he merely recorded whatever happened to him--not the simple facts of his life, but the images which streamed from his wounded soul."

I have to say, just by looking at Wols' work and Pollock's, I see both as rebellious. I don't know how passive Wols seems to me. If anything, I feel that Wols' work is much darker than Pollock's, but the introduction to this chapter suggests that the Americans were more aggressive and dark, but Wols' work seemed so dark and heavy to me.

I do agree that the art of this time was somewhat political. It would have been hard to avoid any politics at the time, because of the war. It would be seemingly impossible to not include anything involving the war.

Reading the interview with Jackson Pollock was a refresher for me, because a clip from the movie about Pollock was shown in art appreciation with this intreview. I find Pollock to be a revolutionary of his time. It was unheard of to lay your canvas on the ground and randomly splatter paint. He would just get into a trance and let the paint fall where it may. I find something very calming about that, almost like a release. It seems like it would be good therapy for the stressed.

As far as geometic abstraction, I find it very intersting to look at, but I feel it lacks emotion. I suppose that's what these artists were trying to do, but I have always tied my realm of thoughts about art to emotions. I just feel like the geometric designs take less creativity, because you can take out your ruler and pencil and make shapes and lines.

Max Bill explained his mathmatical approach to art. I am not a huge math whiz, so I prefer to leave math out of my art. I think the concrete art is nice to look at, but it is nowhere close to anything I would willingly go to a museum to see or own in my own home.