Steele’s follows the conversation with a critique of the two critics’ views by examining how and for what reason violence is used in the film. Steele’s main argument revolves around the difference between art and entertainment, “art is entertainment, and some entertainment may be art” (117). He believes that Schickel’s claim that films should represent society would be true should it apply to documentaries, but Arthur Penn’s film strives to be art, and not simply a truthful depiction.
Steele, while defending the use of violence to a certain extent, finds complaints with the film from an artistic viewpoint instead. Slow motion and fast paced editing in the final shootout separate the deaths of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow from every other death in the film elevating them to a heroic status, but for what purpose? He classifies the film as taking, “a tragic stance without giving us a tragedy” (119). Steele feels that Penn’s use of artistic editing and cinematic devices become “shenanigans” (120) because they are meant simply to disguise the underlying unpleasantness of a story where the two beautiful heroes die. In this sense, Penn’s stunning and artistic use of violence adds nothing to the film other than making it entertainment genius.
From the website:
"The unique approach of Market East is to feature rare and limited edition works by underground artists alongside pieces by more established artists. The result is an eclectic mix of slick, professional pieces with those that are more raw and handmade. We sell books, zines, screenprints, posters, t-shirts, postcards, and music.
It's more than just a store, though, it's also an online gallery. That's why things that sell out often remain on the site for a few months. This way visitors can still enjoy the images and be inspired by the piece. For many of the artists on the site, this is their only significant presence on the web."
GET LOST is a collective portrait of downtown New York. Twenty-one international artists were invited to create a personal view of the city and draw a map of downtown New York, uncovering a territory that is both real and imaginary.
GET LOST brings together fictional landscapes, utopian visions, private memories, and obsessive instructions to explore Manhattan, its past, present, and future.
An exercise in emotional geography, GET LOST sketches the coordinates for an endless drift across the streets and myths of downtown New York.
GET LOST is the city as seen through the eyes of: 16beaver group; Francis Alÿs; Cory Arcangel; Jennifer Bornstein; Beth Campbell; Marcel Dzama; Isa Genzken; Inaba and Associates; Dorothy Iannone; Chris Johanson; Christopher Knowles; Terence Koh; Julie Mehretu; Jonas Mekas; Aleksandra Mir; Thurston Moore; Dave Muller; William Pope.L; Lordy Rodriguez; Rirkrit Tiravanija; Lawrence Weiner.
GET LOST is a New Museum production, edited by Massimiliano Gioni.
Beginning Wednesday, June 6, 2007, free copies of GET LOST will be available to the public at the following markers of the downtown scene and cultural organizations around the city: Opening Ceremony (35 Howard Street), Babeland (43 Mercer Street), Bowery Poetry Club (308 Bowery), The Bowery Hotel (340 Bowery), Congee Village (100 Allen Street), Lost City Arts (18 Cooper Square), Freemans Restaurant (Freeman Alley at Rivington Street), Two Boots (155 East 3rd Street), Patricia Field (302 Bowery), Screaming Mimi's (382 Lafayette Street), Joe's Pub (425 Lafayette Street), Artist's Space (38 Greene Street, 3rd Floor), The Kitchen (512 West 19th Street), Sculpture Center (44-19 Purves Street, Long Island City), The Rotunda Gallery (33 Clinton Street, Brooklyn), Bronx Museum (1040 Grand Concourse at 165th Street, Bronx), and the Bedford Cheese Shop (229 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn). GET LOST can also be found at the New Museum Store at 556 West 22nd Street and at the galleries of participating artists.
New York Gallery Hours
June 9, 12 p.m. – 6 p.m.
June 10, 12 p.m. – 5 p.m.
The Altman Building, 135 West 18th Street
Los Angeles Gallery Hours
June 15, 12 p.m. – 7 p.m.
June 16, 12 p.m. – 8 p.m.
June 17, 12 p.m. – 7 p.m.
The Rec Center, 1161 Logan Street
Exhibition Includes:
- Jonathan Harris’ Web projects Universe, an interactive examination of modern mythology using constellations of words pulled from the Web, and We Feel Fine, a large-scale blog analysis of human emotions online
- A demonstration of Graffiti Research Lab’s L.A.S.E.R. Tag, a system for projecting tags onto tall buildings
- A special display of Le Perversionisme, the enigmatic art movement concocted by French-Colombian mystery man Nieto
- A demonstration of British artist Paul “Moose” Curtis’ one-of-a-kind “clean-tagging” technique
- Two interactive installations by Theo Watson, including Vinyl Workout and a brand-new version of Daisies
- Interactive video from Martin Percy, including a demonstration of The Digital Debate
- Selected video work from Chris Doyle’s multi-author video project, 50,000 Beds
- Collaborative screen work from Matt Hanson’s A Swarm of Angels
- ReacTable, an innovative new music-making device recently adopted by Björk (New York only)
- Never-before-seen video from fashion designer Gareth Pugh (New York only)
An exhibition at the Storefront for Art and Architecture, NYC
May 29 2007 - Jun 2 2007
Featuring
BLDGBLOG, City of Sound, Inhabitat, and Subtopia
Postopolis! is a five-day event of near-continuous conversation about architecture, urbanism, landscape, and design. Four bloggers, from four different cities, will host a series of live discussions, interviews, slideshows, panels, talks, and other presentations, and fuse the informal energy and interdisciplinary approach of the architectural blogosphere with the immediacy of face to face interaction.
BLDGBLOG (Los Angeles), City of Sound (London),Inhabitat (New York City), and Subtopia (San Francisco) will meet in person to orchestrate the event, inviting everyone from practicing architects, city planners, and urban theorists to military historians, game developers, and materials scientists to give their take on both the built and natural environments. For the past five years, blogging has helped to expand the bounds of architectural discussion; its influence now spreads far beyond the internet to affect museums, institutions, and even higher education. Postopolis! is an historic opportunity to look back at what architecture blogs have achieved - both to celebrate their strengths and to think about their future.
Call#: Van Pelt Library HM851 .L56 2004
Defacer With Mystery Agenda Is Attacking Street Art
By COLIN MOYNIHAN
Someone out there has a problem with art. Or at least a certain kind of art and artist.
The evidence is the bright green and purple splashes of paint that began appearing on walls in Brooklyn and Manhattan more than a month ago. The carefully aimed blobs obscured or disfigured dozens of pieces of street art created by people who may not be household names, but who have achieved the esteem of peers and some recognition from the mainstream art world. The targets of the paint attacks have included posters, paper cutouts pasted on walls, and images stenciled on the sides of buildings.
Many of the paint splatters were accompanied by messages printed on plain white sheets of paper and pasted near the splatters. Those communiqués appeared to condemn the commodification of art, but it is difficult to be sure what the messages really mean. One reads, in part, "Destroy the museums, in the streets and everywhere." The author has kept his or her identity a secret.
Word of the covert actions spread quickly through the street art community. Web logs began documenting the splatters. Soon the unknown protagonist was named the Splasher.
USE INTERNET EXPLORER, OR NETSCAPE 4.x. ICA is not compatible with Netscape 7 at this time. Text-only database indexes thematic and iconographic content of early Christian and medieval art. The ICA locates an iconographic subject and provides extensive tabular description of the individual work including location, name, medium, object type, material, dimensions, content, style, school, artist, date, liturgic al reference and citation of published reproductions. Database provider plans to add images to the database.
photographs by mikhael subotzky of south africa. many of the photos are of/in/about prisons/prinsoners.
McLaren, Carrie. "Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age." illegal-art.org :: A Project of Stay Free! magazine. 2002. Stay Free! magazine. 22 November 2006. .
This is the web site of the "Illegal Art" exhibition which has traveled the United States in the past year. The site contains a copy of curator Carrie McLaren's introduction to the show, in which she states, "The laws governing "intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that artists need legal experts to sort them all out... If the current copyright laws had been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop, and Pop Art might have never have existed... Should artists be allowed to use copyrighted materials? Where do the First Amendment and "intellectual property" law collide? What is art's future if the current laws are allowed to stand? Stay Free! [the magazine sponsoring the "Illegal Art" exhibition] considers these questions and others in our multimedia program." The site also includes a gallery of the various pieces included in the exhibit, which include a Mickey Mouse gas mask, photographs of Barbie dolls in kitchen appliances, a re-interpretation of the Starbucks logo as a "Consumer Whore", and various pieces including the "DeCSS" program. Many of the artists involved in the "Illegal Art" show were or are the targets of legal action by the holders of the copyrights to the works they appropriated.
The "Illegal Art" website is definitely a valuable resource in the creation of my project; through the gallery of the included works, I will be able to see how other creators used appropriated materials to comment directly on the nature of copyright issues. The artists involved in the exhibition used many different media to create their pieces, including a number of video pieces.
Cardamone, Richard J. Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons; Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. National Coalition Against Censorship. 28 November 2006. .
This case is an appeal of the earlier Rogers v. Koons decision. Art Rogers took a photo titled "Puppies", depicting a man and woman holding armfuls of puppies; the photograph became very popular on greeting cards. Later, Jeff Koons took a postcard with the photo on it, removed the copyright notice, and planned the creation of a sculpture titled "String of Puppies." He specified that the sculpture be as similar to the original photo as possible, due to its use in an exhibition titled "The Banality Show" featuring art based on pop culture and commonplace images. Although the photo was in black and white, the sculpture was in full color. Three "String of Puppies" sculptures were sold for $367,000 each. Rogers sued Koons for infringing on his copyright; Koons claimed his work was a parody of the original, and therefore a fair use. The court found that the two works were substantially similar, that Koons had access to the "Puppies" photograph (and, in fact, actively worked to create a piece very similar to the original). The court did not find an specific necessity for the use of the "Puppies" photo that was being commented upon explicitly by Koons' sculpture, and therefore did not uphold his claim of a parody.
This case is very significant for being one of the first instances in which appropriation art came to trial for a copyright violation. Significantly - and keeping with the trend in many later cases - art using appropriated content lost. Although this particular case had many of the hallmarks of a decision against fair use - willful, known copying, economic profit from the work, etc. - it still shows a tendency of the court to dismiss this kind of art as copyright infringement. As I will be working with appropriated content on my final project, it is useful to know how court cases involving other appropriated-content works have turned out.
Slater, Derek. "Take Another Little Piece of My Art." Illegal Art | Creative Commons. July 2003. Creative Commons. 28 November 2006. <http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart>.
This article describes "Illegal Art", a traveling exhibition which was displayed at the SF MOMA Artist's Gallery in July 2003. The show contained pieces in a variety of media, with a full-length CD and several films and videos in addition to various two- and three-dimensional artworks. Carrie McLaren, curator of the exhibition, began working on an appropriation art exhibit in response to unsuccessful challenges to copyright term extensions; the goal of the exhibit was "to make copyright's problems as real to the average person as they are to [the] featured artists".
The article attempts to place the "Illegal Art" exhibition in the context of the larger legal debate surrounding appropriation art by comparing the pieces in the show to famous copyright cases, such as the 2 Live Crew case. The author also pays close attention to the economic constraints place on appopriation artists by licensing fees, cease-and-desist letters, and other tools of copyright permission holders. Overall, the article sides firmly with the validity of the art and the necessity for its legalization - no surprise, considering that the article is written for the Creative Commons. Succintly summarizing his point, Slater writes, "Had these legal limitations [on appropriation art] existed years ago, perhaps collage, rap, and Pop Art would have been sued to death before they ever had a chance to flourish. These days, the implication is that these appropriations are lower artforms, deserving legal treatment suited to petty thievery."
This article will definitely be very helpful for my project; it provides a general background on the use of appropriation art to comment driectly on copyright issues.
H_edge
ARUP Advanced Geometry Unit
Design Team: Cecil Balmond, Daniel Bosia, Jenny E. Sabin,
Charles Walker, Francis Archer
Assembly Team: Jenny E. Sabin and PennDesign students
Curated by Christian Rattemeyer

June 30–September 3, 2006
Morris A. and Meyer Schapiro Wing, 5th Floor
An exhibition of twenty large-scale graffiti paintings from such influential artists as Michael Tracy ("Tracy 168"), Melvin Samuels, Jr. ("NOC 167"), Sandra Fabara ("Lady Pink"), Chris Ellis ("Daze"), and John Matos ("Crash"), Graffiti explores how a genre that began as a form of subversive public communication has become legitimate—moving away from the street and into private collections and galleries. Forms of graffiti have been discovered on ancient Roman and Mayan architecture and like today were both illegal and a form of communication. Modern graffiti, which is associated with hip-hop culture and spans all racial and economic groups, began in the mid- to late 1960s; it made its way to New York City and quickly became a phenomenon. Urban youth used the sides of subway trains and buildings as their canvases, reclaiming sections of their neighborhoods by "tagging" them with stylized renditions of their names or the names of the groups they formed. The self-taught graffiti artists turned the walls of public (and sometimes private) buildings into giant panoramas and subway cars into moving murals. Later, graffiti artists began to paint on canvas or large sheets of paper, attracting the attention of art dealers and collectors. One of the first dealers to collect graffiti was Sidney Janis. His heirs Carroll and Conrad Janis donated almost fifty works from his estate to the Brooklyn Museum in 1999. Graffiti is drawn primarily from this gift and supplemented by material the Museum's Libraries and Archives.
Devising digital techniques for graffiti artists |
| By Geeta Dayal The New York Times Published: June 23, 2006 |
| |
| NEW YORK This city may have given birth to modern-day graffiti art, but how is it keeping up with the times? |
Pyongyang; A Journey in North Korea
Guy Delisle
Shenzhen: A Travelogue From China
Guy Delisle

Brian Jungen
Cetology, 2002
plastic chairs
Collection of the Vancouver Art Gallery, purchased with the financial support of the Canada Council for the Arts Acquisition Assistance Program and the Vancouver Art Gallery Acquisition Fund, 2003
Photo: Trevor Mills, Vancouver Art Galler
May 18–June 24, 2006
Reception for the artist
Saturday, May 20, 2006, 6:00–8:00 pm
May 12th- June 5th, 2006
ICEBOX Project Space
Crane Arts Building
1400 North American Street
Philadelphia, PA 19112
215-898-8374
Opening Reception Friday, May 12th, 6-9 pm
Art, Morality, and the Holocaust: The Aesthetic Riddle of Benigni's Life is Beautiful
Casey Haskins article, “Art, Morality, and the Holocaust: The Aesthetic Riddle of Benigni’s Life is Beautiful” analyzes the film’s impact on the philosophy of aesthetics as its controversial depiction of the Holocaust both in its humorous narrative style and its unrealistic representation of the concentration camp was the cause of much uproar. Haskin points to the controversy as proof that the film, whether praised or rejected, raises significant questions about the postmodern perception of the philosophy of aesthetic and urges its critics to revisit more traditional themes.
Haskin first highlights the film’s genre, what he deems “tragicomedy”, as a point of contention for critics. First, the film’s narrative style is that of a fictional fable, told in the adult voice of Giouse, Guido’s young and only son in the film. Critics believe that this approach to the narrative is irresponsible as the severity of the Holocaust warrants the moral reality that can only be elicited from sociohistorical fact. One critic Haskin highlights is David Denby of the New Yorker who criticizes the film’s misrepresentation of the Holocaust claiming Benigni wanted “authority not actuality” of the Holocaust and that the story is really “Holocaust-denial.” Haskin claims aesthetic as representations date back to Western Philosophers such as Plato whose cave allegory likened human experience to that of prisoners compelled to watch moving images on a wall and similarly, the film’s depiction of concentration camps isn’t supposed to be literal. Moreover, Haskin charges that there is no real criterion for measuring the realism of any depiction of the Holocaust.
Haskin further analyzes the film’s self-reflexive humor as an aesthetic that can represent the morality and give insight into the characters’ psychology. He categorizes two types of humor in the film: Italian social and political satire and Holocaust humor analyzing them according to various theories of humor.
Finally, Haskin shifts to an analysis of the self-reflexivity of art as an indifference to political and social rule or a negation of dominant rule. He points to the opposing philosophies of Adorno and Nietzsche on the purpose of art, “please or instruct”, “playful or profound” in order to suggest that while the critics of the film may lack a cohesive stance on the film and art in general, they do ignite a debate about the self-reflexivity of the film as art. In sum, when analyzed according to these models, Life is beautiful “has reference to the specific wishes fears and historical beliefs of a particular cultural moment.”
In this article Walter Evans argues that Stanley Kubrick’s thesis in A Clockwork Orange is the exact opposite of what moralist writers have said about it. He also discusses the film’s implications on free will while calling for reformation of society’s institutions. The writer makes a number of impressive points that help one understand the film better. First he quotes Pauline Kael, a writer for The New Yorker, who blames Kubrick and other moviemakers for creating a “new mood” for society. She states movies do not mirror reality as filmmakers claim. They desensitize us to violence and incorrectly shape our view of the world. However, the writer of the article impressively argues the opposite. Alex lives in a more violent future that Kubrick blames on failures of social institutions, not on movies shaping a “new mood.” He points out that movies are largely absent in the film. Family, school, the police, and the government are all weak in this film and can be attributed as the cause of a violent world. He points out each of these institutions failures while exonerating film. Then he goes even further by showing that film is indeed the savior of society through its use in the Ludovico technique whereby Alex is conditioned to avoid violent behavior through film and drugs. While moralists such as Kael claim that movies are negatively affecting our culture, Kubrick shows that only through extreme circumstances (forced, repeated viewing and drug effects) can movies affect our behavior. Even if normal viewing of films could modify our behavior, it would be wrong to censor it. That takes away our ability to choose. The writer also points out that art and religion would be pointless without violence and sex. The lessons of the Bible could not be taught without violence. To take away violence and sex from humans is dehumanizing.
The writer points out differences in the book and the movie. Burgess blames the scientific community for Alex’s transformation whereas Kubrick represents it as a political move. Kubrick also makes the prison Chaplain more pious, making the character more believable when he argues about an individual’s ability to choose good over evil.
Kael criticizes Kubrick for causing viewers to root for the brutal Alex. The writer, again, shows that things are not as they appear to be. We are not happy that Alex returns to violence in the end; we are pleased because he can choose evil or good.
While the book doesn’t have as much relevant information to Ikiru as other books I read, it does present some new information concerning the film in its own right, not on its aesthetic principles or themes. The book is able to ground the film in relation to other Japanese films of its time, which no other book does, which is valuable in a complete understanding of the film beyond its importance as an Akira Kurosawa film.
retail exchange exert a powerful influence over the aesthetic reception of gaming as a
set of enjoyable, exchangeable and exhaustible encounters. At the same time, the
mere fact that gamers talk about and contest each others' valuations in online forums
shows that there is nothing natural about such a valuation, and that the boundaries of
value codings and the boundaries of what constitutes fun are tested, if not traversed.



