Sol LeWitt Conceptual Art Activity

I found the Sol LeWitt activity to be mildly interesting. The idea of art as a collective endeavor, rather than the unique expression of one particular artist, certainly contradicts established conventions about the artistic process. However, while I liked the idea being explored, I found the execution of the idea to be rather dull, and the work produced was not very interesting visually. The parameters set for the "work" (copying randomly selected lines drawn from a hat and posting them in a grid) were such that the final product would look very similar regardless of who was participating in the creation of it. In that way, the project felt as if it would have fit into the methods of the Suprematists or the Constructivists who incorporated the communist ideas of suppressing the individual in favor of the collective and who favored minimalist, geometric forms.

I think exploring the concept of art as a collective process would have been more interesting for me if the project had allowed for some individual creativity and expression, so that the final product would have married the ideas of individual expression and collective expression. I feel like the end product, in that case, would have been more visually engaging and thought provoking.

My reactions to this activity likely reflect my general feelings on conceptual art. For me, the conceptual artworks that are most successful are those that are visually arresting as well as intellectually engaging. Without the visual impact, the viewer is not likely to linger long enough to contemplate the idea being expressed.

Performance Art Video Clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWBMm_StU6Q

Class Performance Art Activity

The performance art activity was fun and, overall, I got more out of these performances than out of Kaprow's mirror activity that we did last week. The one I performed, Casey's "Star of David" activity, was interesting and thought-provoking. We were to spend a few minutes drawing the Star of David on a piece of paper in all different iterations. At the end, Casey asked us what we were thinking about while drawing. I found the activity interesting on a number of levels. As I was drawing, I began to think about the power of symbols and how historically they have been used both by and against certain groups of people. As I continued to draw, I noticed that the symbol began to lose visual meaning for me, much the way a word said over and over and over begins to sound nonsensical. That got me thinking about the power of art to effect the cultural significance of particular symbols, etc etc. I also thought it was interesting, and effective, that Casey did not tell us ahead of time to be conscious of what we were thinking or alert us that she was going to ask us about it. This made the activity much more authentic. It was interesting to hear how different the thoughts were between the two people who were drawing and to see how those different thoughts influenced the way the drawings evolved on the paper. It was a striking reminder of how every stroke and line drawn or painted by an artist is a reflection of that person's individual consciousness.

My activity had two people taking turns "destroying" and "creating" art. It was intended as a metaphor for the evolution of art, the interconnectedness of artists and how all art is a reaction to what has come before. As I was writing the activity, I was reflecting upon how artists have needed to destroy on break down previous paradigms in order to create something new. Viewing the performance, I think it would have been more effective to have 4 or 6 different people engage in the activity, each one picking up where the other left off.
To have the same two people doing the destroying and creating gave the impression of a cycle rather than a forward progression, which was not as effective.