Jessicafisherart85's Blog

internet art
December 9, 2009, 1:53 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Jessica Fisher
Prof. Aievoli
Art 85
Paper 5

In this last paper it will be a full circle of everything we have covered this semester in art history. We will be comparing a lot of different ideas we’ve learned to digital art, flash websites, and digital portfolios. Also looking at Lev Manovich’s book, “The Language of New Media,” and from Kant and Hume we will decide whether digital art is really is a form of art now a days or if classical art of paper and paint is really the only true form of art still. Or whether art is just in the eye of the beholder and really anything that anyone produces can be art.
Here are some brief ideas Kant and Hume have on art; “Yet rather than communicate according to established conventions, genius involves originality in which “nature gives the rule to art.” Kant elaborates that the soul or spirit is a question of content, not form. Spirit is present when a work prompts the viewers imagination,”(Kant on Fine Art). Kant is saying here that if you’re original and spark the viewers imagination that’s art too and that nature rules over art. So a person’s environment influences art. So if a person’s environment develops more advance with technology, then art will develop differently with technology too. Hume says, “Five factors must come together: “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice,”(Outline of Hume’s Theory). Hume is saying when it comes to art people who have a strong sense and cleared of all prejudice can make anything art. So in our case art is in the eye of the beholder and digital art can be a form of art.
Looking at the Whitney art port there’s a lot of different websites and videos. This site is for digital art and for this paper we’re deciding if any of these sites are really art or not. Some of these flash websites on this site I would say are art, and some of them I would say aren’t. One example I think is art is The Battle of Algiers that was launched March 1, 2006. What it is, is the movie Battle of Algiers from 1965 from an Italian director Gillo Pontecrvo. This movie is about the Algerian nationalist struggle to get independence from France in 1962. In this flash website there’s little icons that are on the screen and they keep moving and changing, when you click on one the image becomes bigger and you can see what the image really is. In this case I think this is art, because it has a message its trying to get across, and when the image is small you can’t really understand what’s going on like you’re removed from the situation but then up close you understand the real meaning behind it. I could see something like this in the MOMA. Some other websites on the Whitney art port don’t really see as art at all. There is this one project called, “The Dumpster.” It’s a site where there’s a bunch of dots and each dot you click on a box pops up about someone’s break up that a person posted on a blog. This I don’t really think of as art in my opinion I think it’s kind of boring and pointless, like I picture some art person thinking too hard to think of something that is so different and is like “wow this is so deep.”
Another example of a flash website is a website called, “Riot.” It’s a web browser that builds its page by combining text, images, and links from the recent pages that any Riot user has surfed. This page was made by Mark Napier in 2000. In a way this is art because if you get the right out come it’s like a huge collage, but most of time its just a lot of text all piled on top of each other and is kind of a mess.
In the book by Lev Manovich called “The Language of New Media.” Lev writes, “One general effect of the digital revolution is that avant-garde aesthetic strategies came to be embedded in the commands and interface metaphors of computer software. In short, the avant-garde became materialized in a computer.” Lev’s is saying because of the digital revolution in art the computer has became an art material itself. He also goes on saying, “Digital cinema technology is a case in point. The avant-garde strategy of collage reemerged as the “cut and paste” command, the most basic operation one can perform on digital data. The idea of painting on film became embedded in paint functions of film-editing software. The avant-garde move to combine animation, printed texts, and live action footage is repeated in the convergence of animation, title generation, paint, compositing, and editing systems into all in one packages,”(Lev, The Language of New Media). Lev is saying because of the computer and digital technology that all these things can become one in art. That it’s all brought together.
In my opinion I agree with what Lev is saying I do think digital art is art, but I think certain things in digital art is art, I don’t think it’s all art. Some flash websites on Whitney Artport is art but I don’t think it all is. I agree with what Hume and Kant are saying on their takes on art, and I do believe that art is subjective and digital art is just as subjective and is really in the eye of the beholder. Just because I don’t think a lot of flash websites aren’t really art and are kind of silly doesn’t mean my thoughts are fact. I think this way, but someone else will totally get it and think it’s art and the most beautiful thing ever. It’s really what each individual thinks is special to them and what kind of meaning they get out of it.
Work Cited
1. Theodore Gracyk. “Aesthetic theories of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.” Philosophy Of Art. 2006.
2. Manovich Lev. “Language of New Media.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
3. Napier, Mark. “RIOT.” 2000.
4. Treasurecrumbs. “Whitney ArtPort.” Artport 1.0. February 2002.


Modernist VS Post Modernist
November 19, 2009, 9:43 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

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. “” Modernism- Modern art & the Social Movement.
2. Michael Delahunt. “” He-Hn. 1996-2009.
3. AIGA. “” Medalists.
2009 AIGA. New York.

value of art?
November 5, 2009, 5:33 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

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.


The Printing Press VS The Internet!
October 22, 2009, 4:03 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Jessica Fisher
Prof. Aievoli
Art 85

Printing Press VS Internet movement

The printing press and the internet were both two powerful inventions that occurred in history. The printing press was first invented in 1440 in Germany, by a German inventor by the name of Johannes Gutenberg. The printing press was a machine that could transfer letters and images by contact with different kinds of inked paper. The printing press was amazing for its time because it could print many copies of information rapidly. Because of this the common man had more access to information. The printing press was used until the 20th century, and affected the world greatly. The internet is a computer network that contains a worldwide network of computer networks. The networks they use are TCP/IP. The internet wasn’t really released to the public until the late 80’s early 90’s, but before that the government had test computers, and networks during the late 50’s. With the internet the whole world is connected to one another, and the access to information is available for almost everyone in the world.
Between the printing press and the internet in my opinion I would have to say the internet had a greater impact on the world than compared to the printing press. Sure at that time in the 1440’s the printing press was a huge deal, with more access to books, communication, and information. It certainly brought people together that’s for sure, and made it a little easier for the common person to write a book and get their thoughts published or anything published for that matter, music notes, art, poems, plays, etc. Also because of the printing press the price of books would go down making it cheaper for anyone to buy books. This would help anyone to be more educated, and learn how to read. Everything still took a lot of time to make with the printing press, but at least it made things more available. Because of more access to information, the kings would censor certain books that the public couldn’t get a hold of. God forbid there’s a revolution of some sort because the rulers aren’t treating their people right.
The internet is a greater invention compared to the printing press. Sure the printing press made information more available but the internet, I mean within seconds I could communicate to someone in Japan and then speak to someone who lives in Kenya. A person can almost instantly speak to someone across the world through instant messagers, things like face book, and video chat. It’s just really amazing how people can be in touch with each other across the world like they are around the corner with a touch of the key board. Sure they aren’t physically there, but just seeing a persons face and hearing their voice is amazing, and its like they’re there with you.
Also the access of information is endless on the internet you could look on search engines like Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and start with, “What’s the wing span of the American bald eagle,” and end it with “What was the spark of World War I?” It’s completely endless which is amazing in its self. I personally, probably have saved so much money on books I would of brought but just instead looked things up on the internet. For an example, I really like to cook, instead of going out to a book store and buying a cook book I can just look up recipes online. Another thing is, I really like to knit, so instead of taking knitting lessons or buying books on it. I can just watched videos on how to knit online.
The possibilities with the internet are really endless and has something for anyone. It really lets everyone stay connected together, and makes the world a smaller place because it is so easy to be connected to one another.
Also because of the internet people can broadcast their thought’s and ideas even more easier than compared to the printing press. With things like twitter, and blogs, any one can post any thoughts they have and be their own author, which is great. People can also be their own artists with sites like Flickr and Deviant art where you can make your art public too. With these sites you can also sell your art too. So with these sites the internet is really helping you get yourself out there and be known world wide. It is such a great tool for anyone whether they are an artist trying to be known or a new business just starting out and an existing artist or business staying on top.
The internet today is still really new and is still being upgraded to make it better all the time. It first started with dial up connection, and now it uses cable to make it even faster and more efficient. For all these reasons I’ve listed between the printing press and the internet this is why I think the internet has had a greater impact on the world than compared to the printing press. The printing press was a very powerful invention but it just doesn’t compare to the availably of information and connection to people that the internet has given to us.


1. Phil, Ament. “The History of the Printing Press.” The Great Idea Finder. 1997. May 1, 2007. <;

1. Phil, Ament. “ The History Of The Printing Press.” The Great Idea Finder.  1997.  May 1, 2007. <;

Book Of Kells: Art or Design?
September 30, 2009, 9:04 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Jessica Fisher
Prof. Aievoli
Art 85

Book of Kells; Art or Design?

The Book of Kells is a Celtic Irish art manuscript, that contains the four gospels of Christianity from the late 8th century to early 9th century. This book is well known for it’s illuminated, very detailed, and abstract paintings for its time. The Book of Kells was produced by multiple monks from a monastery in Ireland. The question that’s being discussed is whether or not the Book of Kells is considered art or design? From reading Kant and Hume’s theories on art and design and keeping the Book of Kells in mind, I would say that the Book of Kells is both art and design.

In order for the monks to produce the Book of Kells, design needed to have happened first. Even the simplest ideas of how one is to go about the book is a concept, and a concept is a design. “However immediate any of our experiences seem to be, there are no uninterrupted experiences. The world comes to us as a complex “manifold” of sensations,” (Outline of Kant’s Theory). Kant believes that concepts and design comes from a persons sensations and ultimately how they interpret the world around them. “Through the joint activities of imagination and understanding, we actively interpret “matter” of sensations in term of stable objects with predictable behaviors,”(Outline of Kant’s Theory). So the monks who made the Book of Kells interpreted what was going on in the world around them. At that time Paganism was very big, so the monks thought of a design that would appeal to pagan believers too, in hopes of converting them to Christianity. This is why there’s abstract people, monsters, and angels in the book to draw more converters.

Art I feel comes later, when one finishes the design and then can begin focusing on the decoration of their work. The Book of Kells started out as a design, the monks in the monastery weren’t just producing a pretty picture book, they had goals. Goals such as, the reason why the Book of Kells has so many abstract drawings, dragons, and monsters is to make their holy book appeal to pagan believers. The Pagans had a lot of dragons and monsters in their art and the monks felt they would relate to Christianity and convert. After this point is made, then art comes in with the beautiful colors, and detail.

The Book of Kells is considered art because as Hume says in one of his theories, “Five factors must come together: “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice,”(Outline of Hume’s Theory). I would say the Book of Kells follows Hume’s five factors when considering art, The Book of Kells has a strong sense of color and detail, and is improved by practice there wasn’t anything like it at this time in history.

While Kant believes art is, “Yet rather than communicate according to established conventions, genius involves originality in which “nature gives the rule to art.” Kant elaborates that the soul or spirit is a question of content, not form. Spirit is present when a work prompts the viewers imagination,”(Kant on Fine Art). The Book of Kells is definitely a work of art that gets anyone’s imagination turning, and communicates something to the viewer. The Book of Kells was also trying to communicate to the people who were illiterate, and could only follow pictures of the bible. Kant also believes that without art an object is just an object, but with art the object comes alive. He also believes that things in nature and art go hand in hand. “Much of his discussion focuses on an example of natural beauty (“This rose is beautiful),”(Kant on Fine Arts).
Hume and Kant for the most part have very similar ideas when it comes to art and design. They both believe that the person’s senses are involved and how each concept of the world is interpreted to the person. In my opinion I would say the Book of Kells is both Art and Design. It’s design because the book has a purpose and uses different concepts. The purpose of the Book of Kells was for the four gospels of Christianity and to broadcast that. Also its purpose was to get new converts, such as pagans and some of the concepts used in the Book of Kells were very pagan like. The Book of Kells is also art, because of the colors, detail, and how the design is brought to life. That the simple concept was transformed into this beautiful piece of work. That is why I think art and design go both hand in hand.

Work Cited:

1. John Wiley & Sons, inc. A History of Graphic Design New York: 1998.
2. Theodore Gracyk. “Aesthetic theories of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.” Philosophy Of Art. 2006.

Hello world!
September 15, 2009, 8:57 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!