Casey's Blog: Photographers has cameras. I have a camera. I am a photographer?

With an interesting innocence and gentle demeanor, Terri Warpinski carried with her a shot of creativity. She demonstrated a high level of versatility in all her work. She showed us many unaltered images, and others that had been overlaid with paint, or images that would run in and out of their frame. She had an interesting style, and said she drew motivation from artists: Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol, and Betty Hahn. Warpinski has made an occupation out of her art and works as a Professor at the University of Oregon, which she has been doing for the past 20 years.

Warpinski kept a sharp wit and spoke eloquently. She made a joke early in her lecture targeted at the young folks (or, any age, for that matter) who purchase an SLR camera and an external flash and decide their passion is photography. Although she says she’s hesitant to describe her profession as an artist, Warpinski is proud of everything she has learned through her years of travel and experience.

The readings this week focused a lot on the academic aspects of the art world, and the processes students go through to be trained and learn certain techniques. Carol Becker, the Dean of the Art Institute of Chicago, made an interesting point about education outside of just art. The students at the institute are required to take classes in humanities and art history because so many young artists do not know how to read or write well after they graduate, and this inhibits their abilities to explore the world around them. Many students complain having to do this, and I think many college students can associate with not wanting to refine their skills in reading and writing. As Becker states, "What [students] don't realize is that they're really developing themselves, and that without that, there's little to make art about" (373). Most academics focus on specific skills, but I liked her realistic approach to teaching, and wanting students to get an education in more than just creating.

In the other reading, with Richard Shusterman, he focused on the process of mixing in a more historical analysis. During the era of Aristotle, the idea of art was based on the construction of an object, rather than the performing and experience of an action or a process (253). Aristotle defined art as poesis (or making), which can be strongly distinguished from praxis (or doing). "Thus he was able to detach art effectively from the realm of action and ethics. In other words, for Aristotle, what you do affects who you are" (254). Shusterman is convinced that it doesn't matter who you are a person, but rather what the final project is. This goes back to the arguments made in earlier posts about whether Picasso's life should reflect how we look at his art. At the end of the day, I feel that knowing specific things about artists, either positive or negative, can ultimately alter how we perceive art. While it is good in theory to only consider the final product, I feel that it's human nature to consider the character of the artist and his or her process of creation.