Oct 15, 2014
3x3
1:200 = 1.5
1:100= 3
1:50 =6
1:20 = 15
1:10 =30
Loading...
seen from Qatar
seen from Nepal
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Colombia
seen from Kenya
seen from Türkiye
seen from Switzerland
seen from Mexico
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Portugal
seen from Poland
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
@oliviatilley4818-blog
3x3
1:200 = 1.5
1:100= 3
1:50 =6
1:20 = 15
1:10 =30
focus of negative space, nature, fun and simplicity.... all obvious characteristics of the "best offices in the world"
Kim Keever
Un-creativity by Henson
Tell me about your relationship with fine-art influences such as Vermeer and Caravaggio, and your musical loves like Wagner...
Really, it’s other people who draw out those associations. There are only two things I can say about that. The first is that I have no interest in making art about art. I just can’t imagine anything stupider. I think art about love, desire, death, longing, aging, the body – art about all the things which are central to the condition of life on earth for all of us – are at the centre of any substantive artistic activity. Art that seems to preoccupy itself with commentary on other artists is pretty far down the ladder for me. Images grow out of other images of course and various art forms will always echo what went before. Developments lead to other developments. Not that art ‘progresses’ in the way that science does. But there is still this endless conversation of meaning and association that occurs.
Someone thinking that you have been influenced by this or that, or you must like looking at Caravaggio etcetera, is, I think, ultimately kind of pointless, because these associations are fine for any individual to have but as an analysis of how art is made, it’s nonsense. Who’s to say that a trip to the supermarket is any more or less of a determining factor in how a picture you’re working on evolves than the novel you’re reading at the time might be? In the end you just end up with a list and it remains just that: a list. It doesn’t actually explain that unique, unfathomable, amalgamation of things that produces a picture which looks like X, Y and Z. So I think the process is useful only at one very basic level and that is that it’s an opportunity for people to go off on their own journey and perhaps introduce themselves to art or music or literature that they weren’t aware of. And that is a wonderful thing. But as a means of analysing and nailing down how any individual artist or person produces an image, I think it’s rather pointless.
- See more at: http://artguide.com.au/articles-page/show/bill-henson-interview-part-i/#sthash.03xqASns.dpuf
Resources:
So art being about art, unless one is driven to a passionate response is reductive; as you are not building from your own ashes
Giant Inflatable Balloons Transform Interior Spaces into Otherwordly Environments
El Sótano de la Tabacalera, 2011 - Madrid, Spain
Clouds in my coffee, Rebecca Jane Johnston
arts essay
Media studies has progressed a long way from being seen and labeled as neutral observers and commentators of society. Interest in the relationship between one’s media consumption and subsequent behaviour has seen the development of progressive theories on analysis. Although the media effects model is labeled as simplistic and crude by most academics, parts of the theory often re-surface in discussion and moments of panic in public opinion, making it interesting to review, with reason such criticisms and bring to front a more compelling and reasoned approach to media studies within its political economy.
The linear nature of media effects argument; simply put a “monkey see monkey do” ideology relies on a predictably, passive mass audience. Such a conservative ideology frames the media as a scapegoat for the numerous societal discrepancies and grounds it’s ideals in the vulnerabilities of women, the uneducated and youth (Schirato, Buettner, Jutel and Stahl 2010, p.95). Although the public for the most part will acknowledge such a model as reductive, in times of tension a persistent variant of this ideology prevails in the form of moral panics (ibid, p.96).
The selective nature of this early argument leaves little room for context or individual circumstance, it approached all cases from a negative angle and the studies, which were used to support such ideals, would not hold in court (Gauntlett in ibid). The media effects argument lacks depth, and does not consider the complexities of understanding and deliverance from either the production or consumption of content. For such reasons subsequent works look into the complex relationships between media, audience, politics, law and ownership.
Political economy theorists have divided the forces at play in the mix of deciphering what contributes to the media climate. In looking at their key terms it becomes easy to interpret what the motivators are. Castells; then Street look at the negotiation of power (2009:3 and 2010:283), while McQuail attempts to take a broader look at the influences and freedoms afforded on/to and by those involved in defining media theory (2010: 277). With Australia’s current media scape, political theory seems essential to understanding what is written, consumed, broadcast and advertised.
Looking at structure of the media, inevitably leads to examining power relations; as Street says, how “power circulates within the media” (2010: 289). Rupert Murdoch’s reach of influence became painfully obvious during the Australian 2013 and the British 1992 political election. This mogul’s 70% holdings on Australia’s capital city newspapers allow his conservative opinion to set the political discourse and grounds for the same ideological byway (McKnight 2003). Murdoch makes no effort to conceal his favor, and enjoyment in daily discussion with his paper’s editors; viewing his publications as campaigns, enjoying the influence, which may be exerted (Auletta 2007, in McKnight 2003).
Connolly’s summation of the incestuous relationship between politicians and the media (he refers to G. W. Bush’s Presidency) as “a resonance machine” (2005a, in Street 2010: 283) can be applied to Murdoch grasps on politics, where each political action was mirrored and further reverberated with his conglomerates output on a variety of media. Front pages read as blatant propaganda “Kick this Mob out”(Daily Telegraph, 29 July), “Revealed: How Rudd blew $250bn” (Daily Telegraph, 2 August), “Rudd Free Zone” (Courier-Mail, 5 September), and although many believe that print media is not the measure of the day it once was, the national paper remains as an agenda setter for general opinion trickling down through all forms of media (McKnight 2003).
Such a conservative monopoly on mass media and politics lends itself to a Constructivist’s reading of media influence (Street 2010: 296). Murdoch’s exhaustive control over publicized content and political outcome fits the understanding of mass media in terms of furthering capitalist development (Garnham in Street 2010:298).
Those who believe that Murdoch’s crusade against the Rudd Government had it’s roots in his fears on monetary loss (if the plans for the National Broadband Network was put in, Murdoch’s Foxtel holding would no doubt be at risk), would lean towards Garnham’s reading; where mass media act as trigger for consumers to buy into what will drive their owners capitalist development, with the endorsement of aligned political endeavors (ibid). This “commodification of communications” (ibid) seems to fit with Murdoch’s holding in Foxtel, while also fitting with his political ideology (Manne 2013). Such confusion (with reason) about ideological motivations, political influence, social factors, all rooted in economic gain, with little regard for ethics, (almost above law) draw on “the cumulative effect” of past media theories (Pluralist, Constructavist, Structuralist) (Street 2010: 289) where each may be seen as building and adapting with greater foresight, enabling one see the different angles of influence, depending on which position is taken. Murdoch and his media conglomerate, conform to an overarching theory of influence, and as one of the greatest influences on the county’s mass media enterprise, he must be taken into account in summating this media landscape, but with the changes of media consumption he should not be seen as the whole picture.
GO into networked media and conclusion
The 25-building, $100-million General Motors Technical Center in suburban Detroit, completed in 1956, was Saarinen’s first realized example of this new type. It earned him tremendous publicity, including the cover of Time magazine, and established the design and public relations strategies for future corporate commissions, from IBM to Bell Laboratories and John Deere and Company.
Today is architect Eero Saarinen’s birthday. At Untapped, we're featuring one of his lesser known masterpieces, the IBM Manufacturing and Training Facility.
Eero Saarinen was certainly the most universal designer. As he said in a 1960 speech in Munich, “my father, Eliel Saarinen, saw architecture as everything from city planning to the ash tray on a living room table. "This is what I also believe”
First, Saarinen conceived of an interior and its furnishings in terms of the overall architectural conception of a building. Everything down to the smallest detail had to be a part of this “organic unity”, a concept that Saarinen acknowledged he had learned from Frank Lloyd Wright. “A room is like a piece of art – it is just one idea.”
Saarinen’s and Eames’ achievement in 1940 was in bending laminated wood in a third dimension and in creating a new aesthetic featuring a lightweight moulded shell on an attenuated base. As Eero Saarinen himself later noted, “New materials and techniques have given us great opportunities with structural shells of plywood, plastic and metal…. The problem then becomes a sculptural one, not a cubist, constructivist one”
