Artist/Interventionist "Andy Warhol"

For this blog assignment I chose the artist/interventionist Andy Warhol.

Andy Warhol is known for "Pop Art", avant-garde film, and painting with the intent of creating rare and new work that no one has ever attempted or seen before.

3 Facts

1). Warhol made over 300 Underground Films, the first of which was called "Sleep" and simply showed a man asleep for 6 hours.

2). In 1968 Valerie Solanis shot him in the chest, she was an ex-employee at "The Factory". Although escaping with his life, Warhol had to wear a bandage for the rest of his life.

3).

Discussing Frampton's Formula

For this blog assignment, I chose to evaluate the film "Love's Refrain". Since Frampton's formula is based on whatever you see most in the film is what the film is about (which makes logical sense) it does however pertain to, as Kevin said in class, the sound aspects of the piece. For me when I see a silent film, I tend to hear the sounds of what is going on as though I'm auto-correcting it to make it seem right to me. It reminds me how the brain fills in the blind-spot in your eyes so that you see fluidly.

Anyways, if I were to choose a word to describe this film it would be silence. Sadly, in contrast to Frampton's formula, I'm not sure if this can be related to the film overall because it's like saying, "I saw the screen the most, therefore that's what the film is about." However if this silence therefore make me hear a distinct sound repeatedly throughout the film, shouldn't that be what I believe the film to be about. In conclusion, I think that Kevin's statements are what really disprove Frampton's formula because it can be looked at in many layers and ways. In order for the formula to work in my opinion there needs to be boundaries such as within the film or within the viewing space.

Body Worlds Milwaukee Public Museum

A few weekends ago, I had a chance to see the Body Worlds exhibit at the Milwaukee Public Museum. Turns out it wasn't creepy at all. Rather than thinking that every body was once a living person, they all just seemed to look like models to me. They're was obviously some artistic vision put into these because they were mostly positioned to what type of person the body belonged to. In all honestly, I believe this artistic interpretation actually hurt the exhibit. For me the exhibit was supposed to be about the science of bodies including the muscle system, joints, or the nervous system. When they had a normal muscle system of a person standing up and the muscle system of a football player being tackled, you were supposed to be able to see the different muscles in use on the football player. Honestly there was no difference and the outrageous position of a body made up only of muscles just sort of added to the fakeness of it all. I think the most effective way the artist could have portrayed the bodies as real was finally seen at the end of the exhibit by a body that was cut into 5 or 6 layers from front to back and everything was included such as skin, hair, and visible tattoos. This really gave me the impression that this person was once living and I think it was that layered appearance the artist gave it that made much more of an impact that the ridiculous poses of just muscles and bones.