Walker and Barrett Response

I found the Walker article to be very thought provoking when it comes to the themes and ideas behind artwork. For people like me, who do not exactly have a firm grasp on the concept and depth of art, this article cleared some of the fog. I like how the article defined the difference between an artist's subject matter and big idea. The big idea is the start. It is the motivation behind the piece, and the thought, opinion, or concept that the artist wants to convey to the viewers. The subject matter is the medium through which this thought, opinion, or concept is presented, allowing the piece to transform from paint on a canvas to a work of art.

The Barrett article, on the other hand, was not very interesting or thought-provoking. As I was reading, I thought I would enjoy the section where students picked apart the cover of the Rolling Stones magazine. I love marketing and advertising, and love deciphering ads and the motivations behind them. However, in this particular piece, I stopped reading that section when it stated that some of the students in the class didn't know who the Dalai Llama was. Did the public school system really fail them that much? I cannot respect a student's opinion on a marketing ad when they don't know of the Dalai Llama. This article also discussed the difference between denotation and connotation. Denotation is the explicit or direct meaning, whereas connotation is the secondary meaning behind the primary meaning.

Photos From Thursday

Pictures from Wednesday

Extra Smooth Kenny G

Stomping That State Up North

Created By: The Man Behind the Blog

Big Ten's Finest

Created by: Yours Truly

Weschler Response

I found the "Why is this Man Smiling?" article very interesting. I enjoyed the comparisons the writer made to puppetry, the origins of today's facial animation, and just how complicated the entire process is. It is pretty incredible to think how much works goes into each and every frame, which makes up scenes, which eventually culminates into a full length film.

Though aspects of the article were very interesting, I thought that the article was entirely too long and provided a lot of information that did not apply to the average reader. The article also posed the question, "Will anyone ever be able to digitally replicate a human soul?"Wait, what? My response to that, past sheer amazement that there are actually people out there thinking about that, would have to be a resounding WHY? Why would anyone have the desire to replicate a human soul? Not to mention, how do you even define a "human soul?" Questions like this do not add anything but stupidity to an otherwise very informative article.