Class and Videos

Our first week of class...
                                                 Went pretty well. Aside from the formalities of the first day, so far so good. I really enjoyed the activity we did in class with the different materials. It gave me some things to think about concerning play, that ever crossed my mind. Thinking of play as an escape or a method of relaxation, or even comparing the things we did for play as children to the things we do know was something I never gave any thought to. When we are children we even play with "grown up" things sometimes; little girls love to play dress up and wear make up.
After
       watching
                        The Art 21 videos, each artist gave me information that stuck with me. Stockhold said that play was "learning and thinking that doesn't have a determined end" and she says that is what her creative process is like. This is perfect. It explains the feeling I had in class and the Lego's came out. I was eager to just make, not anything specific, just something. I think this is wear the excitement factor in play comes from, not knowing what is going to happen and we are creatures that NEED to know. With Mr. Herrera, his "play" existed more in the medium and how he manipulated it than anything. He essentially "played" with his cut outs and photographs until he arranged them in a way that he felt was efficient. It almost seemed playful to him, although his tone was very serious.

Scoping and Audience

Before reading I asked the following questions:

1. How does one choose the right medium for a specific audience?
2. How does a piece invite the viewers to interact?
3. Can a piece have a specific audience but still reach those outside of the "target" audience?
I didn't feel like any two artist had the same approach. I was really interestd in the relationship bewteen the work and the viewer. How does the piece draw the viewer in? In my own artwork I have had issues with getting the viewer to see what I intended, especially if the piece is meant to be interactive. Does the viewer have to "understand" the piece to relate to it?  For me, Isaac Julien put a lot into perspective about getting your audiences attention. His work is for the "minority of the minorities" which means it appeals naturally to a small exclusive group of people. It is very tabooo and highly sexual in its content, but how do you make the work understandable to a larger group of people outside of the "target" audience. The "otherness" that he exhibits in his work is the same feelings all outsiders feel, and the feeling the work evokes is what is the common denominator between viewers. Ray for me thinking about how to invite viewers to your piece. With Firetruck he drew them in  with the familiarity of the firetruck and what it represents, and they interacted and responded to the piece with a sense of emergency. In Clock Man the viewers were interacting with the piece unknowingly. Ray was manually moving the clock hand and sped it up by three hours in the middle of the day forcing the viewers to rush and be frantic. In a way he forces, viewers to have some kind of interaction with this pieces. Tiravanja makes only "interactive" things. He says you can't "purchase" one of his pieces without using it. He performs his work so the pots and pans he uses to cook during a show, he sells. He uses ever day activities to challenge the space that is the museum. The museum space is almost like a medium in the piece which I thought was clever. I never thought of location a s a medium. After writing my response, I had these questions:
1. What does it mean to create a viewer experience? Is there a right or wrong way?
2. How do I take my ideas and turn them into pieces that go beyond one audience?
3. Each piece demands something of the viewer, how do I determine what to demand?