laiacasadesus



HOLA! My name is Laia Casadesus, I'm from Barcelona, Spain and I am currently a sophomore majoring in Art History and Fine Arts. Nowadays, art is complicated to create and to understand. Everything can be considered art, which makes it hard to find a valuable piece of art. The art world is like this today because it has become harder to come up with fully new ideas and to create freshly new art pieces. Consequently, artists, specially film makers, have trouble creating new pieces because of all the new laws of copyright. The various difficulties that copyright have created are explained in the comic book called //Bound by Law?.// I believe that copyright laws are strictly important because they give credit to the original author that created the piece, yet it has become more of a business than a way of protection. As mentioned in the comic, incorporating a song or an image that is not yours into your own work can cost up to $10000, which is extremely expensive. Such high prices are impeding from new work to be made because new artist cannot afford it. The comic states, “the constitutional goals of copyright is to encourage people to make and distribute new work”. However, adapting something that has already been created into new art pieces can help artists advance because they can adapt old concepts to create new ones. Although, today it is complicated because artists put their work at very high costs. Personally, if artists lowered their prices, new art work would be easier to make and creativity would arouse because artists wouldn’t have this constant stress of thinking about copyrights. However, work that is not your own should always still be recognized and cited. The woman film maker in the comic explains how old documentaries didn’t have all these new restrictions of copyright, which is why they were more fascinating than the ones today. This shows that creativity and thinking was more free before, which worked better when creating new things. Therefore, the copyright business is restricting creativity and impeding artists to explore new concepts. As mentioned earlier, contemporary art is difficult to understand and everything that we consider as “new”, is somehow taken from past work, thus copyright should reduce its strict regulations. In the comic, Judge Kozinski says, “nothing today, likely nothing we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and technology grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before”. We have to think of this idea carefully because it can help us diminish the difficult laws of copyright. I believe that we get all of our ideas from our everyday surroundings, such as music, popular culture, street art, and even history. Technically, this means that not all of our ideas are new. For example, fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, created a clothing line that adapted patterns and icons from the byzantine era. His idea was not originally his, but an adaptation from past work added into the creation of something new. Although, in this case it is difficult to pay copyrights, he still recognized the pieces he took his ideas from. Therefore, copyright is important and must be cited, yet it should have easier regulations. Additionally proving that creativity can still occur even if other works arebeing incorporated into new ones.
 * RESPONSE TO COMIC BOOK (FIRST WEEK):**

**PRESENCE ABSENCE**



Notes Video:
 * AMERICAN ART MUSEUM HOMEWORK**


 * Old to new exercise (not final)**

Rosalind Krauss talks about the different aspects that video can portray self-reflection and narcissism through pieces such as, //Centers// by Acconci. The video examples he gives to support his argument all reflect one subject, the self. Even though these videos were made in the 60s, this idea of self-reflection can still be reflected in 2017. However, the way it is portrayed in 2017 has a more artificial outcome. Nowadays, everything is made on photoshop and images can be/are extremely manipulated, specially in photography. Yet, video is also a form of photography, since essentially it is a composition of photos together. Therefore, it can also be manipulated. In 2017, an artist could film himself/herself, and reflect the idea of narcissism that Krauss is talking about in the article, yet if that video is manipulated, the outcome and response of the audience is completely different. Questions such as, what is the artist hiding by manipulating himself in the video? arise. Such changes can portray fiction, or artificial thoughts in the audience. Which is probably why sometimes modern art is so hard to understand; so much can be going on in a video when it’s being exploited so much. However, the idea of narcissism is still present in the current art world. An artist self-representing himself/herself can teach us a lot of what he/she stands for and his/her views on the world. In conclusion, art is always changing and the ideas portrayed in earlier art are still present too, but they are used with modern mediums, such as photoshop manipulation.
 * Rosalind Krauss Article Response**


 * Final Vintage Project **

GIF

RESPONSE TO "THE POETICS OF AUGMENTED SPACE": Nowadays, technology, and specially smartphones are inevitable. They are part of our everyday lives and even if we don’t like how dependent we are of them, they are a necessity. For example, everyday in class, we learn through powerpoint presentations and take notes with our laptops because it is a faster way to take notes and get all the information needed in class. However, as explained in the article, technology has moved from individual use to public use. We are surrounded by electronic adds in the streets and by buildings containing audio-visual architecture. The author calls this area, augmented space. This augmented space has both negative and positive connotations. The article talks about monitoring and surveillance, and how they are everywhere. This is a sign of an invasion of our privacy because we are constantly being controlled and observed. Additionally, this monitoring can always be manipulated and transformed, which is also dangerous to one’s own privacy. Moreover, the article talk about augmented spaces that are not physically visible, such as bluetooth and radars, yet there are in constant use. This is fascinating, but at the same time scary because it can’t be stopped or ignored; it’s just there and we can’t do anything about it. These are the bad sides of augmented spaces though, they are always present and running, which doesn’t allow us full privacy and are a distraction because they block us from our natural surroundings. However, in contrast, augmented spaces can be used in a positive way, specially in art spaces such as museums. The author explains that artists nowadays, fuse art and exhibitions when presenting their art in a gallery. I think that this is really beneficial because it brings art to live and makes it more proximate to the audience. Therefore, the audience gets the full art experience and feels the message the artist is trying to portray much better and closer to them. For example, at the Hirshhorn museum, there is an exhibition in the lower floor that takes up the entire space, including ceiling, walls and floor. This piece show puts the audience literally inside the art because everything in the room is part of it. As another example on how augmented spaces are positive, is taking art and virtually transporting it. This past summer, I met the director of the museum of Salvador Dali in Barcelona and he was explaining me that the future lays on the fusion of art and technology. For example, he said how their big step as a museum was to bring Dali all over the world through replicas of his art work made by 3D computers. At first I was kind of against it because I thought that the audience wouldn’t be getting the full experience and the piece. However, after reading this article I changed my mind. By doing this, art is made approachable for everyone. It is a way to educate those who don’t have the opportunity to visit the art in other countries. Therefore, augmented spaces are being used for spreading culture and knowledge. This idea of taking art to be more proximate to its audience isn’t down only at museums, yet also done by architects in buildings, where technology is used to portray images or text on the building. However, it still has the same effect of proximity to the audience because such images or text can transform an old building into a new one to impact the viewer’s views of transformation. Such as the one in Germany, mentioned in the article. In conclusion, technology is inevitable, and it has some bad connotations, yet inside the art world technology, can be used in a positive way because it makes includes everyone disregarding social status.