In Full Swing

Responses

Mapping Responses

What is contemporary Art Actually Mapping?:
I have never thought of mapping in an artistic way so I thought this was interesting. I think “the digging, finding, and exposing: relating, connecting and structuring of information” describes mapping in a great way and in a way I have never thought about before but now I do. Maps are just streets and they don’t just tell where to go. Maps can give more information that connect you to people and places and then you connect and get to know those people and places. Also I think it’s neat that mapping can be interactive as it says in this article.

Nato Thompson, Geography as Art:
At first this reading was a little difficult for me to read at first but when I read it again it was clearer. What I got out of this reading was how culture is produced in a space. Humans are a part of the world and we put stuff in this world. We make the world or space how we want it. So by doing that we are creating our own culture. So there are so many different people and nothing but space so there is many different cultures. Culture is like an art that represents someone and we want to see and experience other cultures so we travel and visit that space. A huge map is then created of many cultures. I think that is amazing.

Scene from the The West Wing – Why are we Changing Maps?:
While this video was humorous, it was also interesting. The bigger the size, naturally they exuberate more power just like what was explained with the countries. If you do look at the Northern hemisphere those countries such as the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, and China are high ranking world powers, while countries in South America and Africa are less valued and don’t have much worldly power. It’s also weird to think that nothing is exactly where it is because it has been that way all your life, so how could a map out of all things be wrong when it has been the same for so long.

University of California Press Interview with Rebecca Solnit:
I like how Rebecca Solnit described maps as a better way to explain than with words. To me this makes total sense because maps are visual to where you can look and touch while words are visual you can only see or hear words and that’s it. I learn much better visually than orally. I would definitely much rather see a map of 99 murders in in 2008 than listen to it and get bored. Like Solnit explained, you can see where the murder happened, what was there and it just helps to get a better understanding. And I think that is what maps try to do, they get people to actually see and experience what the artist wants them to see and to get a better understanding.

 

Elimination Responses

The Revelation of Erasure by Brian Dillon:
Brian Dillon writes about the act of erasing. He says that even though we might erase a pencil mark or something from an image, it’s still there just not visible. I like how he refers it to a ghost. We may know we are being haunted by a ghost but we may never see it. We are haunted by the pencil mark that was once there appear to be gone but are still on the painting just not visible. Dillon also says that to make an erasure, you don’t even have to eliminate but create as if it looked like something was eliminated. He also mentions erasing the facial features off of humans. He says that those faces look horrifying and tragic. To me these images, just lack emotion because bright smiles and sad eyes tell us about a human.

Paul Pfeiffer – Art 21:
I really liked what Pfeiffer says, “Is the image making us or are we making images?” When I first saw the basketball players screaming, I didn’t even notice that it was noticeable the basketball players were erased till Pfeiffer mentioned it and I saw the closer video. Even though he made a mistake, he discovered something new. Even though he erased the boxers in the ring, we know they are still there because of the movement of the ring and the movement still happening of the erased boxers.

Robert Rauschenberg – Erased De Kooning:
I don’t think what Rauschenberg did was protest or destruction. I think it was a great idea or like he said “poetry” even though he was erasing a major artist’s work at that time. Rauschenberg definitely made a name for himself by doing this and I think that’s what he was going for. He wanted to be like De Kooning so the only way was to use one of De Kooning’s works. But Rauschenberg made it his own masterpiece. I think Rauschenberg created a new way to see art and to create art.