[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/kqLpjH2PidQ" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Professor M. Och
ARTH 114 and ARTH 115: Introduction to Western Art, University of Mary Washington
[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/kqLpjH2PidQ" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
I did not like this exhibit.
I thought the work that was portrayed to be nightmarish. Perhaps those are the feelings that this artist wanted to envoke.
I seemed to get the idea that this was an impressionitic example of nature and man.
I did some research on David when I was contemplating artists for my paper. He’s interesting, but his work just doesn’t do it for me. I did, however, find a funny image of a piece of his art that consisted of a human body in a suit with a chicken head on it. Very odd.
I think Altmejd’s exhibition was refreshingly original, especially regarding his peculier and rather bizarre images. I think such fantastical images, which perhaps might disgust, activate the viewer’s imagination and generate an interesting dialogue of what exactly qualifies as art.
I agree with Hunter, I think his art is refreshingly original and really unique. I was doing research on him for my paper and I found a statement talking about how his incorporation of the werewolf into his work can be seen as representative of the younger generations modern times in the age of cloning and genetic manipulation, which I found to be quite interesting.
I found the same one, Logan. It is unique, to say the least. I interpreted the works of his that I happened upon while trying to find artists that interested me most to be metaphorical rather than literal. They are metaphorical inasmuch as they reflect the clash between man’s human and animal instincts and actions, as Kimberly suggested.