Out of all the examples of work from this section of Shanken (pages 54-78), there is only one piece that really sticks out to me. The Weather Project by Olafur Eliasson is shown on pages 76-77. This awesome piece is so large it takes up an entire building. Mirrors on the ceiling give the impression that the room is twice as big as it really is, and massively large lights on the wall create what looks like an artificial sun. I have seen videos of this piece before, and it is definitely something I would be interested in visiting. It looks trippy and enthralling!

Here is a picture of The Weather Project:

Cool, huh?

Finishing Up the Survey

In the final parts of the Survey section of Shanken (pages 45-54), we begin to look at art collaborations (page 47). This section seems really cool to me. It is all basically about different artists working together to create awesome pieces of art. It also states that some artists even work alongside scientists and engineers to create non-traditional art. I find this to be awesome, because as the saying goes, "two heads are better than one." I believe this applies especially to art, as art is an open book and the more people you have working on a project, the more views and insight and ideas you have for that project, making the final product that much more amazing.

Why does art have to be so weird?

You want to know what is strange? This section of Shanken, that's what is strange. Oh, which section? Sorry, I should've been more specific. I'm talking 'bout the "Bodies, Surrogates, and Emergent Systems" section on pages 38-42. This is some WEIRD stuff. This is one aspect of art I don't think I will every fully understand, the stuff that seems super weird to most people and that apparently "only artists" will understand. I consider myself an artist, why do I not understand the point of making a giant machine that acts as a human stomach and essentially just creates poop? I don't care what you say, that is absolutely ridiculous. Impressive, but ridiculous nonetheless.

Art in Motion

In Shanken pages 15-30, the topic I found most interesting was that of the Motion, Duration and Illumination (pages 16-22). The first sentence of this sections states "traditional visual art is static: it captures or represents a moment in time." Now, this is cool and all, but in my opinion it has the potential to get stale after awhile. Going to a museum and looking at a painting can be entertaining, but that painting will always be the same no matter what. I find changeable art to be much more entertaining, and this can come in many different forms. My personal favorite would probably be video, as there is almost unlimited potential in the creation of video. Anything from cartoon to live action to CGI to audio, the possibilities are nearly endless. Hooray for changing art!