Future

In the 1960s there was an architectural group called Archigram. Ron Herron, a member of the group, did a project called A Walking City in 1964 where he created architectural designs of buildings after a nuclear war in the future. This series featured drawings on insect-like buildings that can actually walk to locations throughout the city. They were meant to be intelligent robots that formed self contained living pods that could walk through the city. The idea was that they could plug in to different locations throughout a city to exchange supplies and occupants.

I am particularly interested in the style in which the drawings were done. They have a very unique style to them. Although they are recognized as looking futuristic, they don't really look like anything that we would expect in today's future. Today's vision of the future looks like something out of an Apple store. Everything is minimalist and white.

Ideas of the future fit to change the current technology. Since Apple's technology is considered to be some of the most "hi-tech," our general vision of the future is one designed by Apple. Herron's designs of these robotic buildings has a very distinct 60s style to it. It looks like someone took apart an old TV and made these robots out of the pieces. The current vision of the future is not reflected on any new ideas for technology, but of simply advancements of current technology.

I would be interested to see a group try to do a similar project in today's society. I'm sure that they would retain the popular minimalist look that Apple has made so popular. When looking at the future, people forget the one thing that is even more difficult to predict than the advancements in technology. That's style and fashion.

Apocalyptic Art

I was recently working on a paper for an art history class. For the paper, I needed to look for artwork from the 1950s to 1960s that deal with the future. Surprisingly it was an extremely difficult task, but in looking I came across a genre of art that I suppose I never really thought of as a specific genre of art. Apocalyptic art.

I have always been interested in the apocalypse in art, having done works including the Four Horsemen and scenes of Death. Now I have been looking at works as a collection. I find them extremely interesting.

When researching, I found that much of the art began after the bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Much of the art is of ruined, post war cities, completely devastated. They are desolate, sad yet much of them very beautiful. Some are very vibrant and fiery. They are very interesting works.

I have become very interested in these works. I am planning on researching this type of art further. I am interested in a lot of the theory behind the art. I would like to eventually begin to try and experiment with these elements in my own work.

Essence

I'm really interested in the TV series Lost. The last season just premiered and I was looking at some images of the characters and they recently made a reenactment of DaVinci's painting The Last Supper. When looking at this I came across at least 10 different renditions of this painting on the first few pages alone. This got me to thinking about whether or not a piece like The Last Supper loses something because of how iconic it has become through popular culture.

I think that the majority of people would be able to immediately identify The Last Supper when they see it. It is a very iconic image. If people haven't seen the original they at least recognize a rendition when they see it. It's easy for anyone to sit a semi large group of people, sit them at a long table, with one figure emphasized in the middle, and it would become a substitute for the work.

My question is does this take away for the piece itself? Does the work of art lose some of its meaning? I think it does. The painting is no longer a symbol for Christ and communion. It becomes merely an iconic image, a symbol, for others to use.

This has happened with many other famous works of art. The Mona Lisa, The Scream, and American Gothic are a few of the most commonly used paintings. Have these paintings also lost some of there essence or aura because of popular culture? I believe they have. I think that every single time one of these paintings is reproduced in some way, shape, or form, a little bit of their essence is lost forever.

Kinetic Art

I was recently looking at some video art on YouTube, when I stubbled across this piece by Tim Fort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRYo4V3HB8

Tim fort deals with kinetic art. His pieces are an giant elaboration on what we all used to do with dominoes as kids. The work is about cause and effect and are truly amazing. What I'm interested in is what part of this performance is the art.

Normally with art, the general consensus is that the finished process is the art. For artists like Jackson Pollock, it was the act of making it that was the art. But for kinetic artists like Tim Fort his work is destroyed when it's finished. The art exists only for its own destruction. Because of this, for kinetic art and other performance based works, it is not the finished product nor the act of creating it, but its own destruction that is the art.

Since this art only truly exists when it is being destroyed it can only be viewed as a performance. That means that this art can only reach larger audiences through video. Before video, if art like this was made it would exist only for the small group of people that saw it in action and then would be lost forever. It could be talked and written about, but it would never truly exist ever again.

Video has become a not only a method of creating art, but also immortalizing it. So many pieces of art have been lost forever because of an inability to record it. Through sites like YouTube we are able to spread art faster than ever before and also immortalize it further. People will copy that video from YouTube and duplicate it further than further. This ensures that the piece will never be lost, even if the creator destroys it.