Picks, Picks and more Picks

Well just another year, just another bracket eh? Simple enough to me. Anyways I'm gonna try to keep this short cause I got a lot of picks to get to, just so you all can see that I'm really a pretty poor prognosticator, however I once did have the ability to pick the future in sports (Rams over Titans in like 2000, before the season started no joke), but this ability decimated once I had a Bar Mitzvah for reasons not entirely know anyways onto it (and no, I do not consider the "first four" an actual round).

round of 32:

Ohio St.

George Mason

Clemson

Kentucky

Xavier

Syracuse

Washington

Long Island (in the biggest upset of the tourney)

Duke

Tennessee

Arizona

Texas

Missouri

Uconn

Penn St.

San Diego St.

Kansas

UNLV

Richmond

Morehead St. (another significant upset)

VCU

Purdue

Texas A & M

Notre Dame

Pitt

Old Dominion (this my squadd)

Utah St.

Wisconsin

Gonzaga

BYU

UCLA

Florida

Round of 16:

Ohio St. (but be weary)

Kentucky

Xavier

Washington

Duke

Texas

Uconn

San Diego St.

Kansas

Richmond

Purdue

Notre Dame

Old Dominion (that's right)

Wisconsin

BYU

UCLA

Elite 8:

Ohio St.

Xavier

Texas

San Diego St.

Kansas

Notre Dame

Old Dominion

BYU

Final Four:

Kansas, BYU, San Diego St, Ohio St.

Championship:

Kansas over Ohio St.

Recap: I went way more chalk than usual this year, but hopefully that will me there actually are a lot of upsets (for irony sake). I don't really care how my bracket does I just care about the madness.

It's all done but the crying

Well since digital processes has come to a dramatic end (not really, it was actually pretty anticlimactic) I now must once again find meaning in myself, life, and food portraits. Overall I can't say I'm disappointed that I will no longer have to be frequently chewing and gluing tiny pieces of food to pizza box, but it certainly did happen. The biggest problem I faced throughout the whole project was probably a dearth of glue sticks, which I was ultimately only partially able to overcome. I will however dearly miss the 'quest for the apple,' or playing snake regularly in hopes achieving unparalleled success, but this will actually likely continue. The most disappointing aspect of the whole project was probably the way I died in the one epic snake game that I video taped. i really thought I was gonna break through and just fill up the whole screen, and then bam I'm dead, unbelievable. I actually have scored better games then the one shown in the movie, but I don't know if I have ever had a better set up and feel that deep in, not to mention it was probably the largest snake I have ever achieved. Now I know this all sounds like it's all about masculinity (what with Magic Johnson, over-sized snakes, naked men next to beer can walls, and werewolf Bar Mitzvahs) and maybe it is (I mean I do love masculinity, and know no one more masculine than I), but I think the larger reference transcends gender. It does not really matter who you are, we all want the apple (whatever it may be) and it's almost always impossible to capture.

Rich Dadd, Kirsten Boehm, and Me: Wer'e all a Little Crazy

So I had a pretty event filled week, this past week. I learned about the infamous Richard Dadd, and caught a something of a glimpse into the future in hearing Kirsten Boehm speak in multiple formats. Specifically neither of these to artist tied directly to the work I am currently creating, however generally I think the both apply rather appropriately. I too, will soon exit college with little resembling a formulated plan. I'm not really sure I now have any clear answers, but it was nice to get a relative perspective. In terms of me and Rich Dadd, I think that we both liked to think outside the box a little bit--now this is not to say that I think I am possessed with the spirit of Osiris. While Rich Dadd painted fanciful fairies, I am creating metaphorical fairies?? But really it seems quite easy to be considered unusual in this two-partied world we live in.

Anyways, Malcolm Chex is officially underway; I now possess six different types of Chex as well as fifty new HOT glue sticks. The size will be about 150 % larger than the Mahatma Candy. Seeing as I will continue to be quite busy I will now depart.

Yea, Yea Whatever

Ok so this is a little late, I forgot to blog before the Student Employment in the Arts conference, because I was just so damned jazzed for it. I also felt a little stressed out after driving back home in swarming blizzard with a bunch of window wipers that just sucked. Actually I think this makes a nice transition into what I want to talk about with my art. I think its possible that by forcing myself to play snake so frequently I have begun to develop super human qualities of hand eye coordination, thus allowing me to steer clear of snowy ditches and exit ramps. Ok, so this is mostly false, but I do feel as though I have grown (backwards?) as a person because of snake--take it how you will. Anyways, Muhatma Candy is near completion, it has taken me a lot of time, I will also start to record some snake games today for the final video. And of course everything is in line for a very large pizza to be ordered tonight, and thus the backdrop of Malcom Chex will be created. I think my product ideas may have taken a bit of a sharp turn, but I can't really divulge without giving to much away. So alas I end this post--as hope to end this class--in somewhat ambiguous fashion, have a great Sunday everybody.

The Internet.... is great!!

This week I read a few stories about... the internet? Well, maybe, probably, I mean really it's tough to say. One story by Jorge Borges (which by the way is quite a name, but then consider the full name, Jorge Francisco Isidoro Luis Borges Acevedo) was about a forking garden of sorts and the other by Bill Viola was about a porcupine and a car. When you read The Garden of Forking Paths it seems very obvious that Borges is indeed alluding to the internet, but alas he wrote it before 1950, how can this be? Alas perhaps the thing we know as the 'internet' is actually a metaphor for something else that has all ready existed, but what then? Perhaps this garden refers to 'knowledge', or the infinite history that both precedes and proceeds us. Or maybe Borges is simply referring to the perplexing infinite nature of our universe? Or--and this is my favorite theory--Borges was the smartest man ever and invented time travel, traveled forward in time, observed the internet first hand, came back to 1944 and explained it in the most poetic yet understandable way possible. I mean seriously he's talking about the internet, crazy. Like Borges, I too have experienced the internet, and continue to experience it on a very regular (regimented?) basis. My current project of combining both my food portraits, obsession of snake, and likeness to Magic Johnson, is heavily reliant on the internet. But how you ask? Well for starters I often use the internet before making my Magic Johnson PowerPoint presentations. I also use the internet to get my images for my food portraits, but most importantly I use the internet as a platform for snake playing. Now you say "oh, well you could just play snake on your computer or cell phone." But I respond as such: first of all cell phone snake sucks, lets not even go there, second of all I need to play snake online so I can compete against everyone else in the world playing snake thus proving my worthiness as both snake player and college student. So the internet is great! For now, but it may only be a matter of time before the freedom we now enjoy becomes a.) extremely regulated, or b.) the power that will eventually enslave all humans. Certainly we seem to be playing Russian roulette here with our abuse of technology, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't living it up. Considering the internet is as fast, virtually cost efficient, and vastly encompassing as it is, it almost seems to good to be true. So I say get it while it's hot, before something implodes.

Ray J. and Mary J: My way or the MJ

Compared to the recent artist I've covered here, Ray Johnson's work seemed to have a particularly appealing visual aspect to it. I think his work was very much conceptual, but it was also meticulous and exciting in the visual sense--and this is a bit of relief. I think my final project idea is also somewhat similar to Johnson, in that I am in part the piece (more specifically my snake playing, I guess it's tough measure how much consciousness I actually retain during these sessions though--this is enough on this for now), I do not plan on committing suicide, however, but the ending might ultimately be similarly hopeless. (By the way I have officially began construction on Mahatma Candy, hopefully it will soon be finished).

In terms of Mary Jane Jacobs, I found her readings, lecture, Q and A, to be somewhat engaging, but at times a little to fast and reference-filled to follow. In general I really don't see my art in the way I think she was trying to accomplish it in. I think that other people could probably do a better job helping with the community than my artwork could. I think it would really be compromising some part of myself, though I'm not entirely sure what. The idea of working with art to help the community, in one way is like ethanol; because we need of one thing (oil/community projects) more than the other (corn/art), and we have a surplus of the other thing (corn/art), does not necessarily mean converting corn/art into fuel/community projects is truly efficient. I also feel that these projects do not necessarily break down the barriers of the 'white cube', but rather disguise them and make them more propagandistic; most of these projects are selected by those in the curatorial fields (like Mary Jane Jacobs) are often similar to everything else shown in museums, only now they are forced upon the public as the standard of 'decent' and/or successful art. In all honesty I think what Mary Jane Jacobs does seems very successful and well though out, I don't think I would ever be able to do it (I don't think I can plan that well), and I don't know if it is really breaking down that many barriers.

Kaprow/Fluxus and 60's no mistake: Happen this

In reading about Kaprow and Fluxus recently I came upon two fairly simple conclusions. The first and more obvious conclusion, is that these art movements in the late 50's and early 60's very much correspond with the increasingly rabid drug use during these time periods, particularly LSD and other hallucinogens similar to it. Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually know if these artist took drugs as much as practically everyone else in America did, I am just taking a wild guess that, in my opinion, ties up some otherwise loose ends. When people take drugs like acid, and even to a lesser extent marijuana, the world becomes a more complex place. Things seemingly meaningless become filled with content and perplexing purpose. Anything becomes a possibility, thus impulsive actions become increasingly likely. The world seems unfathomably connected, and finally, as Baba Ram Dass can tell you, the moment becomes extremely important (Be Here Now anyone). To me, these ideas seem remarkably similar to those of Fluxus and the Happenings movements that focus on the moment, performance art, finding/creating beauty (or art or whatever) in things that usually aren't considered such, and pushing the edge of possibility/creativity. It's no coincidence that Van Gogh was painting such eerie images while guzzling absinthe at the local cafe, and who knows what he (and other artists) would came up with if he was taking acid like gumdrops, but I would wager that it would be pretty 'out-there.' It seems like drugs are always the white elephant in the room whenever these movements are discussed in classes; everyone knows it's there but no one wants to acknowledge it.

The second thing that stood out to me about Fluxus and Happenings, was that it seemed like what they were trying to accomplish was essentially what sports are. Kaprow described happenings as "A game, an adventure, a number of activities engaged in by participants for the sake of playing;" that right there sounds like halftime speech from an extremely bland football coach. Furthermore, through there books, Fluxus gives directions for, essentially, 'happenings,' or loose sets of guidelines that involve participants in an act of 'art.' Once again most sports seem to be extremely complex (and admittedly more regimented) versions of these directions. Sports are a 'happening,' there is no final product (aside from a score or pictures and videos, but is that any different from tittles, and photos of in art?) and no one can accurately predict the results (though we may try). Most sports are a result of interaction between a set of players (performers) and fans (viewers); this interaction is intensified most in Basketball, where celebrities line the court literally inches away from the players in the game. Fan interaction in sports can be directly tied to the event they're attending in away that spectators in galleries could not accomplish (before these movements of course). Often times fans are credited with 'helping out the home team' in close games by providing an advantage with their provocative cheers and extremely loud noise (this can become in itself an art, as some student sections provide a cheat sheet on every seat of sore subjects to berate opposing players with). Although technically illegal and frowned upon by mainstream media, fans often run onto the field (some naked) at random times causing momentary confusion and excitement by both crowd and players. In multiple occasions fans and players have engaged in fist fights on and off the court. Essentially sports are happenings that people take way more seriously, which is a significant difference, admittedly. But sports, like happenings, are a spectrum for infinite possibilities and really only false or perceived conclusions. Sports seemingly have a more intended and direct goal, but this goal, is also perceived, and not necessarily accurate, for the real goal of sports may simply be to 'play for the love of the game' or the most used sports cliche ever. a So maybe if Kaprow ever wanted to start taking his happenings seriously he should have picked up a basketball, but maybe that was the point, who knows? Ok I know that was pretty long, but I really had to get some stuff off my chest.

Beuys and Me: The Cat's Cradle

Ok, so it's saturday I know, procrastinating just doesn't work out as well on Friday nights. Anyways I got some thoughts to spit on Beuys, so here it goes. Generally I feel extremely different than Beuys when create my artwork. When I draw or paint, I focus almost exclusively on the aesthetics of the piece as opposed to the reaction it my draw from the viewer. I like for my art to be able to be 'understood' without a context, but this is not to say I discredit conceptual art; moreover I think conceptual art fills a certain void that I usually don't consider. Beuys was very much an activist and also a product of a dark personal history. I think this, in some ways, led to an interest in promoting concepts, awareness and reactions in his work. I'm not really looking to spread ideas or awareness right now, so I'm more focused on the visual quality of my work (just a quick update on my project, I have continued to log my snake and plan to start my portraits today). Honestly I can't say that I was particularly drawn to much of Beuys work, but I really liked how exploited himself and the art world to raise money for planting trees. I see a lot of conceptual work and come away thinking it's a bunch of lazy crap, but with Joseph Beuys I really get a sense sincerity that is a little refreshing.

Strozek, Fo Stro: Shit happens

Man these Fridays really sneak up on you, huh? Anyways I finally saw Strozek in its entirety Wednesday, and I guess I came away with a new outlook on the film. At first Strozek seemed more of a portrait of intersecting lives, yet as it progressed I felt the film took on a more explicit direction. The ending in particular emphasizes the cyclical nature of life as we know it. Instead of merely following Bruno through some sort of arbitrary adventure, we see him take a path that leads directly (almost meticulously) back to his starting point (mentally unstable, and imprisoned or dead). Eva too seems to come full circle as she resorts back to prostitution. One might interpret these situations as people unable to escape their own fate or destiny, but I see it more as them being unable to escape themselves--especially when confronted with the difficulties of society. Here we see another endless cycle forming; as society slowly rejects Eva and Bruno's dream of american success, so to do Bruno and Eva stop believing in their own possibilities off success and their lives, accordingly, begin to spin out of control. But what comes first in this chicken-egg-like scenario? In the final scene of the film, Herzog, bombards the viewer with more cyclical imagery (dancing chicken, chairlift, truck), yet now it is apparent that Bruno is fully aware of these metaphors, and once again we have to ask ourselves what is driving who? One may finish the film and come away with a pointless outlook on life, but I think that viewpoint is misguided. Instead the film compounds the difficulties of life with someone who is mentally unstable from years of abuse. For this particular case, the cycle is tragically impossible to prevent, yet we see that society alone is not responsible for this but also Bruno's own outlook on humanity (distorted from his abusive upbringing). From this we can gather that Bruno's life is one of unfortunate consequence, mostly out of his control. In Herzog's film, the word is a cruel and unforgiving place, but I think it shows that this is intensified the more one believes it to be true, and therefore it might be possible for us to break the cycle.

Ziegler on Herzog; a Shifting Kaleidescope

Oh man, I was just so psyched up for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, that I completely forgot to blog on Friday, but in honor of the big guy himself, I got to spit my thoughts out here about Werner Herzog. The reading "Herzog on Herzog," was really just an interview, that I found pretty entertaining. I like a lot of what Herzog had to say, but specifically I found his comments on anonymity particularly appealing. Herzog says, "To remain anonymous behind what you have created means that your work has an even stronger life of its own." I've all ways been a bit confused by the obsession with credits, and signatures on ones own work, and I never understood why I needed to do it. To me, it seems like you're debasing the work in some sort manner for the sole purpose of crediting yourself--why do we care about that so much? I guess credit is all that some people can hope for. But for others, myself included, what I hope for, is to produce something that stimulates me (and perhaps others ), once it is created I do not care that I made it, I care that it exists. Ideally everyone's art would be available to everyone else (technology is making this increasingly impossible) and one would not need to name-drop in order to like something. All a signature really does is put a very small (if not very large) filter on how someone might view the work. To me, the work itself is a signature, if it garners success and someone else is somehow able to take credit for it, I'll give them some credit (thats seems like it might be pretty tough to do). If I make something I know I made it, and generally when I do create something, whether video or drawing, I do not envision a little signature in the corner (it would make no sense to me) or a list of names and titles rolling at the of my film instead of some sort of climatic last moment (once again, no sense). Although credits and signatures might seem normal, or even fitting, they are not, and we have been conditioned to use them, and some how find meaning in them.

Warhol and Me; the Sacred Feather

Generally speaking, I would say that me and Warhol come at art in pretty different directions. I wouldn't really say that i'm too into the whole 'leftovers' idea. I think that 'recycling' (as Warhol puts it) is actually more like re-appropriation, and the whole recycling idea comes off as a little forced; I mean seriously nothing less is wasted in Andy Warhol's art than in anybody else's. But I guess that something of semantics. I do think Warhol's work relates to one of my project ideas, however, in that I may make food portraits of famous people. In many ways this project idea is deeply rooted in pop art, and may also in fact re-use famous imagery. So maybe I am actually into 'leftovers?' No, I still think its different (and I would also say that this project is not the norm for me).