I found Marcia Baldwin randomly on Google as well, but she evokes a different sort of response to me. With the more abstracted art, I felt more inspiration than emotional calm. Here, I find myself engrossed in the completed images more than the parts of a whole. I really like this work for the way she recreates the flow of the water in such a way that is more distorted but equally colorful and still natural and relaxing.
The trial between Ruskin and Whistler was one that marked a change in a period of art, and challenges the role of an art critic in the art world. It brings into question the right of a person’s opinion over another person’s right to a living. When Whistler sued Ruskin, he essentially did what his art was supposed to do, create unrest and change. And in that, Whistler succeeded. What I think is more important however, is the role of the critic in this scenario, and how he was the driving force, despite losing the trial and being the “nasty critic that hates everything.”
Critics are the driving mechanisms of change within any environment with different ways of achieving the same goals. Business models, sports teams, and art all have a form of a critic that influences the opinions of the producers and consumers. Without the critic, there is a lot less unification, and a lot less driving art to change or react. Here, Ruskin’s remarks led to the passionate trial, which in turn changed the entire art scene into a new era. This role is not something to scoff at, let alone dislike.
Stuart’s controversy regarding his ownership of portraits of George Washington bring up a very different role for critics, albeit a less significant one. The idea of ownership is not one that often brought up, because it is rarely an issue, but it is an interesting one when it comes up. Stuart’s story differs in that it was not a source of change, rather the continuation of an established form of art. What is unique to me is that despite disavowing his work, Stuart is still considered the creator of the works, because most analysts agree that it his. The role of the critic here is an informed decision maker rather than a force of change. I think a critic can be these roles at the same time, but can also do very different things to represent only one of the two.
I found Osnat Tzadok while looking at abstract art on Google, and found her body of work represents a lot of what I really enjoy about abstract art in general. I think that abstract art can act as a safety valve for one's imagination, where one can simply create without too much worry about message or accuracy. I think Tzadok also did a lot of cool things with color, which is one thing that I really appreciate in abstract art.
Ed Trask Lunchtime Lecture
I loved getting to listen to Trask, and both see and hear how his art style evolved alongside his life and experiences. I think the way that he originally understood art, and how he now sees it are too really cool things to compare. I also commend his ability to understand himself, which is something I wish I could do more. I thought his artwork was also very visually pleasing, and I really liked the various community projects. I found his experiences in South America to be particularly powerful, and I think he was also very successful in transferring those powerful experiences into some really cool artwork. I thought his idea of the purpose of art was a very honorable one, and I like how it changed from him making a connection with someone, to that person making a connection within themselves or with their community. I hope he continues to do well as an artist and continues to improve communities.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.