Jessicafisherart85's Blog

Jessica Fisher
Prof. Aievoli
Art 85
Paper 4

In this paper we will be comparing artists from the modernist movement and the post modernist movement. We also will be discussing low and high art, what it is, and how this fits into the modernist movement and the post modernist movement. The modernist movement is an art movement that happened from the 1930s to the 1980s.The post modernist movement happened from 1980 until now.
The modernist movement is hard to define, but its said that this movement believed that progressive art could effect positive social change. It’s hard to define this movement because a lot of styles were used in this movement, and the artists didn’t just stick to one style. Also some say it had abstract styles mixed with expressionist styles. A lot of them focused on that there was a need for order, and a rational society. An example of a modernist artist would be Henry Wolf. He was born in 1924 in Austria.
The post modernist movement happened from 1980 to present. Post modernism obviously came from the modernist movement. The post modernist movement is special for its stylistic reactions, and also has styles like eclecticism, digression, collage, pastiche, and irony. An example of a post modernist artist would be, Tomoko Miho she was born in America in 1931.
Low art and High art are two different ways to categorize art. High art which is usually fine art, that shows the art had achieved something and stood the test of time. High art usually involves fine materials or noble sentiment such as intelligence, social standing, educated taste, and a willingness to be challenged. Low art usually involves manufacturing, and mass culture. Usually low art uses inferior material and is kitsch just using popular taste.
Between the two artists Henry Wolf and Tomoko Miho, one is a modernist artist that would be Henry Wolf. While Tomoko Miho is from the post modernist movement. From looking at the two artists art, the style look pretty similar but there are a few differences. In Henry Wolf’s art he focuses on people, woman, and photographs them. While Tomoko Miho’s work is just basically designs with lines and cubes for stores, buildings, and abstraction. Tomoko would be a good example of a post modernist artist because she uses a lot of simple objects you can find anywhere, colleges, and is kind of like pop art. The designs are pretty simple but are very interesting.
A few of the images I saw involved normal chairs, and simple line shapes. Except for the one piece by her called, “Great Architecture in Chicago,” and “65 Bridges to New York Poster.” These two pieces are really interesting and abstract. One is a photo of a Bridge in New York and is all red except the bridge. The other is a blurred image of a bridge in Chicago. If I was going to compare her work to low or high art I would say her work is probably low art, not all of it, just some pieces. Her designs with the chairs, and envelopes I would defiantly say is an example of low art and focus on the culture. The pieces that she painted, or the architectural sign for the 546 fifth avenue building in New York I would say is high art. Both will stand time and express intelligence.
Henry Wolf is a modernist artists from the 1970’s he was born in 1924 in Austria. His art mostly involves photographs, collages, and mixed mediums. His main subject from what I gathered from looking at his images was women. Modernists for the most part focused on social reform, order, change, and for shock value. I think Henry Wolf is a good example of a modernist artist, because a lot of the women in his photos are half naked or dressed skimpily. This would be shocking and such because nudity, sex, and such was still pretty shocking and a big no no.
Some of his work looks like it could be from the post modernist movement he has a lot of collages and pieces that represents cultural manufacturing. Some of his work I would say is most of his art is high art, because a lot of his work is questioning and is trying to get the viewer to think about his art and the hidden meanings. One example would be the piece of the outline of the man surrounding the naked woman. That would make anyone think, and question his piece.
I think for the most part the modernist movement and the post modernist movement are pretty similar. They have some differences but for the most part they’re pretty much the same. Sometimes post modernists seem more abstract than modernists but besides that. They both use a lot of collages, abstract ideas, and rising questions to the viewer. To define which is high art and which is low art is hard to do, because everyone has a different oppion of what is high art and what is low art. When I think of high art I think of art that takes time, and that is still around today. I think of Monet, Van Gogh, Leonardo Da Vinci, and other artists that raise questions and spend a long time on their work. I could be wrong, but that’s what I think.

Work Cited:
1. Buzzel. “Buzzel.com” Modernism- Modern art & the Social Movement.
2000-2008,2009. Buzzel.com.
2. Michael Delahunt. “Artlex.com” He-Hn. 1996-2009. Artlext.com.

http://www.artlex.com\artlex\he.html

3. AIGA. “AIGA.org.” Medalists.
2009 AIGA. New York.

Jessica Fisher
Prof. Aievoli
Art 85
Paper 3

In art there’s always a discussion about what makes art so valuable? Is it because there’s only a few pieces ever reproduced? Is it because that art work was destroyed and can never be reproduced again, or is art only valuable because of the artists fame, wealth, and power? In the book by Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Walter discusses all of our questions about the value of art. In this paper we will discuss the value of art, and how commodity and cultural wealth has an effect on it.
Many artists believed that art was greatly impacted on cultural wealth, and commodity. Take artists like Andy Warhol, or Marcel Duchamp. Warhol was all about commercial art, and was greatly into mass production of his art. Two examples of his works would be the “Campbell Soups,“ and “The Brillo Boxes.“ Pretty much stating that anything can be art, and our culture has a big effect on it. Warhol used the silk screen, paint, printing, and lithograph in order to mass produce his art. The lithograph was like a press that has inked plates and would then lightly press on the paper to produce the image. Depending on what you want repeated steps would have to occur. Warhol didn’t even do the mass producing himself at times, he had assistants doing it for him. Because he didn’t do it himself, did his art lose value? Or was it all about who he was, and that his name was on it?
Warhol took the simplest thing that had no value and not really considered art, and then turned it into something valuable. Really with the power of his name, and that he was calling it art. The same with Marcel Duchamp, his piece “In Advance of a Broken Arm,” all it is, is a snow shovel with his name on it, but he to took the simplest thing and turned it into art and something valuable just by using his name. He also did this in his “Fountain” piece. Which is just a urinal really. In Walter Benjamin’s book, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” He starts with the how technology had an effect to make it easier to reproduce art.
Benjamin brings up that the Greek’s had a hard time reproducing art, “The Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproduction works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, and terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity,”(Benjamin). Benjamin goes on saying how any art besides that would be unique and too different to reproduce. He then says how later things like the lithograph and photography came into the picture and made things even more easy to reproduce.
Benjamin later says, “From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; ask for the “authentic” print makes no sense. But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice-politics,”(Benjamin). Benjamin is saying here that before politics and money were involved the authenticity of art was based on rituals, religion, and such. That instead of having your emotions and feelings in your art its being reversed into money, politics, and what society wants. He also says, “Two polar types stand out; with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. One may assume that what mattered was their existence not their being on view.” Benjamin is saying that artists now a days don’t focus on art for themselves, and just focuses on it being exhibited or what society wants. How he mentioned the cavemen with the elk drawings, that they would show each other these drawings. But ultimately it was for themselves and to give their art to the Gods.
My feelings on if art is valued on fame, wealth, or by an artists name, is it valuable still without being in an exhibition as Benjamin mentioned. Does reproducing art make it lose its value? Does destroying it increase its value? I feel any work an artist produces is valuable when it becomes valuable to that artist, and doesn’t need to be seen to the public. But in this world since everything is valued by money, I do believe that art becomes more valuable by how famous the artist is, and if the artists name is on it. I also believe that art is valued by its originality. Andy Warhol, for instance, who would ever think of producing Campbell soup cans as art, but he did. Call it the times we lived in, in the 60’s where young people were exploring their freedoms, and rebelling against the establishment. This freedom of expression Andy Warhol displayed was widely accepted by the youth for his freedom of expression and originality. It also was a rebellious statement. Andy Warhol’s art broke the rules and made his form of art widely accepted and valued.
Things like Warhol’s cans can be reproduced but that doesn’t mean since its reproduced that it loses value. It’s just a reproduction you and I both know its just a copy not the real thing that the artist made so in that sense art doesn’t lose its value just because its reproduced. Even if it’s a copy it still has the value of what the art stands for such as Andy Warhol’s art work being reminiscant of the 60’s and valuing his art for that. If art is destroyed and there is only a few copies left in the world, or a photograph doesn’t have its negative anymore. I think of course that makes the value sky rocket, it’s a negative aspect but its because there’s barely any the artist produced. I think things like the lithograph and photography can bring down the value of the persons work by how many is available to the public. I do think a lot of art is focused on money, because our whole world is about money. Even our majors, sure we’re doing art and that’s fine and dandy but we’re doing it to make money. So I do think money is a great factor to making art valuable but I don’t think it’s the only factor. The quality of the art, the subject of it, the originality of it, the emotions captured, and given off and the artists feelings to it also gives value to art as well.

Work Cited:
1. Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. 1935.
2. Pollick, Michael. “What is a Lithograph?” WiseGeek. 2004. 04 Nov, 2009.