Lately in Roski there has been disagreements within students and faculty about the merit of graphic design work in comparison to more traditional "fine art". This argument quite honestly pisses me off because people get so high and mighty on their "fine art" pedestal that they limit the directions that art can take just because of a (quite weak in reality) historical precedent.
I am not personally involved in the debate or matter so will not directly reference it because that isn't the point. The importance of this argument still being had at this point in art's history is ridiculous to me. to not think that a Fine Art show couldn't have graphic work in it is preposterous. If the complexity and innovativness of the visual matter, the cocneptual grounds on which the work lies, the style and how it relates to form and back to the concept is EQUAL in two works and one is a painting and anohter is a graphic text layout, but the graphic peice gets left out because it isn't "Fine Art".
I think its a good thing that when im mad i dont fester. I do something to fix it. It's grandiose but dammit im gonna try.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
i therefor create
About Me
- ucci
- i am a student at usc studying fine arts. my passion is graphic design, photography, and painting. art consumes me. sometimes i manage to consume it.
1 comment:
It is strange that people see fine art as existing only in certain mediums. Although it is a fairly new medium there is no reason why it should be excluded from a fine art show. People are usually very resistant to change and reinvention of things that they are already familiar with. It is completely a matter of taste as the appreciation for the medium cannot be forced upon anyone. But it is annoying when someone’s ignorance inhibits work to be shown at a show
Post a Comment