Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
HELVETICA
Before seeing this film, I knew quite a bit about the universal nature of the font Helvetica, but I wasn't quite aware of it's grandness and prevalence. Seeing all of the brand logos using the typeface really shocked me. I see those logos daily, but I never really stopped to think about what font they were in. The only ones I knew that used Helvetica were American Apparel and Gap. I thought it was really interesting how some of the people interviewed had really strong opinions on the font. This is something that I wouldn't imagine people to feel so passionate about! As for me, I do like the font Helvetica quite a lot. However, I like a lot more "handmade" fonts better. I think it's important to have a standard, clean cut, basic font to have as a default, but I'm much more attracted to simple but creative fonts.
For example, the these two fonts are my current favorites:
For example, the these two fonts are my current favorites:
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Bill Morrison's Decasia
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to go to the presentation of this film due to other class requirements, so I was very pleasantly surprised when I found out we were watching it in class. I really liked the subject matter of the films that Morrison chose. They originally weren't creepy films, but with the addition of the music and the decay, they took on that persona. I think his music was pretty spot on to add to the mood of the film. However, I was left longing for a climax, but never really got one. Overall, I was quite impressed by Morrison's use of average stock footage to turn it into something very artful and unique. Before I had seen the film, I wasn't sure if I was going to think it was very artistic, but after experiencing it, I can say that I am now a believer.
Friday, October 1, 2010
scan art
grandma's cardigan and pearls feather mobile i made
grandpa's pipe and lighter, grandma's pearls, my ring
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
art in the age of mechanical reproduction...
http://www.lilithgallery.com/arthistory/modern/The-Work-of-Art-in-the-Age-of-Mechanical-Reproduction.html
Even before I began reading this article, i was dreading reading something so lengthy off of my computer screen. After finishing the reading, I found my preconceived prejudice towards the assignment both interesting and relevant. The article talks about how a reproduced piece of artwork (or in this case, text) can sometimes seem unimportant and for lack of a better word, cheap. "Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority." I sort of felt the same way about the digital version of this article. I felt like i wasn't reading the original or i wasn't reading it the way it was intended to be read, therefore changing how i felt about the piece. I felt cheated out of the real thing. This being said, i think the author, Benjamin, presented good points about how reproductions are compromised versions of originals, but as i read on, i realized that he really just lost me when he started saying WAY too much on the subject, loosing his point a little and beginning to drone on monotonously.
Benjamin also suggests that photography and film are forms of reproduction. Yes, yes i understand the age-old debate on wether photo and film are forms of art is still prevalent, but, being an intended photo major with an intense interest in film, I have no doubt in my mind that they are in fact forms of art. Just as a painter uses paint or a sculpter uses clay, a photographer uses a camera. However, he later redeems himself by providing evidence that it takes a creative and artistic person to shoot insightful and effective photographs.
Overall, i think that Banjamin provided some interesting points to ponder, but really got to flowery and arduous with his writing, therefore loosing his point and the strength of his opinion.
Even before I began reading this article, i was dreading reading something so lengthy off of my computer screen. After finishing the reading, I found my preconceived prejudice towards the assignment both interesting and relevant. The article talks about how a reproduced piece of artwork (or in this case, text) can sometimes seem unimportant and for lack of a better word, cheap. "Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority." I sort of felt the same way about the digital version of this article. I felt like i wasn't reading the original or i wasn't reading it the way it was intended to be read, therefore changing how i felt about the piece. I felt cheated out of the real thing. This being said, i think the author, Benjamin, presented good points about how reproductions are compromised versions of originals, but as i read on, i realized that he really just lost me when he started saying WAY too much on the subject, loosing his point a little and beginning to drone on monotonously.
Benjamin also suggests that photography and film are forms of reproduction. Yes, yes i understand the age-old debate on wether photo and film are forms of art is still prevalent, but, being an intended photo major with an intense interest in film, I have no doubt in my mind that they are in fact forms of art. Just as a painter uses paint or a sculpter uses clay, a photographer uses a camera. However, he later redeems himself by providing evidence that it takes a creative and artistic person to shoot insightful and effective photographs.
Overall, i think that Banjamin provided some interesting points to ponder, but really got to flowery and arduous with his writing, therefore loosing his point and the strength of his opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)