Lesson 7 - Pray - Infamy

"It's just about someone's alter ego telling their own story." This documentary is about 7 individuals who are obsessed and completely dedicate their lives to graffiti art. The filmmaker interviews each one of them and shows a firsthand account of what being a graffiti artist means to them.

Something that was said in the first interview with Earsnot was "Graffiti was that one thing I could jump onto and slide out the window of my life." This caught my interest because it shows another purpose to why these artists choose a wall over a canvas. By being a graffiti artist you have to stay unknown because it's not legally allowed but it gives a whole new life for them. At one moment they can be a completely seemingly normal person and in another moment they are highly praised by those who follow their work. It's almost as if they are superheros of the art world.

With that being said I found Earsnot to be interesting because of his explanation of why he does graffiti. As he mentions that he pretty much did everything he could to be the center of attention with his friends and at school, he also mentions that he had to be a completely different person in front of his parents at home. He says in the video how his father took his flute away, the only thing he ever really liked, all because of something he did at school and it was around the same time that he found out about graffiti. I like that he knows what he's doing is bad but he's still doing it for his own pleasure and happiness and he's not going to let anyone take that away from him like his father took his flute away. As I said before he's living two completely different lives, one that's acceptable and one that's not, but the one that's not is his only escape from the one that is.

I found the idea of tagging very interesting. Every artist is different in their work, especially in graffiti. Graffiti artists have their own tags, whether it be their name or something that represents who they are as an artist and place it anywhere that they can. For me, the coolest thing about it all is that it's free and can go way more appreciated when money is not involved. Also, you can make a game out of it. Once you find a tag you like the most you keep a look out for it in other places and it's almost like a mini victory when you finally do find one. It's like you follow the artist on their quest to get their work out into the public.

Lesson 7 - Banksy - Banksy

This documentary is about a French amateur filmmaker, Thierry Guetta a.k.a Mr. Brainwash, who makes it his hobby to film the graffiti artist Banksy in action. The film's footage also captures Shephard Fairey Invader, and many other infamous graffiti artists at work. It is during film-making where he does actually gain footage of Banksy, who gives him the idea to start making his own street art where he earns his pseudonym Mr. Brainwash.

I really liked the intro to the film because it shows graffiti artists in action. Although they are considered artists, they are performing it illegally and the introduction shows how some rush through what they are doing and those who take a little more time but have to do it at night so that they remain unseen. Although it is illegal and I would never partake in something like this, I found it exciting and invigorating to see such rebelliousness caught on film.

What I found interesting about this film that was so different from the others was how the artists wished to stay unknown. When footage was shown of Banksy, his whole self was darkened and his voice was changed so you couldn't even tell who it was. In the other videos you see all kinds of interviews showing the artist completely and in this one the artists want to stay a secret. For me, I think it's not just because of the illegality of their work, but it's because once their known it takes the fun out of what they're doing. They love being artists but they like the game that comes with their specific style because it makes it more exciting to do. Also, no one knows who they are so the public can't connect the art with the personality making their opinions purely based on the art and not who and what they think about the artist.

I found both Guetta and Banksy interesting. What I liked about Guetta was that his interested was peaked when he saw his cousin, graffiti artist Space Invader, at work and it is then that he decides to dedicate his hobbies to documenting this talent from a secret art society. What I liked about Banksy was that he agreed to let Guetta film him, but not actually show him. Also, Banksy is the one who turned Guetta into a street artist as well. Realizing he was just filming and obscene amount of footage and not actually doing anything with, Banksy literally takes the camera into his own hands and shifts the story onto the filmmaker which is completely different than the other documentaries because there was never a situation where the person filming at the beginning of the video turns into the subject of it. If it wasn't for Banksy's help there really wouldn't be a documentary to begin with, just countless of numbers of videos of graffiti artists. "The film is about what happened when this guy tried to make a documentary about me but he was actually a lot more interesting than I am so now the film is kind of about him."

Lesson 7 - Davis - Basquiat

The career of Jean Michel Basquiat began in the streets of New York City in the 1970s, his identity hidden by his graffiti tag SAMO. It wasn't until 1981 where he would put his talent onto a canvas for the first time and in 1983 he is known as a rock star in the art world. But like any well-acclaimed rock star during the 80's, Basquiat had a heroin addiction and it would be the cause of his death at the age of 27. This video was created by Tamra Davis, showing the never before seen footage of her old friend, who's highest peak of his career was just at 25 years of age. "A young nobody who forged a brand of art and stardom never seen before. A collision of art, black history, and the street that still shapes pop culture. The Radiant Child".

What I really like about this documentary is that even though the main focus is about Basquiat during the highest point of his career, it shows how it all began and completely chronicles his life from every aspect, not just in the art world. Without going into too much detail on some things, it talks about his family life and his relationships with his father, as well as the type of child he was growing up before he stepped into art. It showed his relationship with Warhol, and without getting gruesome, it also showed the beginnings of his downfall to the very end of his life.

What I found very interesting was his rock star life. But the way it begins and ends doesn't surprise me all that much because it was a romantic depiction, told like any other about an artistic genius (whether musically or artistically) coming to fame at an early age. He was driven, rebellious, charming, and ambitious, but along with the sudden fame and wealth came temptation which was the ultimate cause of his demise.

I found Basquiat very interesting because his story was much more fascinating to me compared to the other artists we have gotten to know. Every artist has his trouble starting out but the fact that Basquiat had to start off with that trouble and compete against racism at the same time makes his accomplished yet short journey that much more exciting to follow.

Lesson 7 - Lecture

An example of graffiti art

In this video, Professor Peck takes us through the streets of two different neighborhoods in the city of Chicago: Pilsen and Wicker Park. It is in these areas that he shows us the different graffiti and mural art portrayed on walls, metal beams that hold up the train tracks, and even trucks whether they are abandoned or not. Throughout the video he distinguishes the difference between mural and graffiti art. "A mural is a piece of public art that's been sanctioned, been given permission, and that basically changes a few of the rules about how it can be made and how it will be made. One thing is the artist definitely has a lot more time to finish it." People who also do mural art are known because they aren't doing anything illegal, whereas graffiti artists are vandalizing property because they don't have legal permission to portray their art, which is why you would only know their art by the same tags or stencils that they use in each piece of work.

An example of mural art

What I really like about this video is how Professor Peck took us through the city and distinguished each type of art that he passed or found interesting. It gave a better sense of reality and gives us a brief background of the art that we literally see everyday no matter where we go.

What I found interesting was how each artist uses their own tag or stencil to differentiate their art from others. Because they can't be known by name it puts more of a focus on the art rather than the artist. For example, if an art investor were to buy a new painting, say there was a painting by Andy Warhol and the exact same painting by someone not as well known, the investor would go with the one painted by Warhol because of his background of success, even if the other artist might be a little better. Now with graffiti artists, we can just simply admire the work and not focus on who did the work.

I really like the idea of mural art because I think of it as being a legal rebel. Rather than using a canvas as the norm, the artist can really use whatever he/she likes in the outside world and
make it look fascinating. It's almost like hidden treasures for the public view because you never know which wall will have it.

Lesson 6 - Painters Painting

"If one finally had to say what it was that made American art great, it was that the American painters took hold of the issue of abstraction art with a freedom they could get from no other subject matter and finally made art out out it". This documentary by Emile de Antonio tells about New York and its upbringing as the hub of American art and the people who made it so.

I liked the introduction to this documentary. It starts off on a zoomed in object with a voice over of the narrator's opening line, "Painting kept getting entangled in the contradiction of America itself. We made portraits of ourselves when we had no idea who we were...". The narrator continues his monologue for the next minute and the camera then slowly begins to pan out until you realize that it was zoomed in on a wall of a building. The camera than slides its focus to scene beside the wall and we are looking at New York City in what seems to be post WWII, during about the 1960's. I liked that you didn't know where the scene was taking place until about 2 or 3 minutes into the video or you were left guessing as to what the zoomed in image in front of you really was.

artwork by Robert Rauschenburg

The purpose of the documentary was pretty much de Antonio going around talking to the artists in New York, from Robert Rauschenburg, to Andy Warhol, to even the art dealer Leo Castelli and asking them what abstract art means. Ironically the documentary is called Painters Painting, but you don't see too much painting being done in it but rather the artists being interviewed. This made the film very interesting because de Antonio produces a study of the postwar era when American painting was a total eclipse of art history and how abstraction came to be an important part of the art timeline, establishing its role in the evolution of yet another art style.

artwork by Andy Warhol 

I found Emile de Antonio for his strategy with this documentary. Rather than just interview a few super well-know artists, he included most of the major names in New York during the 60's and not just artists, but art dealers and critics as well. Rather than gain one perspective, he gained every perspective and insight on the artists who were impacting the art world in America and who revolved it all in the city of New York during that time. It helped get a sense of the transformation from abstract art to pop culture from the 1940s (postwar) to the 1980s.

Lesson 6 - PBS - Warhol

This documentary discusses the life and work of Andy Warhol who is considered the most important artist of the second half of the 20th century, maybe even the whole 20th century. Through his work and talents he is regarded as an American and a genius but sometimes you just can't tell which one.

What I liked about Andy Warhol was how little society really impacted him as an artist. In the first minute you see Warhol speaking to a reporter and she is questioning him as an artist. She starts of by stating a source saying that his work could not be considered original work and whether or not he agreed with that. After he agreed with her she continued on by questioning him again stating that he was just copying a common item. Again he agrees and she asks "Well why do you do that? Why not create something new?" and Warhol replies by saying "Because it's easier to do." The reporter then asks, "Well isn't this a sort of joke then that you are playing on the public?" and Warhol simply replies by saying, "No, it gives me something to do." Rather than giving into her questioning, Andy Warhol gives the simple answer. He's not beating around the bush and he's not trying to explain why his work isn't original because he knows it's not. He's not an artist for society, he is an artist for himself and that is what I think is the most important for an artist to remember. It's his work, it's his mind displayed across a blank canvas, the public's opinion has little to do with it and he continues to do what he wants to do. 

One of the things I liked about this documentary were the interviews and I liked seeing how many people actually praised and loved Warhol for who he was as an artist, when there were so many who did not like him at all and completely prejudiced him for his sexuality and "lack of artistic genius".  Dave Hickey, an art historian, has a lot to say about him. "He was the most American of artists and the most artistic of Americans. So American in fact that he is virtually invisible to us...In Warhol, the simplicity of a typical American citizen and the simplicity of artist genius are so intervened we cannot distinguish them, nor properly credit either his Americanness or his genius." Hickey also states, "He literally changed the world. And you change the world by changing what people look at, the priorities that they place on it and so he changed the world."  

What struck me as the most interesting was my reaction to the opening segment of the documentary with Warhol and the interviewee. In those first few seconds I did not like him. I found him very arrogant and rude. But then as the documentary went on my idea of him changed. Yes, he is an artist and a rule breaker but that disguise was held very lightly and in fact he fit this childlike persona of simply wanting to belong. But at the same time he enjoyed pretending that there was no meaning to what he was doing. However, when you look at the beginning of Warhol's life and his aspirations as an artist, the moment you take that step forward into his world it's hard not to fall in love with him. 

Lesson 6 - Hughes - Shock

"One of the myths of modern art is that it began like a prophet in the desert. The avant garde, the rejected outsider, armed with truth. Today that myth is lost, but at the start of the 70's the idea of an avant garde in painting and sculpture was winding down. It's now over, part of a period style and in the mean time Modernism itself has become our official culture." These were the opening remarks of Robert Hughes in this documentary where he speaks about the Modernism art style during the 60's and the artists who fulfilled this type off work. .

What I really liked about this documentary, that makes it so different from the others, is the introduction of a female artist. Women were mentioned and shown in other documentaries, this is true, but they were either the model/muse for the painter or in the most recently made documentaries they were the curators of a museum. Until this documentary, there was never a women shown and credited for her paintings. The female artist spoken about in this film was Bridget Reilly and how her work was severely critiqued for commercialization.

What I found extremely interesting is how art critics and historians can determine what is art and what is not and whether it should be shown in a museum or not. I feel like once something is pegged as not being art then the public is going to completely write of that artist altogether as either mediocre or just not very good. Which brings in art investments. People aren't going to buy a painting by an artist who is considered to be mediocre by the professional art connoisseur, because after 10 or 15 years they won't make a profit off of it when they finally decide to sell it. Now I find this interesting because as Professor Peck has stated before "Not all art is designed necessarily for you to enjoy it - visually or conceptually" and that is exactly what is being shown with some of these artists in the Modernism style of painting. Essentially during this time, there is no avant garde and with no avant garde there is no shock or stir to the style of painting which made it very hard for the modernist artist to commercialize their work. Especially since the critics are practically telling art investors not to buy it when they don't showcase in a museum or gallery.

I particularly liked the introduction to this documentary. I liked the ripple effect that occurred while showing different excerpts of a different clip or art from the artists spoken about in this film. It got me engaged and even more interested in the film because it made me feel like I was about to enter into an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Lesson 6 - Lecture

In this video Professor Peck introduces the minimalist and pop artists. One that is so relevant to us, even today, is artist Andy Warhol whose avant garde abstraction paintings of Marilyn Monroe and the Campbell's soup cans are  well known throughout the United States. The video discusses a few other artists during this art era, as well as other avant garde moves from these artists. 

One avant garde move that I found very interesting was the extreme abstraction. During this time every artist was doing it because they were reacting and going against the abstractions and other art work shows in museum and galleries at the time. What the artists chose do instead was to take an abstraction and fill it with objects, recognizable objects to be exact but it was considered extremely avant garde because it was going against art during that specific era and by that I mean that you did not find any type of advertising in galleries or museums and that is exactly what some of these artists were doing.

"You don't walk into a gallery and see advertising. You don't walk into an art gallery and see an American flag. In fact that is the last place you would expect to see an American flag at this particular time. If everyone is loving being an American post WWII then a lot of the avant garde artists are not going to be into that. Unless you're extremely avant garde." The person who I feel completely fits the description of extremely avant garde is Andy Warhol, especially in his recreation of the Brillo box. He is completely stepping away from the canvas altogether and recreating art in the form of shapes and using the objects surrounding it as well. This is why I found Warhol to be the most interesting artist talked about in this video because he completely redefined avant garde art from two-dimensional to three-dimensional.

What I liked a lot in this video was the timeline given of all the different art movements. It was interesting to see how many things in the art world had changed and how often it did. I also like that we are now in a more modern topic of artists.

Lesson 5 - Smithsonian - Pollock

He was the first American to capture the popular imagination. A "cowboy" from Wyoming, Jackson Pollock was always controversial and the pressures of his new-found celebrity compounded his life long struggle with alcoholism, a fight he lost when he died in a car crash at the age of 44.

"New needs need new techniques and modern artists have found new ways and new means of making a statement. It seems to me that the modern painter cannot express this age, the airplane, the atom bomb, and the radio in the old forms of the Renaissance or any other past culture. Each age finds its own technique." For Pollock that technique was abstract expressionism and he performed this through his famous drip paintings. He has earned both notoriety and abuse for his work and people have even gone as far to question whether or not it would be too hard to paint like that themselves so that they could be known as an artist as well. I find this interesting because like in the lecture video, it states that art is the finely tuned sense of craftsmanship that is celebrating a humans ability to render reality or fantasies. Anything can be art, Pollock proves that along with many others in the world. Yet what I find the most interesting is that it seems he is the only one, that I know of anyways, to be so publicly contradicted in the art world. He is ether the greatest painter in history or a kindergartner could perfect his paintings.

What I liked about this video is that they actually have Pollock narrating for part of it. I liked this because you are listening to the thoughts directly from the artist themselves rather than through the researched presentation of a narrator. You actually get the sense of what their emotion is when their talking and the actual facts. With a narrator there's always a posed question that they strive to answer through the video through their research, but only the artist can really answer that question. Granted it's hard when studying an artist like Michelangelo who's been dead for the last few centuries, but I think you get the point.

Who I found interesting was not just Pollock, but also the people interviewed that knew him personally. This adds a special affect to a biographical documentary because you're not just hearing from the Pollock himself, you're also hearing from the people who surround Pollock's life and knew him more than any other person. Rather than just listen to any other opinion from a critic about an artist, who listen to the opinion of someone who actually matters to the artist and without bias tell you how Pollock really was as a person.

Lesson 5 - Dali - Dali

With Orson Welles narrating, this documentary was a detailed account of Salvador Dali's emergence as an artist in the 1920's and his important contribution to surrealism in the 1930's all the way up until the present day of the film in the 1960's. It was filmed at his home in the seaside village of Port Lligat, just outside of Cadaqués, Spain which Welles narrates to be the source of his inspiration.

Salvador Dali 

To me, just from this video, Dali seemed to be the ultimate avant-garde of avant-gardes. He lived up to every sense of the term. "Dali painted things that were behind things...double image, guessing game image, multiple image, visual puns."(Welles). But I like that because he chose to be himself, he chose to be his own type of artist, and he accentuated his weirdness so much that it almost seemed normal.

However, I didn't care so much for the film. I am not a huge fan of documentaries as it is and the fact that this one was filmed in the 60's and had poor quality didn't help either. I also couldn't understand what was being said all that well, especially when Dali was speaking, which made it hard to pay attention to what was being shown.

I did some extra research on Dali and he states something in his autobiography that I found very interesting because it almost explains his personality in a way. "All my eccentricities I habitually perpetrate, are the tragic constant of my life. I want to prove I am not the dead brother but the living brother. By killing my brother I immortalize myself." Dali's older brother died during infancy and by fighting the memory of him, he felt the need to be a show-off, not for the money but for himself. Which is completely misunderstood by other Surrealists during the time because they saw him as a "grubby money grabber" rather than looking at him for his talents.

Lesson 5 - Scorsese Picasso Braque

This was a documentary produced by Arne Glimcher, with discussions from Martin Scorsese and various other artists and film producers. It was a cinematic tour through the effects of technological revolution and it tried to show how cubism, founded by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque in 1907, supposedly translated the movies' revolutionary portrayal of time, space, and motion in fine art.

Pablo Picasso 

One of the things Scorsese says in this film was "Cubism was not a style. It was a revolution that instigated a profoundly radical change of form - in fact a radical change of vision itself." I found this interesting because the film itself seems to have been based around the assumption that changing technology drives artistic innovation. For instance, Picasso and Braque had a similar passionate interest in new technology and their art was based on the next big thing technologically speaking. They were fascinated by aviation and cinema and formed their own film club because of it. They were enthusiasts of technology and it was becoming because they were part of the generation that experienced this at the start.

What I liked about this documentary was that it wasn't just about art. It was taken out of the spotlight and combined with the effects of technology and film making, which is still art but in the new technological form and an incorporated element of popular culture.

Georges Braque 

What I found to be the most interesting there was an avant garde-esqueness to this film. Glimcher makes the case that the appeal of film has always been in its ability to heighten reality rather than accurately depict it. The film demonstrates how early cinema succeeded by defying audience expectation of the real. Though cinema is the most effective means available to show reality in its purest form, it's also a paradox because it resists the natural tendencies that drives the artists towards further abstraction of their own work which is what Glimcher claims in his case. He reasons that cinema's aim is to bend and twist reality in order to convey abstraction.

Lesson 5 - Lecture

What is art? You're asked a question like this and what answer immediately pops into your mind? My my mind automatically just focuses in on painting but clearly that's not it because it is way to narrow minded of an answer. As Professor Peck states in the video, Art is the finely tuned sense of craftsmanship which celebrates a humans ability to render reality or fantasies. Now I found this interesting because it's obviously true. Anyone can deem something as art in any shape or form and there will always be someone who agrees that it's art and someone who doesn't. That's why we call them art critics.


Soon following this question, we learn from the video about the artist Marcel Duchamp, whom I found to be very interesting, and here's why this question correlates so well with him. He brought to the art world the new form of art called conceptual art - art that inspires the mind. The painting that pretty much defines conceptual art is the "Fountain", a urinal placed on its side. This was also part of the cubism technique that Duchamp skilled in the most. With cubism you bring in a fourth dimension, a different angle of the same object. And Duchamp did just that with the "Fountain"(Shown on the left). He gave a different conception of an object that at every angle you can tell it's a urinal, but his ideas made it into a fountain because he looked at it from a conceptual angle, another dimension. "He changed the long tradition of linking labor and merit in art."


What I liked about this video was that it also served as a history lesson. Obviously when you think of the World Wars you think of the war itself and how many people lost their lives during both of them and then the economic and financial problems that occurred with both. You don't really connect the war with art and how it was referenced by artists."People are defined by the political moment that their in, by the technological moment. Because they feel connected artists feel like they have to reference it somehow and people feel artists are responsible for talking about them"(Peck). Before the wars there was a prolonged peace and beauty in the paintings. Between the wars there was dark imagery and also considered a creative hot bed. After the wars it was a new city and new art. World War I and II probably had as much impact on nature as they did on politics. World War I prolonged areas of peace (Impressionism) after being driven by anarchy and angst.