Author: vfsenter

Today in one of my art history classes, we discussed the greatly heated debate of whether or not the art market is ethical and if so, is it less ethical than the stock market. At first, I was somewhat taken aback. Comparing the art market to the stock market seemed quite a longshot. The art market deals with fine works of art, excellent pieces composed by masters, those that have changed the face of what art is and how art affects society. The stock market, so far as I know, is nothing more than intangible dealing with numbers – figures so far removed from the everyday life that it is nearly impossible for me to correlate the two.

However, once we began to delve into the topic, it became apparent that the differences between the stock and art market are not nearly as great as they initially seemed to be. Rather, there are quite a few similarities. The thing that struck me most, however, was that the legal regulations that are implemented on the stock market are nowhere to be found in the art market. For instance, in the art market, the auction house can be a bidder at the auction, invariably raising the price and the base price of works of art without any restriction or regulation. But is that, in any way, fair? Should the auction houses, rather than the buyers, be the ones setting the market? And if it is the auction houses, how are they determining the value?

Today in one of my History of Art courses, the question of how and whether art should be valued came up. Half of the students in my class happen to be artists themselves, and I was absolutely shocked that for many of them, the notion of creating works for the purpose of selling is antithesis to their overall artistic value. To some of my classmates, they felt that they should not create something for the objective of it having marketability to the general public. Such would defeat the purpose of artistic creativity and freedom. On the other hand, some students stated that they felt if someone is creating a work of art, then they should be paid for the time and effort put forth.

We then started linking this notion to other aspects of life, relating it to how people often solicit services from friends or family for free – free medical advice from your friend the doctor, free legal advice from your friend the lawyer, free psychiatric advice from your psychologist friend. Are these actions then wrong, too? Where does the line for provision of services, in something that you’re an expert in, be drawn?

In my opinion, all works of art should be paid for. If I am going into a gallery to purchase a work of art, a work that someone put time and effort into, then the very least I can do if pay them for their service, their skill and their expertise. I would never go into a doctor and have an examination and not pay them for the work they are doing. In so many veins, art is an expression of creativity. However, for artists who have the making of art as their primary profession, it is essential that they are paid for their work and their time.

So, what do you think? Should art be paid for? Should works of art be created without any compensation? Is it not wrong for such to occur – for someone to put time and effort into a craft and then get nothing in return for the time and work. At the end of the day, we live in a world driven by a market economy, do we not?

So, I’m sure by now almost everyone on campus has heard about the student roaming through Angell Hall in fatigues, a gas mask and empty ammunition pack. Alarmed by this student, the police were called in, and although any evidence of foul play was dismissed, the student claiming to be playing a joke, I can’t help but feel a terrible sense of disarm at what occurred. The student may have claimed ot be playing a joke, but the implications of his action were monumentally more significant than he was aware of, clearly. Did he intend for the police to be involved, for the entire campus to shudder in fear? Maybe, maybe not.

The student claims that his joke stems from a desire to play against Valentine’s Day, the hallmark holiday that invariably leaves singles feeling all the more alone and those in relationships an excuse to buy presents and lavish in one another’s presence. Either way, the holiday has developed into an one filled with anxiety, whether one is in a relationship or not. But so much so that a student felt the need to act out in this fashion? I’m honestly shocked. With the degree of violence happening around the nation in the last decade, a joke like this is inarguably not funny.

All this makes me wonder, however, whether the real culprit in this prank is Valentine’s Day itself. Does the holiday put such pressure on all that these types of actions are merely par for the course? It’s truly hard for me to believe, but if such is the case, does that mean we, as Americans, need to rethink the emphasis placed on the holiday? Invariably, people without significant others are going to feel lonely today, and feel that they are alone in being alone (if that makes any sense?) The amount of oddslot drinking or depression induced acts on this day must be higher than on average day (as today’s incident seems to show). So, what’s the answer? Take away the holiday or possibly revise and reframe the way Americans view the holiday and the emphasis placed on it?

For more info: http://www.michigandaily.com/news/police-enter-angell-hall-after-reports-suspicious-behavior

As a Student Docent for UMMA, I have found that there are far too many exciting elements of the museum that are unbeknownst to the student public. Primarily, the DialogTable is among the greatest of hidden gems that the museum holds.

The table is only one of four of its kind, and by using a “pinch” method (you pinch your fingers above the table to signify the image that you want to learn about) you welcome endless learning possibilities. Attached to the images are further information about the object as well as, for certain works, videos that allow for further exploration and evaluation. While at the table one can create their own pool of works, bringing together items of particular interest that immediately gets saved to UMMA’s website, allowing the viewer to curate their own personal collection of favorite works.

The table also allows for “tags,” using key words and phrases to connect different objects together. While the museum groups objects by location of origin and time of creation, the DialogTable allows the viewer to create thematic ties between the works that are far more complex and personalized than a geographic region. For example, a viewer may feel that there is a strong female narrative being woven through various works and can then tag each work with “female”. By doing so, future viewers can see these same links, opening their minds to new and different interpretations.

The purpose of viewing art is undoubtedly personal. Some people go into a museum to lose themselves in their thoughts – allowing endless rumination on not only the art but also life. Museums, in such a way, can act as a great escape. However, there is also vast exploration and intellectual investigation that can be done at a cultural institution with collections as pertinent as those at UMMA. The DialogTable allows those who visitors who want a deeper experience from the museum to not merely explore the collection, but to think creatively and analytically about how the different works at the museum connect, differ and build off one another.

Who knew that while buried nose-deep in LSAT books I would find some solace in reading comprehension sections based on art history? Studying for the LSAT has been one of those chores I have to do, but keep putting off, surmounting in misery at each and every of my attempts to study. Recently, however, I have been overjoyed at finding passages based on art – discussing impressionism, realism, and cubism. While the exam itself is arduous, I am finding tremendous pleasure in these passages – the time flies and magically I get every answer right. Slowly, I am beginning to realize that, no matter what situation I am in, whether studying law or medicine, in class or at the doctor’s office, as long as there is a little bit of art, I will be just a little bit happier than I otherwise would be.

And thus, I now have decided that I will have a file of my favorite paintings with me at all times. Or, well, images of my favorite works on my iphone, ipad, computer…you get the idea. Life without art? I’d say no, thanks!

This past weekend I visited a friend at Stanford University and had the pleasure of going to the Cantor Arts Center, the University’s museum. The museum has an enormous collection of Rodin sculptures, and although I have seen many Rodin in passing throughout my life, I have never had the opportunity to view endless (as their collection felt) Rodins in the span of merely an hour. The museum had over three rooms of Rodin as well as an outside sculpture garden of his sculptures. Of all the works, however, what was the most stunning and awe inducing was The Thinker of 1881, the enormous 182 x 77 x 142 cm bronze sculpture of a man sitting, his head in his hands, ruminating over his thoughts. Rodin’s rendering of the human body, I believe, is unique in for his capability of capturing the human form, movement and ambiance is utterly and entirely reminisce of the actual human being.

Amazed as I was by Stanford’s Rodin collection, I decided that, upon arriving back in Ann Arbor, my first stop would be to spend some time in UMMA. Somehow, in all my countless ventures at our University’s museum, I missed what I believe to be a true highlight of our entire museum’s collection – the sequential statues by Rodin titled “Dance Movement”. Although these Rodin sculptures are far smaller in size than the massive sculptures featured at Stanford, being in the presence of Rodin in Ann Arbor was yet another reminder of how often I find myself taking for granted the incredible works of art that are present at UMMA. The museum’s truly exhaustive collection is one that should be both highlighted and cherished.