Blog 6

In this week’s reading Benjamin argues, “To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the authentic print makes no sense.” Do you agree or disagree? Do you think there is a role for the ‘authentic’ in an age of digital design and manufacture?

In todays society, it is rarely seen that an artist produces one work, for one person. It is much more common that they are mass produced because it gains you more profit and requires less effort. Because of this, when you buy something, it does not feel like it is individually customized to you, because it isn’t. People now have come to breaking out of this and making products they buy, their own. By doing this, it creates a sense of individuality which is lacking in todays society. Walter Benjamin says “To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the authentic print makes no sense.” and "In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by man." Although it is clear that individual paintings or products are not produced much anymore, we live in a world that requires us to have certain objects to help us carry out our daily lives. If everyone had a phone, customized to themselves, phones would become very expensive and the effort and time put into each individual phone would become out of hand. Instead, people can buy generic phones and put their own twist onto it. E.g. buying a coloured case, choosing different backgrounds, ringtones etc. I do think that one off paintings and products are beautiful and desired, but for the society that we live in, it is not so much needed anymore at this stage.

Reference : Google.2011. Retrieved from ,
http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=iphone+cover

Blog 5

How has the experience and experimentation of artists influenced our understanding of colour and the development of a theory of ‘colour vision’?

Through history artists have experimented with colours and texture and have influenced the way we perceive colours today. The changes of art styles through times, have opened up new ways to explore paint and the use of patterns and lights. Artists have played around with colour and light to allow different emotions to be portrayed and to affect certain areas of the painting and sometimes to confuse the audience. All of these experiments have resulted in the colour theory of colour vision. Our modern understanding of light and colour begins with Isaac Newton(1642-1726) and a series of experiments that he published in 1672. He was the first to understand the rainbow which he refracted white light with a prism, resolving it into its component colours: red, orange, yellow , green , blue and violet. Newton took a very scientific approach to the way we deceive colour. On the other hand, Michel Eugene Cheveruel’s ‘simultaneous contrast’ was a theory that wasn’t so scientific, but focused more on what we see through out naked eye instead of needing some proved explanation. “Two adjacent colours when seen by the eye, will appear as dissimilar as possible” (petty, M.M Colour, Perception and Abstraction). Other impressionists such as Monet (1840-1926) used paint in a different sense and used optical mixing to create what he saw. Monet like the way colours reflected in the water. Boats, oceans and lakes were some of his favourite subjects. From these men (and many more), we have gained an understanding of how colour works, and how light is intertwined in amongst it. We have been influenced by these theories and over time artists have revealed more about the powers of light and colour. We have gained our knowledge from the experiments of light and colour in art.

Monet - Water lily (1840-1926)

References :
Think Quest. 2011. Monet. Retrieved from,
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215473/monet.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Blog assigment 4

Adolf Loos argued that "The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use". In the lecture the analogy of a swinging pendulum was used to describe the consistent strugle between ornamented design and functional desgint throughout history. I am in between both of these sides, I do not agree with one, nor do I disagree with the other.
I feel that they both are right in some ways and also wrong in some ways.

Loos, detesed the use of random ornament, and believed it was a waste of resources and effort. He says ' in a highly productive nation, ornamnet is no longer a natural product of its culture, and therefore represents backwardness or even degenerative tendancy."
I agree with this statement. Ornament would take up more time, money and effort and doesn't work the way that it is supposed to. Simple lines that compliment the use of the object is much more sensible and logical becasue then the object is able to be functional and effective.  I think that a balance between the two is perfect, the object looks beacutiful and is something that can be displayed with confidence but also is able to be used.

I found this picutre of the Guggenheim Museum, New York which I had visited when I was younger. The museum is fabulous, and beautifully designed with curves and a sense fluidity. It works well and is the perfect balance between ornament and functionality.

In the statement that Owens Jones siad, he meant that it is right to decorate and add detail and asethetic value to desigs, as long as it compliments the design itselg and doesn't overflow it and take away from its use. "Design, society, standards" is a quote from Jones stating that the construction and modelling of a particular object should only be used to convey the intended image. Jones and others such as Pugin believed that in order for a design to be true, it needed to conform to their set of rules. "Form follows function".
I personally do not agree with this statement. I think that if everyone followed these rules nothing would blow us away, nothing would inspire us. We need design to be creative and something that is not only a utensil to use in everyday life but something that can also be 'untouched' something to just look at and admire. The reason why trends evolve is because of poeple breaking the boundries and thinking outside of the box. I think that if the purpose of a design is just to please people and look beautiful in it's space, then that is definetly ok and it doesn't matter whether or not it complies to these set of rules.

This rubber duck is an example of my beliefs on design. It has absolutley no purpose at all, and is strictly something to catch your eye and to start conversations with. I personally love it, and in Auckland I always thought it looked amazing. It was so creative to take a childhood toy and blow it up to a massive size so it didn't look so small compared to the large harbour.

Assigment two 171

this is a chiar called "la Chaise" by Charles and Ray Eames. It was inspired by Gaston Lachaie;s 1927 sculpture Reclining rude and nicknamed after the artist. This piece has been said to be "striking, good looking and inventive". It was produced in 1990 and is now one of the Eameses's signature works. Its smooth lines and modern style enhances any space it is put in and really is a work of art. I like the simple colour and the wooden bottom. It looks comfortable and has been taken into account how people sit/lounge and allows any number of sitting and reclining positions which also makes it very appealing. It is not only a chair it is a asset to any room or space, which is what it is designed for. It has elegance about it and has long established itself as an icon of organic design.

Assignment one DSDN 171

Using 6.5 million square feet of floating pink fabric, Christo and Jeanne-Claude encircled eleven islands in Miami’s Biscayne Bay, extending the perimeter of each island by 200 feet. Evoking hibiscus flowers and flamingos, the vibrant woven polypropylene fabric was sewn to correspond to the contours of each island. Remaining on view for two weeks, the work was visible to the public from the causeways, the land, the water, and the air. I find this so interesting, the way the colours complement each other and it is really a delight to the eye. Another factor that appeals to me is the amount of work and problem solving that would of gone into preparing and exicutiong such a large, fantatic project. This is definetly in the category of sculpture but obviosuly requires a lot of design and careful planning. I was introduced to this about a year ago while doing an art painitng project and this artist was one of my artist references. His way of interpretting colour and form really captured my attention and when thinking about this particular assignment, he was the first artist to pop into my mind as well as this work, and another work he did with umbrellas. I think it is a large job to undergo but they really did well and all the hard work paid off.

Grid