FILM 21: BANKSY

What do you think about Banksy’s anonymity?
While it would be interesting to know more about Banksy’s identity, I believe that his anonymity is what is truly intriguing about him. When a new Banksy shows up somewhere, it is funny to think that nobody saw him create it. His hidden identity is what makes Banksy and his art all the more fun. If we knew who he was and people could reach him, his work would probably suffer. People would know when he was painting. It just would not be the same if Banksy’s true identity was known.

In the film, street art is auctioned off. Should street art be left in the street or is it okay to remove?
I feel like it really defeats the purpose of the art when it is sold. Banksy’s art is literally cut off walls sometimes. If it is created in the street, that is where it should be. Nobody is going to remove the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling to put on the auction block at Sotheby’s, so why is it any different for street art? Art is art, and it should be left where it is if it is not on a canvas. Some street artists still make art that is put in galleries and is meant to be sold. The art they create in the street should be left alone.It is called street art for a reason.

Why were artists like Shepard Fairey, Banksy, and Invader sort of bitter sounding about Thierry’s show and overnight success? Were they jealous or justified?
I understand why Fairey, Banksy and Invader are all slightly upset over Thierry’s success. They had all worked very diligently to gain their recognition and all Thierry did was tell a bunch of artists what to make. It was also almost like Thierry used Banksy’s “endorsement” to create hype for his show. Without that quote, I feel like Thierry would have been far less popular. Same goes for Shepard Fairey’s quote. I do not feel like the other artists were jealous though, because they knew how Thierry’s work was created and how much he actually did himself.


Question: Was Thierry/Mr. Brain Wash really a true artist all along or did he get lucky?

FILM 20: HARING

How do you think Haring’s appreciation for graffiti contributed to his own work?
I think that the biggest ways that graffiti contributed to Haring’s work was in the ways that he wanted many people to see his work and in the way that he painted in public places. Both of these qualities complimented each other and achieved Haring’s goal of people seeing his work. In the film, Haring is shown doing chalk drawings in the subway stations of New York so that many people can see his work. Even an elderly woman was intrigued. This is something that graffiti artists tend to do. They’d paint in very public places for recognition. This is still true today when we see subway cars, abandoned trucks, walls, fences, and street posts covered in graffiti.

Why do you think Haring’s work appealed to so many people?
In my eyes, the bold lines, bright colors and simplicity of Haring’s work appeal to many different groups of people. Kids are drawn in by the colors and the interesting figures. Adults may be drawn in by the same thing, but keep looking so that they understand Haring’s overall message. The bold, black lines that Haring used are perfect and make you wonder whether a machine or a person did the outlines. All of these qualities combined draw in viewers and have made Haring’s work very popular worldwide.

What do you find most interesting about Haring’s methods of spreading his work all over the world?
The method I found most interesting was Haring’s Pop Shop. He did not create all these products to generate money, he simply wanted his work to be spread all over the world. People would buy these t-shirts and buttons and wear them so that the world could see. This method probably wasn’t popular to many people in the art world because they mistook this idea as a money-hungry method, but I think it is clever. Looking back on this idea, I think it really worked. I have seen Keith Haring t-shirts and posters before, which means he is still popular and people still want to wear these shirts.

Question: After Haring found out he had AIDS, he worked at a more rapid speed, saying he had so much to do. What do you think this says about him as an artist?

FILM 19 : BASQUIAT

What is it about Basquait’s work that draws you in?
In my eyes, Basquait’s work is unlike anything I have ever seen. It is extraordinarily interesting. There is so much for a viewer to look at and try to understand.  The kind of lines Basquait uses are almost childlike but at the same time extremely skillful. I love that he incorporated words into his art as well.

Basquait says that he can’t really explain his art. Why do you think this is?
I think that Basquait can’t explain his art because there are so many individual ideas within each painting. It is stated that his apartment floor was littered with unfinished or partially finished work all the time and that he would randomly add things to each page. He would even walk all over it. I feel like for Basquait, sometimes the art was an outlet more than a statement.

Basquait said that minimalism and conceptualism alienated people from art. Do you agree? Why?
Yes, I agree with Basquait when he said that this kind of art alienated people from art. Minimalist and conceptualist artists did not give people enough to work with when creating their art. A blank canvas or a single line does not leave much for interpretation. People like looking and things and piecing them together to understand what the artist is saying. When it is too simple, it breaks the connection between some people and the art.


Question: Why do you think Basquait is considered a “radiant child”?

FILM 18: MINIMALISM / NOTHING / COLLINGS

Do you think that these artists made “something out of nothing”?
Yes, I do. Just because a canvas is plain white, does not mean that nothing is there and nothing is implied. It isn’t always about color and images. There’s texture to these paintings. The oil paints glob up and make texture that covers the canvas. Maybe that is what the artist intended.

What is the difference between pop art and minimal art? Does it make sense for these movements to follow one another?
Pop art was about visible things. Minimal art and conceptual art was about making things disappear. I think that it makes sense for these two movements to come after Pop art. Maybe artists were sick of “things” and wanted to make a bigger impact by painting “nothing”.

When people view minimalist paintings, why do you think they often get bored or frustrated?
People want answers. They want meaning.  When viewing minimalist art, it is often difficult to see what the artist is trying to say and therefore people, who do not like to think about the art they see, get frustrated.

Question: What is your take on Rothko’s Chapel?

FILM 17: LICHTENSTEIN / BRAGG

Lichtenstein uses a projector to project an image that he sketched onto the canvas. Then he traces the image onto the canvas. This was the case for his first pop painting, which was inspired by a cartoon on a bubble gum wrapper. He also uses inspiration from comic books and other advertisements. This method differs from Andy Warhol’s because Warhol often used silkscreen rather than tracing the image like Lichtenstein. This method is the same because they use projectors to reproduce already existing images rather than drawing the image themselves. I prefer Lichtenstein’s method because it seems like he puts more of his own touch into creating the paintings. I do like Warhol’s work as well, but Lichtenstein’s method is my favorite of the two.

In copying the famous paintings, Lichtenstein straightened out lines and changed colors and sizes. He also manipulated the images using the dot screen so to see how the famous paintings would look in different styles. These really aren’t even close to how Lichtenstein copied the comic books. You can see the direct correlation between the comic books and Lichtenstein’s work, while with the famous paintings it is more difficult to see how he copied the work. I prefer Lichtenstein’s reuse of comic books because like the style of the comic books. The huge images interest me and trying to figure out the themes of each painting is fun. I personally see no problem with Lichtenstein “copying” other artists in the way that he did because it wasn’t an exact replica. He made the image larger, painted it differently, and interpreted it to mean something new. It was no longer a single panel of a comic book. Lichtenstein gave it a bigger meaning. He was trying to say something with each carefully selected image that he painted. If it was an exact replica with no meaning, then it would be a different case.

Commercial artists are creating work that will be mass produced and distributed as advertisements or entertainment. “Fine” artists create one image and it is meant to convey meaning. These works are sold, but not always reproduced. One thing these two kinds of artists have in common is that they may be motivated by money. Both want people to like and purchase their work, even if they don’t admit it. The rules are different for each artist, though. “Fine” artists make their own rules. They do not have to follow guidelines or social norms if they don’t want to. Commercial artists must adapt to what the social norm is if they want to be appreciated. These rules are made by the client. A client in an ad agency or an author of a book may have rules for the images they want the artist to create. A curator of a museum could have influence on a fine artist, but ultimately the artist is the decision maker.



Question: Would you rather be a commercial or fine artist? Why?

FILM 16: WARHOL / PBS

Warhol used a projector to trace images. He also used it to reproduce images. One Coca-Cola painting was “messy” and the other was “tight”. The messy version had brush marks and the other did not. His friends were invited over to view both versions and suggested that he continue with the tight version. I prefer the cleaner version because it is more visually appealing. Because I know it is Warhol’s style, I prefer it because I have already seen his work.

Muriel Latow suggested to paint the cans of soup. Warhol did numerous paintings but of different kinds of soup and in different positions and from different views. These paintings were first shown in California. I think these paintings are extremely revolutionary because they are of ordinary objects, but you look at each soup can in a different way than normal. That is really what art is about. I’m not quite sure if they are worth $100 million dollars, but they are definitely worth a lot.

Henry Geldzahler suggested Warhol painted Marilyn Monroe. The timing was significant because he began the paintings on the day Monroe died. These paintings were made differently than Warhol’s other work in the way that he first painted spaces where her face would be and then silkscreened a photograph of Monroe on top of the paint. This makes each Marilyn different because the ink started clogging the silkscreen after repeated use. I think Warhol was still making paintings because paint was still involved. Just because silkscreen was used does not mean it is not a painting. This, in my mind, is similar to other artists using the camera obscura in creating their work. It is simply a tool of an artist.


Question: If Andy’s childhood were different, do you think his art would have been different?

FILM 15: POLLOCK / EVANS

This film was different from the others in the way that we got an up close view of how the artist painted. In the movie about Dali, we saw him paint a little, but not the same way we saw Pollock paint in this film. Kim Evans delivered information in many different ways. Personally, I thought the most effective was the clip of Pollock painting on glass with a camera under it. It was truly very interesting to see the technique of painting he did. I would say that the interviews with Pollock were the next most effective way Evans delivered information, followed by interviews with other artists, images of Pollock’s paintings, and finally Pollock’s own narration.

When Patsy Southgate described a “Macho Modernist” she talked of men whose manhoods were threatened because of the fact that they were creating art instead of settling down with a family like many other men were doing after World War II. They were doing something “delicate” and therefore had to overcompensate by being macho. These men drank a lot and lived dangerously. They were constantly drunk and partying. Often, they drank and drove. They were strong, ugly men who ended up becoming alcoholics and fighting bouts of depression. I personally find this overcompensation and lifestyle interesting, but also slightly frightening. They put their lives in danger because they felt like what they were doing wasn’t man enough. This is all very unfortunate. However, I truly enjoy Pollock’s artwork, and I feel like if he weren’t trying to be “macho” it wouldn’t be quite the same.

Peggy Guggenheim was a patron of Pollock’s art. She was one of the first people to show and commission artwork from Pollock. Clement Greenberg was an art critic who was one of the very first people to publish work that praised Pollock’s art. Lee Krasner was an artist who later became Jackson Pollock’s wife. Hans Namuth filmed Pollock painting from under a sheet of glass. This filming caused a lot of tension for Pollock which ended up causing him to drink again. He was losing inspiration and though Pollock wanted to move forward, he could not figure out how. Overall, this film impacted Pollock in a way that would change him and his art forever - and not in a positive way.

Question: Do you think Pollock was correct when he thought that the unconscious is where art comes from?