Prom Night

Descriptions of work categorized as either “masculine” or “feminine” never before really crossed my mind. When David Hickey explained the differences and how it impacts discussion and the work being discussed, it was like a revelation. I suppose this language applies to my photographs for studio class, which could be described as pleasant and painterly, with diverse and pretty colors.

Shane’s mentioning of how artists tend to look from the outside, in now (whereas artists used to portray the beauty and holiness of the land by looking from the inside out – let me know if I’ve gotten the time periods reversed). My project for this class relates to that idea very much: I am representing someone through an arrangement of that person’s belongings. (This image is still a work-in-progress.)

But other than that, it’s sometimes difficult for me to see my work’s relationship to the viewer; I only see myself as the viewer, but I do not count as one of those viewers today. The viewer-artist relationship is another thing Hickey mentions. He notes that the relationship has changed, becoming one where artist and viewer are less likely to truly connect (at least back when viewers included the general public does this statement apply). If you’re not either A: an artist, or B: interested in “fine” art, one most likely would not take a second glance at, say, my images above, or would not appreciate the images enough to please me. The language and audiences of artwork, the standards of what is considered "art," and the entire world of art has been moulded and changed, and can only continue to do so somehow (and are most likely to change in surprising ways).