Response 2

Reading response 2
sep. 9th


Peter Halley’s “nature and culture” touched on some major points we are all dealing with as students in the art world. I see it everywhere, the seeking of nature in ones self has become a sort of way to discover a purity that we may have lost in these concrete jungles. The separation of man and nature is being analyzed by those who feel the benefit of popular demand – in doing this I see a trend through the cultural fad of being environmentally friendly. The fundamental idea of being green has a great status of being socially responsible for other beings. All of which is connected to the idea of nature and culture. They aren’t two separate factors; I don’t think they ever really were.
He talks about having “Soul” a decade ago, and having “soul” now: I don’t see a difference, only because he chooses to use the word “Essence” in both cases, which is a pretty generalized term. The only difference is before and after world war II, the seeking of ones lose of essence though existentialism and phenomenology, and before, one that had soul would play a role in returning humankind to its oneness with nature.
I see existentialism as a common denominator for most artists, we are looking more into why we are making work through self surveillance, maybe out of self indulgence, but I see some truth to work when its made from ones “soul” or “Essence” making it more valuable (to the artist and maybe a select number of viewers). And maybe it is more interesting if we all share a common idea between individuals. Nature and culture bring a unity between vast ideas and conceptions of the modern world, the art we are creating as fine artists mimic our opinions of what maybe happening in society, or our take on modern civilization, making it a conversation of politics.

In Benjamin’s “the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” touches on the purity of art and its authenticity, which will never translate the same in a reproduction. Although I agree with the “ritual” of working as an artist, the mechanical reproductions can be used more often in today’s society because of the economic factor of affordability. But what is your art geared towards? And what does that matter? By popular demand we are expected to create a marketable product which can sell to the modern day target market—is this important in the creation of your work? Should it be? These are all questions I tend to ask my self during this kind of read. I cant seem to answer them myself, but from my experience here at ringling, none of this is taken into consideration when making work. From what I have seen, fine arts couldn’t give a damn if it were a marketable product, which makes me wonder if past masters have ever considered this before.
Before advertisements were digitally imposed, what were the choices behind making work that could sell, or did they even care to sell it.
Its doubtful
the richness of the work doesn’t come from the ability to sell the work, it comes from the essence of the artists choices and decisions in a visual format.