Jill Magid

Jill Magid seems to tackle projects not many artists would even think about. She spied on herself using video taken from street cameras and also did a project for the Dutch Secret Service. My first question is, why would the Dutch Secret Service hire an artist who wanted to get to know about the system. Why not just hire someone to make a painting or sculpture to put in the building. Isn't that a little safer than risking having your secrets published to the world?

Street Art

I think the idea of street art was the most interesting part of this class for me. Many talented people make their work visible to the public, and it very interesting to see the hard work people put into these pieces.

The part that confuses me is that, isn't what some of these people are doing considered vandalism? What would happen if they get caught? Banksy is the name one street artist goes by. His images adorn buildings all over the world, but no one knows his true identity. Does he enjoy the mystery, or does he not want to reap the consequences of vandalizing buildings?

Installation Art

Over the course of a couple classes, we viewed different types of Installation Art. One of the big Installations that seemed extremely large was the Sunflower Seeds piece by Ai WeiWei. He and other people painted thousands of ceramic sunflower seeds to place in this space. The nice thing that WeiWei was that he employed people of the area he worked in.



We also viewed the piece Pharmacy by Damien Hirst. The part that "bothered" me about this piece is that I could walk into any pharmacy in my town and see something similar, so why is considered art? Why isn't any other pharmacy considered a piece of art?

Performance Art

Performance Art was the section of this course I found the most odd. It baffled me that one person could dress up horses and film them at sunrise for a piece, and another person could dress as a badger and make a fool out of himself - all in the sake of art.

Matthew Barney seems to do pieces that other people may just describe as "odd" or weird. In the image below, he appears to be nearly naked, standing in clear heals and body paint with a art piece "growing" from his mouth.



Another performance artist we looked at was Marcus Coates. Coates work seemed much more off than the work of Barney. I could never imagine dressing up in deceased animals and acting in a manner such as he did to a mayor in a different county. It makes me think, what kind of example is he setting for people?

Plexus

Over Spring Break, my friend and I visited The College of St. Rose to view the exhibit "Plexus" by Rob Swainston. This exhibit featured many different pieces which were referred to as Propositions. The pieces were filled with vibrant colors and strips of paper arranged in various ways to give the piece depth and interesting variety.





Another piece that was included in this exhibit were 3 ceiling-to-floor length "scrolls" that displayed more art. To the right, in an area that was hidden from the entrance, there was another piece. This piece had a window-like design painted on it, as a light shined on the part where the window actually was, giving the picture some life.




My favorite part about this exhibit was the mirrors on the floor that gave the insight to the artwork on the ceiling. If you looked over the mirrors far enough, you or other viewers could become part of the piece.

A Trip to the MoMA

When embarking on my trip to the Museum of Modern Art, I did not know what to expect.  My family and I took a trip up to the fourth floor where there was an abstract exhibition.  The first thing I saw when I walked in was two pieces by Andy Warhol.  I immediately smiled.  I recognized the pieces and the style of his work right away.  One piece was a large canvas with a small portrait of Marilyn Monroe.  The other piece was a compilation of Campbell’s soup pictures.  There were several people crowded around the pieces.  Some were even drawing pictures of the pieces on display.

There were so many fascinating pieces in the exhibit.  I saw pieces that we talked about by Jackson Pollack.  One of his pieces was huge!  It took up almost an entire wall in one of the rooms.  Other pictures I noticed were by Aaron Siskind.  I recognized his name from digital photography.  I studied him a bit for my photographer paper.  It was cool to see a bunch of his photographs close up.  I really liked his photo “Martha’s Vineyard.”  I also liked his peeled paint piece.  The texture was really interesting to see in person.  It really made his photograph come to life.

One artist that I found particularly intriguing was Ad Reinhardt.  His pieces were so simple, but something drew me to them.  Two of his pieces were just black paint and nothing else.  My family looked at me and thought I was crazy when I said I liked these pieces.  “There’s nothing to it!” said my dad.  But, I noticed after looking at them that it was about the variation of the shades of black that Reinhardt used in these pieces that made it so interesting.  Most people just glanced at these pieces and walked away assuming they were just black squares and rectangles.  However, it was really cool to see the deeper meaning in the pieces and actually understand what the artist was trying to get his viewers to see.

While at the museum, I also visited a contemporary art exhibition.  This one was really cool and had a lot of things we talked about in class as well.  A lot of the works were a lot larger and stood our more than the other pieces.  Some of the artwork took up an entire room!  There was one piece that was a glass circle where half of it was lit up in neon green.  It seemed so simple, but it was still so exciting to look at.  It’s just funny to see these things that make you wonder why they are such great pieces of art, yet you are still drawn to them and can’t look away.

One piece from this exhibit was two entire walls filled with the word AIDS in small square tiles.  This piece was colorful, and it made you a little bit dizzy if you stared at it for too long.  There were other pieces within the art and it was really something.  It sent such a strong message and you were forced to look at it.  Other pieces were simply words printed largely on the walls.  One piece read, “The show is over the audience get up to leave their seats time to collect their coats and go home they turn around no more coats and no more home.”  There is no punctuation, and the words are written spaced out and funky.  I’m not really sure why but I was especially drawn to this piece.  I thought the way it was presented was really different and it made you stop and think about it both while and after reading it.

I also saw an installation in this exhibit.  It had unfinished walls, garbage bags hanging on the walls, and random things all throughout the space.  It was really interesting how Paul Chan, put together this installation.  It was even cooler to actually know what the script was talking about when they mentioned that this piece was an installation. 

Paul Sharitis’ video was particularly striking.  I walked into a dark room simply to see a bunch of colors blinking on the screen.  First blue would come, then green, orange and so on.  My sister decided to make use out of the film and make shadow animals.  This film was forty-four minutes long and nothing happened except the different colors popping up on the screen.  Like many of the other pieces, it seemed so simple.  Anyone could have done it, right?

My trip to the Museum of Modern Art was a great experience.  I did not know what to expect before I went, but once I arrived it was really cool to see everything.  I liked a ton of the different pieces, and it was cool to actually recognize the artists and the types of art they were discussing in the descriptions.  My entire family was completely baffled and lost throughout the exhibit, but I understood a lot of what was going on and was able to explain things to them.  It was excellent to be able to do this and to actually know what some of the artists were trying to portray in their pieces.

-Kristen

SHHH! It's A Secret!

Many artists use observations to depict the world around them.  One artist in particular that does so is Jill Magid.  She used institutions and authority in order to make her art.  She worked wit the Dutch Secret Services in order to create conceptual artwork.  Magid has a particular interest in secrets; not the exposure of them but their existence.  Therefore, her project with the secret services was one that really fascinated her.  She enjoyed working with them and using them as a way to create her artwork.  She had the opportunity to work with members of the secret service and understand the organization from the inside. 

After creating her project, Magid got people to wonder who was the watcher and who was an observer.  Was everyone a spy?  The agents really appreciated her work and kept scheduling to meet with her despite the fact that the secret services did not like parts of her work.  They felt it revealed too much information about their organization and made her black out parts of her book.  The book could only be seen through glass as well.

Magid’s work depicts this idea of awareness of the population and what this means.  She utilizes what is out there and turns it around to benefit her and her work.  I thought her piece called “I Can Burn Your Face” was really intriguing.  I liked that she did it in neon so that it stands out and “burns” your eyes when looking at it.  It goes along with the title of the piece and the idea she is trying to portray through this piece of art. 

I also thought the idea of exposing these agents so much that they feel vulnerable but not enough to quite figure them out was really fascinating.  I would never have thought that this is what she would have done with the information she gathered through her meetings.  Not only was it something interesting to look at, the idea behind it is really cool and I liked that we got to walk through the process with her.  Seeing her thought process and her ideas through her own perspective really brings the artwork to life.


-Kristen

Public Art

This week’s discussion focused on the use of the public in art.  Some artists use the general public to finish or complete a work of art.  This moves the population, whether it is a large or small group, into an area of creating and finishing artwork.  In the video we viewed, art is described as the origin or experience of beauty.  The things we call beautiful are so different.  Art is meant to make different objects captivating and beautiful to look at.

Spencer Tunick used the public to create his artwork.  He is an American artist who creates installations of the body.  He does this by using people in the nude; it gives a different outlook on both art and the human body itself.  His works use the body in the multiple and he has these humans posing with complete strangers.  He reflects these bodies to landscapes or other spaces that he chooses.  It is almost like they are used as camouflage because so many bodies are put together in one shot.  Although the public is naked, it is not exposing because it is a community effort and so many people are posing together.

I think this is a really strange way of making art.  It is definitely unique and interesting to look at because you cannot even notice that the people in the photo are naked simply because there are so many of them.  However, when looking at his work it seems as if there is a deeper meaning to just the use of the public in art.  I saw it as an expression of being comfortable with the human body.  Not only are these people naked, but also they are posing with sometimes hundreds of complete strangers.  I know that I would never be able to do something like that!  I don’t even care if you couldn’t pick me out of the crowd; it is not something that I would be comfortable with.  I think it says a lot about the people in the artwork themselves.  This type of art also reminds me of street art in the fact that it is a community effort rather than just one person making the art themselves.

Another artist were focused on was Gillian Wearing, who looked at people under different psychological strains in society.  She composed a piece where she had people not moving for sixty minutes.  This piece focused on the idea of holding back and restraint.  It also gave this idea of being able to let go and scream out once the sixty minutes were finally over.

Vanessa Craft is an artist who uses women with a certain body type to create her staged photo performances.  She connects art to art while reformulating ideas that have been around for decades.  Women are her material and surrogates.  She uses a specific group of women and poses them in a certain way; she refers to them as her “army.”  I did not think her photographs were as interesting as Tunick’s or Wearing’s.  For some reason they just did not jump out at me as much as the others did.  I think I was not as interested because she only really worked with a very specific type and really staged her photographs.

This type of art is really interesting because it is not like anything we have looked at before, besides the art where artists used his or her own body as a form of expression.  In these pieces the people aren’t really doing anything, but they still serve as the medium or the central idea for the artists.  They do not have to be physically doing anything; their existence in these pieces of art are vital simply because they are completing the work.


-Kristen

Collection Craze

Have you ever collected anything?  Because it’s a common thing.  Art isn’t the only thing that can be collected; you can essentially collect anything.  These things become special possessions and treasures.  You may keep all of these things in a certain place, or display them in a certain way.  But more often than not, these things have a story behind them of how, why or when you got the pieces.  You cherish these things because it creates a memory of a specific moment in your life; you’re essentially capturing a moment in an object.  Unfortunately, the meanings of these pieces change, but the memories never die.  At the end of the day, these pieces might not matter all that much in the scheme of life, but sometimes they do.  These collections are often things we disregard in our everyday lives.  But they are all around us, and they propel us through our lives whether we are aware of it or not.  We are born from these objects that come from the world all around us. 

When talking about collections, a million things came to my mind.  I used to collect beanie babies and seashells as a kid.  Now, I collect photographs.  I am constantly printing out pictures from my own life, and collecting others and then making collages.  I love pictures.  I love taking them; I love being in them; I love everything about them.  Like the people in the video we viewed, they capture memories; and let’s be serious, I need something to remind me of all the fun times I’ve had.  I can’t possibly remember them all.  This was a really personal video regarding collection and it was really relatable because it wasn’t solely focused on art.  It reached out to those who are interested in things other than art and while I love art, it was still something unique to watch.  It definitely brought me back to my childhood years and it made me think about why I cherished a stuffed animal so much.  I mean, it’s not like it could talk to me or anything.  Who knows; I’m sure I had a good reason at the time.  But for now, all I can do is laugh about it (because I still have all of them).

Today we talked about a man who works with collections in museums by the name of Fred Wilson.  He places objects together to create this different meaning than what the objects really stand for.  He creates his own meaning within these objects.  He takes everything he wants to say and depicts it with the collections.  He says, “It is not art, but it is who I am.”  He notes that you do your best work when you are doing something that you believe in.  Wilson’s motivation behind his type of art is truly motivating and heart felt.  His childhood as a black boy exposed to several different races, and discriminated against for his own race caused this sadness inside of him that he expresses through his work as an adult.  He is very interested in the juxtaposition of objects; he works with this and explores the visual world around him that affects him so much.

Wilson’s work is truly admirable.  Although he does not create the pieces with his own hands, he creates his own meaning and there is so much motivation and emotion behind what he does.  He really went into depth to explain the meaning behind what he does.  His pieces were touching because of the things they represented.  He really embodies the idea that a picture, or in this case a collection of art, is worth a million words.  Wilson has become stronger as a result of his rough childhood, and he took something in his life that was so negative and reinforced it in a positive way.  There is definitely something to be said for that.

Another artists we discussed briefly is Mark Dion, who is considered a modern archaeologist.  He mastered the art of traditional ceramic making.  He made a ceramic teacup and then destroyed it and proceeded to display it as art.  Many were baffled by the idea and did not understand the purpose of his piece.  They considered it useless.  When I heard this, I actually thought it was really cool.  I think the whole idea of ceramics and the process is fascinating.  The glazed look of a finished product is really intriguing, and seeing something like that in pieces is unique.  Either way, it doesn’t matter because if he thinks it art than it shouldn’t matter what other think about it.  It brings us back to our original argument of “What is art?”

-Kristen

$$$$

This week we continued our discussion about the art market and the shift from passion for art to passion for money.  We also discussed new types of art including street art and interactive pieces.

Bob Hughes continues to express his distaste for this change in art in “The Curse of the Mona Lisa.”  He notes that strategies are necessary in institutions and that when we see art as a spectacle, is distances itself from its context and it ultimately loses its meaning.  With this new craze of the art market, too much is expected out of artwork and too little is actually delivered.  He says that art now equals a checkbook.

When talking to other collectors, they state that they pick out pieces that call to them, or stand out the most.  This emergence of collectors and buyers changed the way artists produced their work.  The production process is now accelerated.  One artist in particular who gave into this mass production was Andy Warhol.  A collector described him as a “visionary artist of our time.”  However, Hughes sees him as an artist who transformed into a celebrity businessman.  He says he thought Warhol was stupid.  He had nothing to say and his work has become dry and repetitious.

I have to agree with Hughes a little bit on this subject.  I personally find Warhol’s pieces to be kind of boring because they are just a bunch of prints of the same thing pit next to one another.  I think it would be more interesting if he made prints like these but with different pictures to make up on large collage.  But hey, I’m no artist.

Hughes reinforces this idea that this modern art represents the death of something he once loved about art.  Art is supposed to give us coherent sensations that we don’t normally have.  It is supposed to give us a sense of clarity and intelligence.  However, from the 60’s and on, art became a way of simply making money.  It has been stripped of everything except its market vale.  Hughes points out that there is no point of art if it can’t tell us about the world we live in.  This just shows the power that money has and how out of touch we are with the world, but this is our world now.

While I understand Hughes’ frustration, he also cannot expect to hold onto the art world prior to the 60’s forever.  The world is constantly changing and evolving.  Although money has become a large factor in any part of life, he cannot expect art and its motives to stay the same forever.  I think that if he truly feels as strongly as he claims to feel, that along with his video he should go out and proactively work toward bringing art back to the way it was.  He may not be successful, but he might be able to get through to some artists so that he at least has some of what he once loved to hold onto.

Maybe Hughes would appreciate street art instead.  Although his taste seems more sophisticated, street art has a connection to artwork free from dictation by institutions.  There are no labeled texts and glass boxes around the work.  The artists work as a community to share ideas and create community spirit.  It is free from constraint, galleries and copyright.

I think street art is really interesting.  Not only does it create this sense of community, but it adds life and personality to the community as well.  It is an expression of the people that make up the community.  But, do things like graffiti count as street art?  I found this truck covered in graffiti while venturing through Union Square last weekend.  I thought it was awesome and it was a great expression of the artist.  However, I feel like most people see graffiti and other street art as vandalism and something that just makes the city look “dirty.”

However, even street art can be institutionalized.  The video shows us some works in Turbine Hall as interactive pieces.  These pieces are vast in size; the people walking around the artwork look like little dots on a map!  I thought these pieces were really interesting, especially the piece where the artist used metal bunk beds to fill the room underneath the huge spider part of the piece.  I would never have known that those were bunk beds if someone didn’t point it out.  I also think seeing the piece with the people walking around from up top really captures the immensity of these pieces and how much space it takes up.


-Kristen

For Better or for Worse?

This week’s discussion zeroed in on museums as the cultural treasures of the world.  These institutions are art bearers and like everything else, they have changed over time.  But the question at hand is, have they changed for the better or for the worse?

The art world controls how art gets seen and where it gets seen.  This art market directs the evolution of contemporary art of the world and every aspect connected to it.  Some issues we discussed were cultural exchanges.  Some countries such as Greece, Turkey and other Mediterranean countries have been asking institutions such as Yale and British institutions for their art back.  It is important to make negotiations while exchanging such pieces.  Otherwise, it becomes an issue of copyright and ownership.

According to the video, “The Curse of the Mona Lisa,” museums, art and the public have all changed.  Art critic Bob Hughes walks us through these changes.  Hughes has a tremendous amount of knowledge on art history.  He uses good judgment and his well liked by many artists. 

Bob Hughes showed us this crystal skull piece that is worth millions of dollars.  WHAT?!  Millions?!  That's crazy!  I mean I knew art could get expensive but I had no idea it could get THAT crazy.  He points out the shift in attention from appreciation of the art to money.  Now everything is about owners and buyers and how much each piece is worth.  We see art fairs such as The Armory Show, where thousands of people come to purchase pieces of art.  Are they really appreciating the art or is it simply about the exchange for money?  This type of art is definitely not the art Hughes fell in love with in the sixties.

Hughes mentions an artist to us by the name of Robert Rauschenberg.  This artist used silkscreen to create paintings on a panoramic point of view.  When pop artists began to focus on media subjects for art, Rauschenberg knew the way.  He was the original genius behind the silkscreen.  He also talks about a friend of his, Jim, who works with speed and amplitude in art.  I thought these pieces were particularly cool because of the vibrancy and the fact that there was a lot going on because of the speed in them.  They were really expressive and stood out to me as a viewer.  However, I did not really like Rauschenberg’s pieces.  While I agree that he is talented, I did not find them to be as interesting or captivating as Jim’s pieces.  But hey, I’m no art critic now am I?

-Kristen

Patience is a Virtue

Today, we continued our discussion of Installation Art.  We began by taking a peek at Ai Weiwei’s piece called “Sunflower Seed.”  In this piece, what you see is not what you really see; what you think you see it not what the piece means.  Each seed is may look like it is a real sunflower seed, but it is actually made out of porcelain.  Weiwei notes that when looking at this piece, some of the viewers pick up the seeds and even try to eat them, not realizing that they are hand crafted.

The seeds form a seemingly infinite landscape in the gallery space.  This piece carries personal associations with Mao Zedong’s brutal Cultural Revolution (1966-76).  Weiwei states that as he got more involved in art, he sensed that an individual has to set an example in society.  His art shows the relationship between the individual and the masses.  “Sunflower Seed” and the seeds themselves raise several questions regarding the role of the individual in society.  Are we significant or powerless unless we act together?  Weiwei sees art as a tool to set up new questions and to discover new answers.

We see the process of making the seeds all the way through to placing them in the gallery space.  There are thirty steps to making the seeds and over 1,600 people were involved in the process.  WOW!  This shows how artists work with mass production and they cannot work alone.  Artists like Weiwei have to rely on other collaborates to help him along the way.

I had no idea how intricate this process was, nor would I have thought that the seeds were porcelain unless I researched the artwork.  I think it is incredible the patience these workers and artists are.  Where does someone come up with such an idea?  Sunflower seeds would have probably been one of the last things to cross my mind.  Watching the workers go through all the steps was torturous because I was getting frustrated just watching.  I have no idea how they just sit there painting so perfectly for such a long amount of time.  It definitely made me realize how much patience I DON’T have.

Another Installation Artist we discussed was an American artist, Allan McCollum.  His inspiration and influence roots back to his uncle’s TV show called “Learn How to Draw.”  McCollum, like Weiwei, wanted to work with unique quantities.  He notes that a lot of emotion comes out of something so large.  You can either be in awe of what is in front of you, or run out of the gallery space in horror. 

McCollum became interested in people working in homes.  His piece “Shapes of Maine” displays the work of different artists in Maine, of whom he has never even met.  He shows us how he works with drawings on his computer, putting either four or six pieces together to form a unique shape.  He states that he would love to be able to make an object for every person in the world, but it is nearly impossible.  It is his hope that we as a large force can eventually agree on one object to represent everyone as a whole.

I think both Weiwei and McCollum are really depicting strong ideas within their artwork.  All of their artwork is carefully articulated and placed within the gallery space.  They put a lot of time and thought into what they are creating and placing in the space they have to work with.  Both artists touch upon this idea of individualism and coming together as a stronger force as well.  I think they both show this in their work because they come together with other people and have so much other help rather than working alone like some other artists.  Their pieces may not look very deep, but they represent something much more thought provoking than their literal appearance.  I think the time and effort put into these pieces is incredible and truly admiring.  It seems like such a simple idea to put sunflower seeds on the ground or to place drawings on tables, but there is so much more to these pieces than we know as viewers.

-Kristen

I Want To Try!

To continue our discussion about the performance arts, we zeroed in on a particular performer by the name of Matthew Barney.  Barney worked with interesting connections to the body, the shaping of the body, temperature changes and different tensions that tested the body’s limits.  He also worked with alter egos; this allowed him to act as both himself and another performer as this other person.  Barney takes himself on journeys both literally and figuratively with his body.  Some of his narratives are literally about him going somewhere while others include conflict, race or putting his body through certain things through his travels.

One performance we brought up in particular was his piece where he worked with drawing restraint.  He was dressed up in mountain gear and harnesses in the middle of a gallery space.  He had to navigate himself around while being restrained by the harnesses to try and draw on the walls of the space.  Barney had to force his body against this in order to reach the walls with his pencil.  This was his first show or performance piece with his body and he practiced this idea of resistance.  I found this performance to be the most intriguing because although it seems difficult and may be frustrating, it kind of sounds fun as well.  I think after a while I might give up, which is where I am definitely different than Matthew Barney.  But for the first few minutes I think it might actually be something fun to experiment with!

When watching a film regarding Barney and his work he notes that he considers everything he works with attractive even if he is repulsed by it.  We se his performance where he uses the ten horses, or five groups of two.  As a performer he is very focused and he works diligently to reach his goals.  Barney’s artist side did not emerge until later; his original plan was to become a plastic surgeon.  His coworkers note that he does not seem to have these fears that the rest of us do.  He views the world through images rather than through models.  With his alter ego, he can do and be anything he wants and assume these other identities.

Right before the conclusion of class we talked about another performance artist named Marcus Coates.  We saw his “interesting” performances where he trains himself to become an animal.  He says that he imagines himself going in a hole down into the center of the earth and if he cannot find any ideas down here, he calls out to the animals and birds for ideas.  His work is most definitely unique, but I could not get myself to understand where he was coming from.  When watching his performance, I was right there with the lady in the audience laughing.  He is so serious and into these animal calls, but something about it is just so ludicrous.  I definitely think that I’d be interested in Barney’s work before Coates’.

On Wednesday, we switched gears and moved onto Installation Art.  When viewing this type of art, we experience it by walking amongst the work.  There is no formal way that the work is seen but it works with changing space and the way we see what is in front of us.  Installation Art works with putting unusual things in a gallery space.  The viewer physically enters the work through this immersive, theatrical state.  We as viewers work as active space around the work as well.  This type of art can include paintings, video, sculptures or objects; you can work with several different mediums.  The work addresses the viewer directly in the space; they key to this is that there is the literal presence of the viewer.

One artist we discussed was Damien Hirst and his piece called “The Pharmacy.”  He chose to fill the gallery space with all of these objects and prescriptions, along with the four apothecary bottles on the counter representing the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water.  Another artist was Song Dong, who created this piece called “Waste Not.”  For this piece, Song Dong took every piece that was in his mother’s home in Beijing and recreated it in this gallery space.  This piece was very intricate and timely; there were so many pieces to the work it seemed almost impossible to put together.  Lastly, we discussed Jason Rhoades, whose work was very carefully orchestrated.  He would empty out things like garages, basements and spare rooms.  As we saw in some of his pieces, he would have neon words hanging in the space that just adds to the craziness of the installation.

I believe Installation Art is really fascinating.  It is so different and unique and I would never think to do any of the things that these artists do.  At first when I saw the pieces created by these men I really didn’t think much of it.  But as we discussed them and focused on the details of the pieces, I really came to appreciate the work and see just how much time and focus goes into these installations.  I couldn’t believe how many pieces went into the “Waste Not” piece and how much was going on in Jason Rhoades’ pieces.  I personally thought the piece by Rhoades where he had a table and then presents as chairs was really cool.  It was just so different and so out there but at the same time it worked.  It’s funny how stuff like that all comes together even when you think it would be really weird.  Even the piece where he has the giant donut placed next to the cheese is fun.  At first all I could think was “What the heck?”  But at the same time, I couldn’t take my eyes off of the work.  It was really something different, but I enjoyed looking at these pieces and discovering more about these artists.  My personal favorite is the neon lights.  I love neon and I think it gives so much life to everything, especially his art.  Before today I don’t think I even knew that Installation Art existed!  It is definitely something I don't think I would be good at, but I'd love to try it.  I wish my mind was that creative!