- I have always been focused on the sciences, and am not much of an artist. I think that art is something that is created for some purpose, such as displaying beauty or sharing a certain idea or message.
- Based on what I described ‘art’ as in the previous question, I do believe that if an artists calls a piece of work ‘art’, it would be considered art. However, there would be limitations to this situation. For example, based on my description of what art is, there should be some sort of meaning behind the piece of artwork. The artist would be able to explain the significance of the piece in some sort of way. In contrast, a person can take a piece of trash and call it art, but only if there is some significance behind this action that turns the piece of trash into a meaningful piece of art.
- One piece of the Rodney Graham exhibit that I really enjoyed was “Introductory Lectures”, the red piece that was in the first room of the exhibit. The bright red of the shelf was very eye-catching in the bare room, and aesthetically pleasing because of the mathematical dimensions of the different sections. The subtle comedy of the ‘Freudian Slip’ was also very witty. Although I didn’t really understand the purpose of the piece at first, after listening to Alexandra speak about Graham and his background I was able to understand the significance of the piece.One piece that I did not understand completely, even after listening to an explanation, was the performance piece at the very end of the gallery, “Throwing Potatoes at a Gong”. I could understand how Graham attempted to insert himself and his art into the 1970s by using mediums that made his artwork appear like they were from that time period, but I just could not understand the significance of throwing potatoes at the gong. Was he simply just trying to juxtapose the absurdity of the act and the serenity that is usually associated with the sound of a gong?