Picard response

I thoroughly enjoyed Picard's article. I think that the lifestyle of someone who lives in a in an apartment gallery is fascinating. Having a living space that is in constant flux is a concept that is both enticing as well as terrifying. I would imagine it would promote a high level of stimulation and creativity. I think breaking down personal barriers is a positive experience as well. I enjoyed the comparison Picard made between a television sitcom home and an apartment gallery. I think the dismemberment of the "classic home" is essential for our culture to progress. She emphasizes the importance of the interaction of a viewer with a piece within a space rather than its commercial value. Our culture is based on the material value of things and acquiring wealth. Picard suggests that we place value more on the experiences of life. This underground way of displaying art undermines the hierarchical nature of the art world. I also strongly agree with the almost selfish nature of the pursuit of an artist. Whether it be time dedicated to ourselves as artists or sometimes an inability support ourselves or a family, we dedicate most energy to our own work. The drive that exists to create is something that is rooted so deep that financial struggles will not sway us from our goal.
Also I really enjoyed her final note about redefining our values as a race. I find it inspiring to search for something other than the pursuit of wealth to drive my happiness.

Varrassi_Public Space Reading Response

This article was interesting, although it didn't really tell me much or make me think differently about alternative spaces. I've always found the idea of apartment and house gallery shows as sort of tacky and unappealing? It's just how I feel personally, I really don't like going over to a complete strangers house, to me its a weird invasion of privacy, and I always feel really uncomfortable. I also feel that if the space hasn't been significantly altered to allow art to be shown (for example moving furniture aside, setting up really good lighting and viewing spaces, making it not look like someone overpriced rundown apartment) then the actual space is distracting and almost more interesting than the art works that might be shown there.

I can clearly see how alternate spaces are a great way for artist communities to grow in an area though. There is great value in them for artists who don't have the professional connections or resources yet to get into official galleries.

On the Matter of Public Space

I enjoyed reading this article, and I fully support the idea of an apartment or DIY gallery setting, even with some of the drawbacks that Picard highlights. If I were in a situation where I thought it might be beneficial to me to lend my space for an apartment gallery, I like to think that I'd be willing. There's a necessity for more public spaces, and apartment galleries are a good solution. That said, I can appreciate how Picard emphasizes how these alternative spaces seem to create a sense of community specific to the kind of artists that participate in them. For the artists with limited access or opportunities for participation in a commercial gallery setting, an apartment gallery is ideal. It has potential to generate a different kind of audience, such as other artists in similar positions, or viewers who would not typically show an interest if the space weren't as available or intimate.

Public Space

I can see the appeal of an apartment or at home gallery and am intrigued by the idea. However  they would be regulated makes the practice nearly impossible.  From both reading the article and working in a gallery i can honestly say that it would be easier to take over and alley in the city for a few hours. And in some ways this is even more accessible to the public

On the Matter of Public Space

I found this piece quite interesting and enjoyed her personal stories. I liked Picard’s ideas about the notion of the apartment gallery and how they essentially challenge the boundaries of public and private space. I also found interesting how relationships become just as important as the work shown in the gallery itself because of such an intimate setting. I was kind of shocked to find out that apartment galleries are actually illegal in Chicago. On one hand, the idea of a DIY show in your apartment kind of freaks me out. Tons of strangers in the place where you sleep is weird and where do you put all of your furniture? On the other hand, I liked what Picard said about if you have no interest or access to the commercial world, an apartment gallery could allow you to relate to your audience more and create more intimacy with your art. I also liked her idea of a shift of societal need for more money and consumption to different symbols and virtues of achievement to create a better world.

Picard response

I enjoyed this reading by Caroline Picard because it opened my eyes to the strange idea of apartment galleries. I liked the idea of it being such an intimate space for friends and appreciators of art to mingle and speak freely. I like that Picard wrote about the issues that arose with the inhabitants of the living space. It never occurred to me that someone would misinterpret the proper etiquette for a gallery space. I also like that she explained everything about how apartment galleries conflicted with Chicago law, and the she included, step by step, what she had to do when she got a ticket for owning an apartment gallery.

on the matter of public space

On the matter of public space 

This article was very action packed and very dramatic. I could feel the tension in between the interactions. I think that I could see this becoming a movie one day in the future, where people are getting arrested and yelled at by the cops and in the end the cops win and they shut everyone down but then the artist society stands up against the police and they have an all out battle to the death.

I think the reason the cops are shutting the venues down is because the cops are evil. I also think big galleries don't like people profiting which is selfish. But what can you do but fight the man.

On the Matter of Public Space

I thought that this was an interesting read, and I really liked how she talked about her personal experience running the gallery. I think that the idea of an apartment or home run gallery is really empowering to the artists involved, they probably have more freedom to do what they want because its a community like she said. I would imagine it would be really difficult to set up shows that included vendors and live music, so I'm sure the community that she is part of works together really well. This reminded me of Brick Haus in Denton which had their first DIY group show recently. Setting it up had a lot of difficulties in communication and making sure everyone participating followed through. I hope more Denton artists start doing things like that.

My favorite part of the article was her footnote about her friend Jennie who came under the pretense of staying for a few nights and ended up just taking advantage of the gallery. I thought that could easily happen if you have such a sterile and pristine space that would look like a waste of space to someone not involved. At first I thought it was odd that the home was modeled to look like a traditional gallery, but then I realized it kind of has to in order to avoid the attitude that Jennie had toward the space.

Also I don't think this should be an illegal practice, however it is technically. I thought it was interesting how she legitimately tried to make it work with the city but they just wouldn't allow it.

Public Space: Anna Alexanian

 I think the idea of using public (or semi-private, in the case of a home or an apartment) space as gallery venue is an absolutely brilliant idea. It gives all of the power directly to the artists involved, and oftentimes removes the hand of the 'academy' entirely. This, I think, is a huge benefit for many artists working independently or are just starting out in the world of gallery spaces. At the same time, I think Picard brings up a few really great points about the complications involved. It's hard to navigate a situation where you live in the same place you show your work. You have to be careful around the art. You have to keep the place pristine. Pets and children and personal belongings become a liability, and the areas of your home where you have your gallery are never really 'yours'. That isn't a huge problem if you, for instance, live in a mansion, but for a lot of larger cities, especially Chicago where the act of in-home galleries is common, there just isn't enough space to comfortably live in and among the artwork being shown. I don't think this is a deterrent, however.

The illegality of an apartment-gallery, however, is. It seems completely ridiculous to me that someone can't run a business out of their home. Plenty of people do that. All you have to do is look on Etsy or Pinterest to see some soccer mom selling off bejeweled mason jars that she made in the kitchen of her suburban, two-story house. She's made a business out of it. If it's a successful venture, she makes enough money that she has to fill out a tax form. How is that model of business different than hosting a gallery out of an apartment? If it's the number of people, then I feel like house parties should be made illegal as well. If it's the sale of work or merchandise, then the suburban mom I mentioned shouldn't be allowed to do what she does, either. It makes very little sense to me, and Picard doesn't actually go into the legal details in her essay, which might be something to look into anyway.

Either way, illegal or not, I'm in full support of the apartment-gallery model, and I feel like I myself would be perfectly comfortable sharing a space like that with the public and the artwork.

On The Matter Of Public Space Response - Kate Denton

I appreciate the idea of hosting a show in a more obscure setting, such as an apartment or a public space. It is something that I never would have thought of outside of our class lecture and this article, and I feel that it was a very interesting read as far as learning about certain rules and regulations on such shows up in the Chicago area. I can see how it would be a very beneficial way to go about putting on a show as the artist could potentially have more control over what happens at their show while being able to pull away from gallery standards and rules. It opens up a whole new selection of options and a wider range of possibilities than one might necessarily get from a crisp, curated space. However, I can also see how it could be a very problematic situation in dealing with other people's schedules as well as the potential mess of dealing with the legal issues in certain cities and/or states. The possibility of becoming invasive could bring more trouble than its worth, which is why having both kinds of shows is very important and I appreciate Picard mentioning that.

All in all I believe that the concept of a DIY show is a positive thing, and I appreciate that this article put the pros and cons into perspective and referenced real events to show exactly the situations that could arise from hosting or throwing such kinds of shows alongside with more polished and professional settings. It was an interesting read though bits were hard to get into because of how the text was glitched.

On the matter of public space response

       This article has made me look differently at how art can be displayed for the public, and how the change of environment can change the context of the work. I thought it was interesting how she mentions how the view of a "home" has different meaning based on things like sitcoms and everyday interactions with the home structure. I related with this article, and the use of a "home space" for a gallery space, when she discussed how the artist can transform "traditional boundaries between public and private spheres." I have seen a few shows where the living space was transformed into a gallery, and while at the show, I noticed that some areas of the home distracted from from the art, and how difficult it can be to make a space that feels public, while in a private environment.
      I also found it interesting the grey area that these apartments galleries lie in. I thought it was strange how these spaces are both legal and illegal. Although, because of the with the way institutions are set-up, it seem that these Alt. and DIY spaces are important for any artist who is in school or who is an outsider artist to get his or her work noticed. I did like how the author mentioned how the DIY space encourages people to believe in individuals having a larger impact to society. It seems that the artists that I know who put on these kind of home/gallery shows are people who are want to bring art to the community and make positive changes where they live.

Luper _ Public space response

I can agree with Picard when she says that both professional and apartment galleries need to happen.

Apartment galleries, or rather galleries that mix the private and public spheres, are necessary to our current art world as I see it. We need a way for people from all walks of life to see art, and like Picard says, it is good to have avenues of displaying or viewing art available for "other artists, art enthusiasts, and... the uninitiated." This smaller, more intimate world of private homes hosting art seems like it can bridge people into the art world who don't have big-name connections or anything. It, for itself, removes the elitism from the section of the art world concerned with galleries. From something fantastical and near impossible to achieve (or something more akin to museum galleries, with 'famous artists') into something that is now attainable, easy, and even trendy.

Spaces that are entirely public spaces need to happen as well. Professional-level galleries are good for the art world because we need a level on the sphere that most people will recognize, especially art collectors and high-brow people who will buy and fuel the art market, or people who have little involvement with the art world.

Reading Response - Caroline Picard

This article on making a private space, like an apartment, into a public space to be used as a gallery has good points to it. Although, I would never create my home, apartment, or any living space that I personally live into a gallery space. I also would not want to show my artwork there either because I would not feel comfortable doing so.

I do like how she explains and clarifies that people do actually live at an apartment gallery, it is not just an empty apartment all the time. I like this point because I was wondering whether or not if people still lived in the apartment once it became a 'gallery space' or while a show was going on. I also like how she mentions when people do live there while it is a gallery, they have to live around all of the art works. They can't be at peace in their home, or bedroom like she mentions. They have to be careful around the art works. They can't decorate to their liking because the living quarters must remain plain and white. It sounds like it would be miserable to live in those kind of conditions - a home that is not your home but you live in that home.

I understand how an apartment being used as a gallery space can be "better" for some people and maybe for a certain show and can give art work a different viewing experience. I also understand how it can create an easy way for an artist to show their work to the public. But I can only hope that an apartment be used as an apartment, and a gallery apartment be used as a gallery. What I mean by this is that the apartment space that is being used as a gallery be empty of any body living there, I do not think if someone lived there or not would change the atmosphere of the space. I also would not feel comfortable being an artist showing in an apartment that is being lived in at that time or feel comfortable as a viewer coming to see the art work there. This is because I would feel as if I were intruding on the apartment inhabitants personal space, even if they are completely fine with the situation.

Reading Response: Caroline Picard
by Nickolai Lanier

This article provided me with some interesting insight into the world of DIY art spaces, and I think that the author conveyed very clearly what it is like to host a public gallery in a private space. I found the article to be at the same time encouraging, motivating, and terrifying. It was encouraging because I now understand that an art space can be self-made and can exist practically anywhere, and I feel motivated to push for my work to be shown in more locations. The terrifying element exists as my gut reaction to the difficulties associated with running a private/public art space and with this prospect of having all things working against me as a working artist. Her comments about the laws in Chicago barring artists from running these types of spaces made me aware of what bureaucratic barriers might exist in the art world, and her comments on the difficulties of managing a family and being a professional artist were equally depressing.

Dawson_Matter of Public Space

I really enjoyed reading this article. I was surprised to find that in 06/07 or maybe even today, that it's illegal in Chicago to have apartment galleries. It sounds like something that is up to the owner of the venue, not the city to decide the legality of such events. I guess it makes sense if there's a high exchange of money and a massive audience attending, but that still doesn't sound like something that should be illegal considering parties can get more outlandish than apartment galleries. However, I digress. After reading this article I came to realize that as weird as it sounds to host a gallery in a home, the question of the 'home's usage' came about. As the author stated, it will be harder to "transcend the ideas of what home should be like." And when I first heard the idea of holding a gallery in the home, I was reluctant because it's my private space and I don't want some strangers coming in and being a part of that space, that's not supposed to be for them. In a way it's testing your shell, your bubble of comfort.  When she mentions in the last paragraph about how beneficial it could be for not only the audience, but the host themselves, it was an, "ah, I can understand that," moment.

On The Matter of Public Space

Caroline Picard's article talks about the difference between a "professional" gallery space and a gallery created in one's house or apartment. She also talks about the need for both.

I agree that an apartment galleries need to happen. There are so many hurdles that need to be jumped when trying to set up an exhibition at a formal gallery. And even when the exhibit is finally installed and open to the public, there is no guarantee of success. People may show up but they may only be the "hot shot" art collectors that spend their Saturday nights looking at art and maybe buying a piece or two for an outrageous price. But Picard argues for the more intimate and casual apartment gallery. Friends will likely show up and, more importantly, a stranger or two that would never have considered entering a formal gallery.

You get a different mix of people in an apartment gallery, it is a less formal space and so it opens up possibilities for different buyers or exposure. I think this is important because there seems to be a gap between a formal gallery and artists. Not to mention that there is also a huge gap between the gallery and potential buyers. High end classy people frequent galleries. But this should not be the case, a gallery is for whoever wants to go and view the art and possibly purchase a piece. I think this is part of Picard's argument, the apartment gallery is trying to bridge the gap between the average Joe and the Art World.

As the article goes on Picard writes about how apartment galleries are actually illegal in certain places and how trying to stay within the law is just a confusing maze of time wasting. Why isn't there a way to make apartment galleries legal and encouraged? Why must there be so much red tape that artists just fall down and give up? Yes there are people willing to help artists find loop holes and are willing to turn a blind eye, but why must this happen at all? Yes there needs to be regulations on apartment galleries, for safety obviously, but other than that, what's the big deal? Why can't someone use their own space to effectively show their hard work? I don't understand why this is such a problem. True there are very successful apartment galleries, but what about places like the Green Lantern? Shouldn't they get a chance? I certainly think so.

Dave Hickey Reading Response

I feel like compared to other art writers the clarity of language in this piece makes me connect with it more. Hickey’s description is very detailed and keeps me engaged with the ideas in the work.

I found that the parallels drawn between car culture and the art market in the 1960’s seemed to make sense. Like cars, art objects are selling desires and values rather than just objects. The values apparent to the art of the day is what is pre-approved by the art world.

What he seems to be saying is that commercial art-- or art that took a pre-existing object and “customized” it -- had a brief time in the spotlight but the “transnational bureaucracy” of the art world eventually pushed it out, prizing non-representation and the conceptual.

He argues that since art objects don’t do anything and aren’t worth anything the only thing we can argue about is the values the objects represent. The undertone of the writing suggests that because the idea of combining the commercial object and the artistic practice is somehow insulting to the powers that be, they pushed it out.

However, I don’t think this is the first “birth” of the art market. I think the art market (as in the art beurocracy) has existed for a very long time. This piece seems to be about the fall of customized art, and about the art world being so homogenized and controlled, and institutionally supported/advocated. But art has always been somewhat homogenized, controlled by the church, governments, kings, and MoMa. Images and objects and ideas have power, it’s only natural that people want to control them.

Beverly Cheng: Envisioning Exercise

Given unlimited funds I would want to try and achieve a project I've been dreaming of for quite some time. It starts with a very large surface, or a multitude of small surfaces. The project would either be a canvas or just an empty space that I could do whatever I wished on it. I've never had the freedom to just paint an entire wall or floor. And since I have unlimited funds I might also just purchase a large studio or building and over the course of the my life just paint all over it.

My concept for this project would end when I die and it wouldn't be finished until I died. A lot of people wish to leave their own mark on the earth to prove that they existed. A lot of people I know find it disheartening to not know if anyone would remember them if they passed on. So, I want to make that proof. I want to create a project for the sole purpose of easing their minds, or maybe just showing those who doubt their presence in others' lives that they most certainly hold an importance in my life. The reason this project wouldn't end until my death is because I want them to know I would never forget them. From my dearest childhood friends to the quick encounters I've made online and out of the country, I want to retell these experiences and tell them through my art that they will always exist through me if nothing else.

The materials required for this wouldn't be anything extravagant, the project would just require large quantities of everything. I would use ink to write stories, charcoal to illustrate them. Paint would be needed to add color, and the use of photo paper to print things I don't fully remember. I wouldn't want to use too many materials because I would want my "hand" to be evident in the work; I want my sincerity to show through. If that makes sense.

And that's what I would do, if given unlimited resources.

Envisioning Exercise

Given unlimited funds, I don't think I would really do anything all that grandiose. I think that every dollar I spent would simply be spent in pursuit of making art, and growing as an artist.

First, I would spend quite a bit of time just traveling, visiting the world's major museums and educating myself in the field of art history. I often make reference to history in my paintings and I believe that immersing myself in this field would be helpful in allowing me to make smarter, more humorous references.

After returning to the U.S., I would rent a big, nice studio space, furnish it comfortably, and return to making art. As I would have unlimited funds, I would have fine stretchers built for me, and use high-quality, professional grade paints, mediums, and brushes. I would also invest in high-quality photography equipment for creating my reference photos.

Ultimately, I just want to make good paintings. Even if I had an infinite amount of funding, that's all I'd want to do.

*I attempted to email this previously, but UNT's email sucks and corrupts the attachments and/or flat-out doesn't send messages, so I'm posting this here instead.

Envisioning Exercise (It was all a dream...)

If given unlimited funds from an institution, I would travel to Germany and Belgium to study Contemporary European Art. I would use this award to my fund airfare, transport, and lodging for the duration of my stay in Europe while researching artists, museums, and galleries.

I will visit museums and galleries that display and represent artists I have studied throughout my undergrad. Attending major, contemporary exhibitions will expand my knowledge of contemporary art, and expose me to new artists and teach me about other countries' lifestyles. When I return from my research, I will also use this award to rent a studio space, and purchase the materials and media I need to make a body of work in response to what I experienced and observed traveling Europe and studying art. 

Dave Hickey Response

In this article it is very apparent that he likes cars. He likes old cars, he grew up around cars, he grew up being interested in cars. He likes cars. I am not sure what else he is really talking about in the article though. He sounds like he is talking about how the quality of things are made, which isn't a very good quality and that people only like the item because it is what it is, not necessarily about the quality of the item. He also made me think he wants to make art that is backwards of what people were expecting, like when he said he wanted it to be "wow! huh?" instead of "huh? wow!", so maybe he wanted to play with peoples reactions to ordinary things.

Envisioning Exercise

LizDiane Peirce

Envisioning Exercise

Given unlimited funds and resources, what would you do?

• What?
• Why?
• How?

    Given unlimited means and resources, I would open up a workshop geared toward the 3-dimensional arts with a gallery style store front.  I would rent out the facility and studio space to other artist as well as allowing selling space with a 10-15% cut on earnings.  The shop would have pottery wheels, kilns, looms, along with metal and wood working equipment.  I have two minors in Business and in Marketing and I fully intend to someday put this plan into action.  Ideally it would be located in the Metroplex here in Tx.  Having a very rational, mathematical mind, this investment would be the best alternative to teaching while still facilitating a reliable living.  We would likely host workshops and private classes for the public community.  I would likely venture into this investment with a partner or two.  Though this idea is a very plausible possibility sometime in the future, at the present moment I would need the unlimited funds and resources to achieve it.  Then I could hire someone to run the shop while I work in the studio to my heart’s content.

LizDiane Artist Statement

My Ceramic Artwork is cone 10 stoneware fired in a variety of ways while concentrating on function, form, color, and atmosphere when approaching my work aesthetically.  The permanence and lasting quality of stoneware provide a great medium to work with. Function, or the vessel’s purpose, if often my first consideration.  This drives my exploration of unusual functions for pottery while developing functional serving ware and everyday vessels.

My forms present themselves as elegant and fluid, often reflecting Ancient Greek Pottery. My fascination with the beauty and elegance of Greek Pottery and the rich cultural dialogue has greatly impacted the direction of my artwork. Nature’s elegance is another influence on my vessels shapes and form through an exploration of agateware and the use of fluid curves.  My intent is for both surface and form to be fluid and cohesive while addressing the rich contrast of elegance and chaos.  

The inspiration for my colors start by reflecting on nature’s vibrant transitional colors and evolves to the Chaos of nature.  I am driven to search out and test glazes for their ability to transition and blend with each other, while being challenged to contemplate color throughout the entire creation process.  I address this challenge through the clay’s ability to add color at various stages in the vessel’s creation.  From using colored clays and slips, to spraying multiple layers of glaze on bisque ware, to spraying soda ash into a kiln during the firing.  I often apply color at several stages in the process providing depth of color in layers.

My firing process is greatly influenced by my desire for a wide range of colors.  I practice a variety of firing methods to achieve this; from atmospheric soda firing, to reduction for reds, to an oxidizing atmosphere.  My overall desire is to make beautiful, high quality objects that bring joy and inspiration to others.

Dave Hickey Response

Dave Hickey’s article wasn’t the worst thing I’ve read, however I did find it a bit tough. It is hard to relate to an article that focuses so much on a subject that I don’t appreciate as much as the author. Take for instance his many (somewhat unnecessary, in my opinion) moments of nostalgia for classic cars. I don’t know much about cars, especially not cars from the 60s as I was born in the 90s—so it seems like he was stuck in the past to an extent. While I get the relationship with the art market and most of Hickey’s references I feel that the reading is a bit dated and it translates as such. I had difficulty reading this the first time but once I got into it I did enjoy bits and pieces; comparing the glossy colors to Caravaggio on wheels was rather fantastic even if inaccurate.

My main complaints are that I could tell that there was fluff in this article; it was obvious he stuffed in a lot of unnecessary information and I personally hate when authors do that. Out of ten pages, I learned the most in the last two. Another issue I had with it was, as previously stated, how dated it felt and that the article seemed to lean towards an audience that appreciated cars more than art. Again, though, it wasn’t as bad as some of the things I’ve had to read. At least I was able to finish it and he did raise some interesting points. My favorite point was about how General Motors made changes to keep customers trapped in a rotation and “moving up” the price ladder.

Dave Hickey- Response

I can honestly say that the reading was torture mostly because of the negative vibe to it. Nevertheless- Hickey used his love of cars to express and compare to the art market. Cars have lost some their uniqueness to them by being massively reproduced and it many ways this applies to the art world by becoming commercialized. He focuses mainly on the importance of individualism and identity. Custom cars was a way of portraying individualism and its subculture in the automobile industry.

Dave Hickey Response

I found this article to be pretty entertaining. Although Dave Hickey seems to have a very strong opinion, I feel as though he was just trying to express his annoyance with art and its corporate tendencies, but his views seem a little skewed. Overall,  I understand the point he is trying to make, I just wish his attitude towards the "art world" was a little more genuine rather than just being stuck in his old ways and comparing everything to cars and the way the world used to be.

Commodification and Car Modification

I found this reading to be a bit difficult to focus on, either because of the general negative tone I kept reading into it or the excessive automotive comparisons. While I'm not one for vehicles, he did have this sort of idea of mass-produced individuality that really stuck with me. I find this particular topic interesting- taking something everyone can have, and tweaking it to make it "mine." I instantly thought of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.(you know, the one where he slapped a mustache on the Mona Lisa and called it a day.) Though Duchamp's intent may not have been quite that, I feel like the result may still be applicable to this instance. While this sort of artistic commodification and mockery seems to throw Hickey into a bit of a fit, I feel like it gave the art world some much-needed humility in a sense. Sometimes it's good to step back and take a break from taking things so seriously.

Hickey Response

In  his essay, Hickey takes a very negative stance towards the commercialization of the art market. Ya he may seem like a grumpy old man stuck in the "glory days" but i think he has some interesting points. One thing that stuck out to me was when he addressed the constant changing nature of what aesthetic things were popular and how corporations capitalized on that. I think that is something we see today constantly, whether it be apple products or the hottest new fashion style. Im going along with Hickey's negativity here. Another thing I enjoyed was his romantic relationship with cars and how it brought him into the art world. I am impressed with his skills as a mechanic and I think our generation has lost that connection to our own technology.

Alexandria Clifton

The most interesting part of this reading to me is the loose connection between such diverse subjects that Hickey seems to draw as easily as he does. His discussion of the car as an art form makes sense to me in the way that he mentions the various skill sets and sub genres of knowledge that comes with being a member of car culture which is comparable to various aspects of art appreciation. Some of the specific aspects he mentions are the rhetoric of image and icon that are apparent in car culture. I understand, on a separate degree, his first encounter with the idea of higher conceptual theories stemming from something as commercial as the car because it seems apparent in other commercial objects. Many things are projected toward the individual in such a way to manipulate them into achieving a certain goal or mindset that at the same time makes the buyer seem validated while the 'market' actually reaps the benefits.

The 'rhetoric of image and icon' are apparent in essentially everything humanity is involved in as of late. Hickey mentions the concept of 'embodied desire' which is an idea imposed upon us by the market, or trend setters of the generation who calculate and manipulate style climate. He again compares this concept to the idea of the car as an art object which is ideally a 'fresh idea of democracy' or 'new canon of beauty' that has been established; yet tainted by amateurs or posers.

He gets really intense sometimes as he is discussing his love for the hardworking struggling artist or car lover as morally above the bourgeois because he suggests the latter are merely making matters undesirable by commodifying, pricing and 'choosing' what is art; in order to materialize or commercialize the idea of desire in order to establish an unnecessary standard of  status. However, I was confused at his switch between intensity and then almost defensive attitude that commodification is a strategic response to the changing times.

Although he truly does seem like an wacky old grump reminscing of the sixties, I truly enjoyed Hickey's written rebellion to commodity and the scary lack of individualism that is all too common in many aspects of life. He seems furious and the opposite of level headed as he progresses through the concepts like he is thinking out loud. However, he seems to show a sense of clarity in many disciplines. 

On the Matter of Public Space - response

          Reading Caroline Picard's article alongside of Dave Hickey's was interesting to me because  while Hickey was so concerned with the fact that art was being treated as an interchangeable commodity Picard is more interested in getting her work out there into the world to be seen. Hickey briefly mentions that they're are already more artist and artworks than there are buyers. Yet our world of consumers is so interested in commodities, and artist are all about getting their ideas out there and wanting their views to be seen that they are stepping away from the traditional world of art and displaying their pieces in a more eclectic fashion. She is saying that it is more about what we can show and do as individuals outside of this typical scene that is the art world so we do not have to rely on this keeping up with the Jones' way of life. Picard states that as artist we have to make sacrifices, such as spending money that should have gone else where on your child's new school clothes, but, in all actuality it is these so-called 'sacrifices' that make us human and less commercialized. 

Hickey Response

This reading was fairly clear to me, the car industry is something everyone is fairly familiar with I believe; even if you are not as into them as David Hickey is. He used the cars to discuss the art market and how art is becoming commercialized. I thought the comparison between the brand name (General Motors) being institutions like the Whitney and Yale in the art world, establishing "brand-name" art was an interesting one, although I he views this in a more negative manner than most. I don't necessarily think institutions like museums and schools are the biggest enemy.  He goes on to talk about how car manufacturers start producing objects that create desire rather than fill need and how that is a lot like the art market. To be honest, some points in the article he seems to just go on about cars, which while I found somewhat interesting didn't seem to relate back entirely to the discussion. Dave Hickey is pretty cranky though and seems resistant to change - I guess he just doesn't seem very open minded.

Basically it seems to me like what hes trying to get at is that all these different factors - "accident, insight, commerce, iconography" made the art market what it is today. Where we create desire for product, and art is the commodity.  I kind of got lost when he started talking about religion, and painting Jesus, and glazing and painting motorcycles - but overall I liked this reading and thought that Hi

Response to Dave Hickey

        I honestly enjoyed reading Hickey's colorful, to say the least, comparison of the art and the car "market place." His cynical point of view of the art market was hilarious to me because of how true it still is today; art is nothing more than a commodity that can be made and remade, just like any manufactured good out there. Even though I wish to be a successful practicing artist, I can see how absurd it is to think of making your entire living off of making excess commodities. Yet since we live in such a consumer based society it is entirely plausible. Everyone wants the newest, most trendy thing: in cars, art, fashion, etc. People feel this pressure to keep up with the Jones', so to speak, entirely due to this made up need for excess. Hickey's tone through the essay is irritated, but I believe he is justified in being annoyed with people accepting the system. 

Dave Hickey's Art Rant

Reading Dave Hickey’s The Birth of the Big Beautiful Market the first thing that came to my mind is this man is too caught up in his romanticism and nostalgia for the 1950s and 1960s.  I hear it all the time with other Baby Boomers, “Back in my day things were much more simple…”, “When I was young we didn’t have all the problems the world now faces…” So on and so forth.  The world is constantly changing, but there is much that stays the same.  To properly talk about and critic the Art World or its inhabitants a person needs to look past all preconceived ideas and notions. Not abandon them completely, but refuse to let them bias the person before that person looks deeper into the Art World.

Throughout this reading Hickey continues to come back to the idea that galleries and universities overtook everything and began to spit out their idea of art. Just like General Motors and cars. More and more Hickey sounds grumpy and angry that he can’t freeze time and keep it exactly where he wants it. Because in his mind, the 1960s were a time when everything made sense, and everything was known and understood. By Hickey.

As Hickey’s rant goes on he talks about a secular Reformation, at least in terms of art. In his mind the dichotomy of grace and works can be interchanged with theory and practice. Hickey is not a fan of the fight between the institutions’ theory of art and the artists’ practice of it. This is where Hickey goes off the deep end and I get completely lost in what he is trying to say. He seems to keep his anger in check until the last few pages, then it is full on pointing fingers and yelling things.

Finishing the reading, I ultimately have no idea what Hickey’s point was suppose to be. Everyone shut up and create art? Galleries and universities are evil and create mindless art zombies? I honestly don’t know. To me Hickey is an angry bitter man who just wants to get back to his youth where the world was at his finger tips and he had his whole life ahead of him.  

Response to Dave Hickey

This reading was pretty enjoyable, I think Dave is a pretty opinionated guy. I feel like in this reading he wanted to express his frustration with the big corporate way art can be but I think his lens is somewhat narrow. He seems like a smart guy but life got him down and he wishes everything was a car. (but not a GM car, no too corporate) I thought his analogy about painting jesus in thin layers of paint and painting cars is kind of silly. Yes I can see the similarities but cars are not Jesus.

Overall I get what he is trying to say, however his cynical attitude and sweeping judgments on the nature of the art world put me off. His perspective on the issue is very different from mine of course because I'm not an old cranky man. I don't cast a blind eye to the nature of consumerism that exists in the "art world" but I think that the artists themselves that participate in it approach it in a more genuine and thoughtful way.

The Birth of the Big, Beautiful Art Market by Dave Hickey - Response; Anna Alexanian

Dave Hickey, in this article, does not seem to be out to make a compelling argument. Rather, his main intent it seems is to wax poetic about how 'good' it had been before - how raw and open and free when the creator was the consumer and as a result had the ability to decide the worth of an object, whether it was cars or art - and disparage the creation of the 'business' of art (or cars, as the comparison was). Is he wrong? Not necessarily, no. But much like just about every other critic of his time (particularly of his time), his main concern seems to be that the changes to the market, custom cars and custom art alike, are homogenizing and being re-packaged in a way to be easily consumable, and no one seems to understand that.

Everyone understands that, however. Everyone understood that. Academic art has always been as such that it held a certain set of styles in high regard while dismissing others as low (different art types at different times, all fluctuating as tastes changed en masse). Even in Hickey's precious world of custom cars, certain mechanical parts and superfluous accents were considered better than others, even by those people that participated in the act of rebuilding their rides to be 'cool'. The consumerism of his world and the world of the art-selling business are exactly the same, and it seem to me that his only problem is that the people dealing art value it for the 'wrong' reason, as though every custom car owner knows exactly the story behind his vehicle.

Reading Response to Art/Work Artist Statement Chapter

As someone who hates writing artist statements (and anything else, really), I really appreciated this reading. It's difficult to find a solid resource on how to write an artist statement, but this reading was rather helpful. I agreed with what the writer was saying, especially about keeping it simple and straightforward, and not making it too "poetic." (Hey, if I wanted to be a writer, I would have majored in literature.) I also liked what the author had to say about giving us, the artists, an opportunity to talk about our work. I know we all dread having to sit down and hammer out this sterile mini-essay about what we make and why we make it, but ultimately, I think we should be glad for any opportunity to talk about our own stuff. Everyone is going to come up with their own interpretation of your art, but an artist statement gives you a chance to voice your intent, and your meaning.

Response to The Birth of the Big, Beautiful Art Market by Dave Hickey

In this article, Dave Hickey studies the similarities between the customization of cars and the individuality in art. He explains how his relationship with cars helped him understand art and branch into the art world. Personally, I have no interest or knowledge about cars, so this article was a bit confusing at times. He seems to be angry about the commodification of art and cars and how the shift in commerce changed from marketing good objects to marketing desire. His extended metaphors throughout this article hindered rather than helped my understanding of his point, which I’m still not sure what that is. This article seems to be about an old man reminiscing about the past and how much better everything was in the sixties. In my opinion, Hickey is a cranky man who doesn’t fully explain his point of view or why he’s upset about it.

Summer Pirkle - reading response about cars

So there are quite a few things I don't really fully grasp in this world, and one of them is cars. Their workings, their popularity, their different types; I just don't get it.
I also do not understand the intricate details of how the art market works and how it has worked in the last few decades. It has been explained to me time and time again, but it never quite clicks with me and therefore I've not a lot to say on the subject.
I've never been great with comprehending readings that I am assigned- for the most part I'll read or respond to them in an entirely different context- and this article was no different. What I think I'm getting is that he's angry about something in regards to the art market, something along the lines of everyday objects- particularly vehicles and technology of sorts- became customized and slowly developed to look more artistic and become, in themselves, works of art that held status? Whereas art itself was being commodified and slipped slowly away from such a status. Or maybe it went in the same direction? I'm genuinely unsure, I don't get what he's saying and his attitude towards it is pretentious enough to make me not really care enough to try and understand.

In short, I don't understand cars or the art world, so this article makes about zero sense to me. He sounds bitter about something, but I don't really understand what it is, and Hickey's attitude doesn't particularly make me want to care.

Shhhh it's time for your nap, Dave Hickey - Alyssa Barber

Response to the Dave Hickey article: The Birth of the Big, Beautiful, Art Market

    The essay by Dave Hickey critically examines and almost satirizes the art market and the institutions associated with it, but not for the reason that many would suspect. After reading Hickey's meandering essay that was so heavily laden with extended metaphors it practically demands a second read-through, I concluded that he is most certainly ticked off by something- or maybe not.
    To a large extent, I believe that the author is using this essay as an opportunity to play the role of a disillusioned critic of the arts in order to somehow arrive at something truthful and/or meaningful. He very openly rejects an art market that is fickle enough to adopt the sort of consumerist, customize-able  art that was prevalent during post modernism and then reverse back on itself and pretentiously abandon it. Here's what I don't think was mentioned in class and yet was an idea I found all over the article: Dave Hickey likes consumer art- at least to some extent. He simply wishes that customize-able art, which he compares to the low riders and classic cars of his past, would be at peace in its proper context.
    What Hickey is not a fan of, I believe, is that the art market was born from the "low" art idea of feeding the consumer their own desire instead of objects of substance and functionality, and yet it's flippant in it's opinions. The art market "legislated customized art out of existence in a fury of self-important resentment" because the market saw that artists had caught on and it was "cheapening" the art game. The Institution will sell you a pile of dirt as conceptual art but degrade Ed Ruscha as part of a trend in art. This is the point of his manically-written last few paragraphs where he relates the art market to a secular reformation. He is pointing out the reversal and the hypocrisy in the market and at the same time declaring a democracy of opinion when it comes to art.
    I have my own opinions when it comes to the effect that the commercialization of art has on the market and the consumer, my prime suspect being Apple products which so readily offer up their user-friendly vibes to become the new cultural paradigm. However, my focus here was to understand Hickey's argument, and my final conclusion is that he really doesn't have one. I looked him up online, and he's notorious for not saying anything. I agree.

For further reading, this is an excellent and intriguing NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/2015/08/15/432356563/people-love-art-museums-but-has-the-art-itself-become-irrelevant?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150815

Birth of the Big, Beautiful, Reading Response.

     Dave Hickey's essay, Birth of the Big, Beautiful, Art Market, discusses how American Car culture in the postwar period functioned for him as a way to develop a sense of identity and a personal aesthetic in relation to the art world and art works. Hickey talks about how institutions, like the car companies and museums, use variations in their products to create objects of desire and stratify their consumers so they are constantly seeking a level of status, instead of the object for its function. I thought that the comparison of car culture and the relation a mechanic has to his car to the art market and artist was an interesting idea. I am not sure that I agree with Dave Hickey when he talks about how his personal experience with car culture helped him get an aesthetic, and he therefore has an equal ground to critique art. I find that his comparison between car culture and the art world has many things in common, like transferring an object to an a space where it is no longer about its functional use, but instead about an object of desire, and how institutions section off of objets, like cars or art works into classes, so those objects can display someones social status, by owning a Pollock or a Cadillac versus owning a Geo and a painting by an outsider artist. It seems that what Hickey points out about the similarities of the two institutions are the effects that capitalism and consumerism have on individuals and objects.