Terry Barrett's writing "Time and Motion" explores the various ways in which artists working in a variety of media focus the viewer's attention to a piece of work by utilizing the ideas of time and motion. It gives examples of how artists have used these ideas in their artwork, such Eadweard Muybridge’s Walking Down the Stairs and others, In which he used basically shutter cameras to capture how people move and use mobility, using over 100,00 pictures to do that is so interesting to see. Others include artwork like Ice pyramids in the Arctic Circle by Andy Goldsworthy, and his fleeting sculptures to show danger and vulnerability in a public space. I believe that the article's main objective is to show how these artists created a new perspective on how we view art by using the basic premises, of time and motion, to create art that evolves and moves and uses those very basic foundations to make something cohesive and different. I think overall this broadened my perspective on how different and intricate art could be. It encourages me to not only consider the detail of what I want my art to mean but to use it in my work as well.
Walking Art: The Movement In-Between: This article was definitely an interesting read. I did however find it hard to read the piece. I could be wrong but I believe I have a rough concept of what our authors were saying, which I believe is the significance of Contemporary Art. While reading it, I frequently felt lost and puzzled about what exactly they were trying to say because I believe it was looking at the presence of Contemporary Artwork as it relates to its place in society or as a social construct particularly, the notion that works of art that don't fit the "frame" of what is conventionally accepted as a piece of art make greater contributions to society. However, as the writing continues it begins to discuss the idea that how people react to performance art sometimes becomes a part of the overall artwork and is not only about how the audience responds to it. It points to different arguments I guess you could say which in themselves make sense but it is sparse and feels more conflicting then cohesive. In that, if my analysis is correct, I do believe the topic of the experience of the artwork being connected to the artwork making the reaction a part of it as well does seem to be an interesting thought-provoking notion which I can certainly appreciate.
