Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2007

ORAL REVIEW PRESENTATION SCHEDULE AND INFORMATION:

Tuesday, November 27th:

Jess Greske; Clark “Mike” Gonsiorek

Tuesday, December 4th:

Brice Habeger; Jeff Bucina; Natalie Escobedo; Wes Giglio; Ric Hess; Annie Hobbs

Tuesday, December 11th:

Chad McGavock; Diana Nuzzo; Angela Rentmeester; Anita Simmons; Amy Spicuzza; Matt Vasiliauskas; Michael Lovely

You will each do a 10 -15 minute oral review of a Columbia College Chicago art or media piece that you have chosen, focusing on its aesthetics, form/style, and how it reflects, informs, or contradicts what we have read and/or discussed up to that point (up to the date of your presentation). You may choose to review the work of any student, student group, or gallery exhibition, dance performance, and so forth, but you must choose the work of another student from the Columbia College Chicago community (outside of those in our class).

You will essentially be doing a review – but orally rather than in writing. You must present visual or audio examples of the work you are reviewing and discuss its aesthetic qualities, form or style, and its relevance to one of the topics we have studied thus far (i.e. identity, culture, power, aesthetics, representation, authority, socially-conscious, activist, or transgressive art). If the work you are reviewing is at a gallery on campus, then I am open to discussing the possibility of bringing the class to that location for you to present your review. You must clear this with me ahead of time, however. For those of you who can acquire images (digital camera works well for taking photos of exhibition work), video, or audio materials, will have use of the computer, DVD player, screen – whatever you need to do your oral review.

The oral review will count as 15% of your total grade.

Just as with written reviews, you must be critical, thoughtful, engaging, and creative. What I am most concerned with, however, is quality, not quantity of time you spend on your oral review. I would much rather be effectively engaged with the material for most of your review than watch a variety of slide shows, music, or video that have little effective commentary for the majority of it. In other words, DO NOT RELY heavily on visuals to make your point. Visuals should be provided only as SHORT examples.

Read Full Post »

For next week, please read:

Thinking back on all that we’ve talked about so far, as well as the reading assignment for this week, explain your position on art in cyberspace. While doing so, think about some of the questions below . . . to help you form a thoughtful response.

  • Is cyberspace art even art? Why or why not?
  • How would you determine what is “good/bad” art in cyberspace? Should there be a certain set of criteria for what is called art online; and if so, what should that be?
  • What do you think is the purpose of art? Must art carry a message? Or must it be aesthetically pleasing? And if so, does art do this in cyberspace? How effectively?
  • How do you view the relationship between art and its audience? Does art have a greater responsibility to its audience than the audience to art? And how might art in cyberspace either weaken or strengthen your views on the way art and audience interact?
  • When comparing cyberspace art to “real life” art, what might be some of the benefits of art in cyberspace? What might be some of the drawbacks?
  • What expectations do you have when going to see a play, movie, art gallery exhibit (to be informed? entertained? to engage in a personal experience? etc.). How does your typical experience with or of art coincide (or not) with your experiences of it in cyberspace?

Read Full Post »