Watch the video, view some of his works, and read the excerpt of the NY Times Magazine article on Hembrey (handout distributed in class). Then, respond to the following...
Here are two quotations from the comments stream at TED.com:
"This is brilliant, it challenges us to think about what art is. Surely one of the most important functions of contemporary art. The entire work is both playful and incisive and each piece is beautifully skilled and crafted."What do you think? Do you agree with either of the comments above? Is it art? Who gets to say?
"I don't know which of the following three facts is more depressing: 1. The fact that this guy can produce something so utterly flippant, facile, superficial, trite and inauthentic with such obsessiveness and then present it with a bit of camp showmanship; or 2. the fact that it is lapped up with such enthusiasm by an audience on TED; or 3. the fact that it is presented on a forum like TED at all. It's profoundly sad."
I Don't really agree with either of the comments but i am responding to to the second one. While I am not insulted by the "inauthentic" nature of his art I think it brings up some fears associated with viewing contemporary art. When you look at very unconventional art you worry that you are to stupid to "get it" or that the artist is tricking you by putting a pile of trash in a gallery and laughing as people who are anxious to feel cultured praise it. That said many of the pieces Shea Hembrey created are aesthetically pleasing as well as intellectually stimulating. i can understand why the commenter felt the way he did because its like this artist is admitting it is all a joke.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete in what she said about people's worries when looking at an unconventional art, because in the past I used to feel that way, too. I tried hard to think about a meaning that an artist is trying to show when the artist actually has no special intention. But now, I think I know how to enjoy art better. About the pieces that Shea Hembrey created, I think they are brilliant. I like his thinking process. The second comment said that there are several depressing factors, but I have different opinion. I think getting a great support from viewers is one of the most important factors in the world of art.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete and Sang Eun. While I watched the video, I realized that art works that are created by Shea Hembrey are superficial and somehow they looked shallow. Even though Shea Hembrey said that all art works that he created were from different styles and his imaginative artists, they have similar styles. His speech only covers the matter of facts. To me, his art works and speech deride contemporary art works. I think we should give a credit to Shea Hembrey because he tried new things that nobody has done. I, however, believe that he as an artist should support other contemporary artists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sang Eun when she said that getting support from viewers is an important part of art. If it doesn't intrigue and provoke people, challenge their minds and ideas, then what is its point?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Minju when she said that Hembrey is VERY creative! In fact I think he is an ARTIST himself........that doesn't mean I think his art is GOOD....but it IS ART....it is unique, creative, and fun.....it's just not my cup of tea
The first sentence of our text book is “There really is no such thing as art.” So I agree with the first commenter when he says it challenges us to think about what art is.......but I disagree with what he says about this art being beautifully skilled and crafted...........I think its creative and intelligent, but not the work of a “technique-ed, starving artist”
The second commenter is a CYNIC. He attacks Shea and the Ted audience personally, and not solely the actual artwork. He is entitled to his opinion obviously, but I think it is foolish with a bit of an jealous undertone.
I agree with Minju. When I saw his artwork, I thought they were fun to look at and it was very creative how he has created his art in so many different ways that no one has ever done. However, I was wondering if he had enough time to give his each piece meaning or consider about concept of his art carefully rather than caring about appearance of art to look 'beautiful' or 'entertaining' while he was becoming 100 different artists in two years. It made me feel like I was watching a entertaining show when i was looking at his artwork. It is important to make an art to satisfy and catches audience's eye but I personally think that art should be about being yourself. In my opinion, I think that art does not have to look 'pretty' or to entertain people but it should has artist's careful thoughts and mind than shallow beautiful work.
ReplyDeleteI tend a little more to agree with the first commenter. As Shea Hembey said that he grew up around quirky, colorful characters along with lots of readings, he is indeed very creative trying new things that nobody has done before like MinJu said. And I think he is an artist full of passion. To make such amount of art works in 2 years is not an easy thing to do, let alone pretending 100 artists.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, Shea Hembey has been making art works with the aim of appealing to a board public as himself said, which I don't quite agree with. It's like what Skylar said, the appearance of art to look beautiful or entertaining in order to catch audiences' eyes is not the most important thing about making art. However, I agree with Turner that the second commenter is more like a cynic. I did see more than shallow and flipptant art works combining his speech and the slide show. Through some of his art works for example, I saw reflection of different cultures and histories, depicting realities, showing optimistic towards death, and him trying different ways looking at the world.
I agree with Ava when she said that 'Shea Hembrey is an artist full of passion'. It is hard to make 100 arts in 2 years. But, my question is what is his purpose as he pretends 100 artists? Does he try to show possibility of creating 100 arts in 2 years by himself? Or does he want to deliver certain messages to people?
ReplyDeleteThinking about the question that Minju raised, "What is his purpose as he pretends to be 100 artists?", I think that he wasn't actually trying to show possibility of creating 100 arts in 2 years by himself, but maybe wanted to make art to be something familiar to people. Because there are many people in the world who may think of an art as something out-worldly(?) or strange, He could have wanted to have people enjoy the art by creating those works. The audience seems to be getting the points from each work that he was trying to show.
ReplyDeleteI cant say I entirely agree with either comments. I think that yes, there is an element of creativeness and a brilliance about this kind of art and the idea is a very contemporary one. I dont think the art is inauthentic or superficial but I think that is lacking some sort of 'why' or statement. Why make up these contractions of himself in order to create 100 pieces of art. I think if he had a reason that was interesting and innovative then the artwork would speak more and make people think which is what art is supposed to do. I agree a lot with what Skylar said about meaning. I think he focused( at least in the TED talk) a little too much on the story of the artists or what the process of the artwork was instead of telling us why he did it or what inspired it or something like that, which isn't always necessary in art, but in such a very showy and hyped project I think it is necessary here. A couple of the pieces to me were very intriguing and I found it very interesting but there was something missing about why because they were all so focused on the natural and human things in life that are present on earth, and you'd think with some thought you could make meaning from it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Turner and others that what Shea Hembrey is doing is art however, I don't know if it is a good(?) art. I think Shea Hembrey's art is both interesting and playful and the way that he is presenting them. It's interesting that he is coming up with different artists with different background and ideas. Looking at the comments, although I don't agree with both comments, I think I can understand the second comment better. I think the way that he presents his art work with showmanship is eye catching and fun however, it's not the best way to present his work. It seems like he didn't put enough attention to each work, he spent a lot of time coming up with different artists and ideas that they had with detailed background. But, for me it felt like he was just having fun creating artists rather than making art.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the both comments, but to first, stick with the former comment, I strongly agree that the artworks are brilliant, and it challenges us to think about what art is. And that the entire work is both playful and incisive and each piece is beautifully skilled and crafted. Not only that, I think Shea Hembrey provides a new developing idea that stimulates the viewers surely showing his own unique style of art. However, I argee with JiYoon and with the part of the second comment that his presentation is a little diminishing his art. In my own personal experience of explaining or presenting my own art work, such as in senior critiques, I always remind myself that it is very important to be sincere and a bit serious when explaining the artwork that I created since the art is my thought in my brain presented as a solid form.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete and Sang Eun, and am leaning more towards the second comment made about this video. I feel like the way he talks about these pieces is almost in a mocking way. He doesn't exude any type of passion or seriousness about his work, and overall when he talks I feel like he is more interested in making the audience laugh than in conveying his artistic purpose or thoughts behind the works he is sharing. I feel like these pieces could possilby be considered art. I can't deny the fact that creating these works required a certain level of innovative-ness and creativity, but (agreeing with Cacia and Skylar), I believe he should have focused more on what these artworks meant to him and why they were important to the world rather than the story of the artists. To me, the purpose of art is to provoke and to share an idea or a story, and simply serve some type of meaningful purpose, but personally, I cannot look at these art works as more than a simple source of laughter and entertainment, mainly due to the way he speaks about them, and the lack of passion he put behind these works.
ReplyDelete(to hannah) see I feel like, even though its done in a kind of satyrical sense I still find thats its incredibly clever. In a sense he is almost trolling the art world, but the way he's going about it is detailed and specific. The fact that he created 70 different pieces of art, each individual, each there own story,each with there own purpose, is doing something. Even if you felt like he was making fun of you, he did it in a new, creative way that envoked a specific emotional repsonse out of you. And from that I tottaly get why this was put on ted talks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete and Sang Eun. i can say that the first artwork is atomatically makes me to think wagt is art and it is super brillient. However I like the second comment is better to understand. He seems like he didnt put enough time to present the art work. Therefore the audience might think that the lack of passion that what he put it in to work that less interesting. (hard to focus)
ReplyDeleteSo, what do you guys think made him interesting? From what I understand, his work is entertaining however not serious. Is it just the part that he thought of making different artists that's being reconized and thought to be interesting by many people?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jiyoon, I just think the fact that he created so many different types of paintings in such a short amount of time is what really caught people's attention. His work may not be serious, but as you said it is entertaining and that seems to be the only thing in today's culture that anyone really cares about. His idea isn't exactly a world genius idea, but it is one that nobody has thought of yet and I think that also fascinates people. It's just a simple and obvious idea and I think it surprises people that he's the first one that thought of it.
ReplyDeleteWhen first reading the prompt: "Is it art?" I was a bit perplexed. I didn't understand which part of his work was challenging the notion of art. I felt the most interesting part of his work is the personas he has created as apposed to the art they have produced. It's almost like an example "invisible theater", or a very real-world form of playwriting. But he never claims the personas to be pieces of art. Their work doesn't really stray from what we consider art today. He almost dared to call "Artist in residence" a piece of art but was able to soften the blow by showcasing the art produced during the session (as apposed to the residence as a piece of performance art itself). The dancing on the grave, is in my eyes the most unconventional. It serves a practical purpose of relieving the participants fear of death and is really more of Theater Therapy, than a piece of art. All in all, the actual work he calls "art" is not as revolutionary, interesting, or memorable as the forum in which he presents it. Unfortunately I fear this is not a conscious choice, and is not the one he hoped for. What do you think? - John M
ReplyDelete