Throughout this class, I have become more aware of the contemporary art world and how it is developing during the present day. I feel as though artists, such as myself, view art differently; for example, the Accidental Genius exhibit, which consisted primarily of “self-taught” artists. We have come across new, experimental mediums at Inova, and later questioned artists at the Haggarty exhibit concerning the content of their work and its importance. All of these concerns and discussions are important in order to develop a higher understanding of the art world surrounding us and the competitive world we ourselves are trying to push our work into.

Seeing the Mike Kelley-inspired piece by Jennifer Steinkamp was absolutely mesmerizing. Steinkamp's animated tree provoked an intense emotional connection between the viewer and the projection piece that was located on the wall. Personally, I have never seen work like this, therefore I found myself spending ample time with the work and even returning a few days later. As my classmate Sarah Stankey put it:

The dancing tree, which almost looked as if it were in pain throughout the metamorphosis of the seasons, took on a life that we have not seen within a stagnant part of nature. Through this modern contemporary medium of digital animation Steinkamp portrays an intense emotional connection. The tree morphed and changed and moved around the whole time. As I watched, it seemed like the tree was withering and then coming back again. It repeated this cycle over and over again. Then the tree began to change seasons.

I can relate to Stankey's comment because I somewhat thought that the digital tree was in pain based its movements. This exhibit was focused on “outsider art,” which basically comes down to the fact that the artist lacked professional schooling in their chosen field. Along with Steinkamp was Eugene Von Bruenchenhein, whose work was found after his demise. He created intense vibrant paintings that are full of movement and cities. Also shown was a video of his bone towers that are disturbing as well as visually intriguing.

Outsider art has been segregated from the mainstream art world because the artists in question have little or no training in art. “I've heard of it being used to describe people who are outside of mainstream culture as well; people with little contact to the mainstream cultural and people with extreme psychological problems” (Malesytcki). The Accidental Genius exhibition at the Milwaukee Art Museum glorified art that is created by artists labeled self-taught or “outsider.” It was discussed how “self-taught” and educated artists are in different categories and why these labels are important. To a certain extent, I understand that, with no education in a particular medium, it is quite incredible what some self-taught artists can do, but I do not think that studying the arts would hurt. I find it true that “knowing how to speak about your work with words like, 'composition' and 'negative space' and 'tension' and 'figure ground relationship' are what make our critiques as artists so engaging. The(y) are the jumping off points of really great conversation about the work. It is 'art academia,' perhaps, but it's an important part of the 'outsider art' conversation” (Sprecher). I find these concepts to be extremely important; I think the artist should understand and know how to communicate with the outside world about their art and their message. I found the conversation at the Milwaukee Art Museum exhibit to be more exciting. All these individuals had no experience and most had mental or psychological disorders. I was more interested in that aspect and how creating art was therapeutic or just for fun. Yes, we as artists make work for this reason as well but we, for the most part understand why we create and make it apart of our lives as careers.

This leads me into the Tina Barney exhibit, The Europeans, that was shown at the Haggerty Museum. After seeing her photographs in person I felt a need to hear her talk about her images considering the strong sense of wealth throughout the body of work. I know it has been said that she ignores the fact that she herself is wealthy and so are the individuals in her images. At the lecture she refused or ignored questions about why she was photographing this certain class of people. This irritated me as an artist who has to explain their work through and through while someone who has received world recognition refuses to explain the sole basis behind their work. This did not change how I feel about the photographs, which I still find to be powerful and beautiful. In the same month I went to see my favorite photographer speak at the University of Milwaukee. Elinor Carucci. She opened up about every detail of her process and the reasons behind her work. It was refreshing after the Barney lecture to hear an artist be modest when she has come extremely far in the art world. I felt like I knew her as a person and fellow photographer after her talk. I could not help but compare the two photographers and see the differences in their work as well as their presentations. Sarah Stankey mentioned that: “The contrasts between Carucci and Barney demonstrate the vast differences in photography today. I think their differences are apparent in their work alone but in hearing them both speak about their work, it is clear that Carucci is making images that are far more personal to her than Barney's work could ever be” (Stankey). I could not agree more. It was very educational to have two artists from the same medium have completely different takes on their medium and lecture talks.

Art is always going to have controversial problems that we will continue to discuss for centuries. Whether it be outsider art, artist lectures, or contemporary mediums it will always be the topic of conversation between current artists.