Welcome Rock Hill area art students

This blog was created to allow casual conversations about the artwork that you have created and the artists who have influenced you. This will be an excellent place for you to display your art images and share your reactions. We can also share information about upcoming art events.

Search This Blog

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Vik Muniz

Vik Muniz is a Brazilian who I have just become aware of. He is a very versatile artist who used to do renditions of famous pieces of art using foods, including chocolate. Some more recent works, however, have included photos from the ceiling of a warehouse that were the result of maticulously placed junk. You absolutely have to see the video's offered on his website vikmuniz.net! Because of the software, I can't link directly to the video (or at least don't know how). I couldn't even find videos on youtube.

Click on this blog title, Go to "gallery" --> "Pictures of Junk" --> "video" --> "detail"


One particular piece has a title that was similar to one that I used in an Art I critique. With the help of several workers, Muniz is able to create a piece in about a month and a half. Each is about the size of a basketball court. I think that his work is particularly interesting now because of the use of junk in an environmentally friendlier world.

Question: Can we give him 100% credit as the artist if he left several people to work on it without him being there?


  1. I typed a whole long response about that.

    And then I decided it's an exercise in futility to dissect whether that is or isn't acceptable.

    Artists have been getting away with that for many years.

    Hate to use an overrated and trite example, but Warhol, anyone?

    Another artist whose name I have forgotten, did pieces composed of dots.

    According to him, one of his assistants executed them in a far more appealing way.

    Does this make artists such as him just a visionary, and the person doing the grunt work just a tool?

    And does this mean the man is not a visual artist?

    Apparently not, because his work sold just as well.

    No matter all the grumbles and 'what ifs', the general public will see an aesthetically pleasing piece - and unfortunately, will probably not know, or care, to look beyond that and into the world of ethics.

    So, like I said, an exercise in futility to complain.

  2. Nevertheless, it is a very well executed idea that I've never seen before. Perhaps, this is all I need to know. Why should I be stingy with my credit? It is not a limited resource.

  3. I agree then.

    Maybe I spoke too hastily last night.

    If it's an original and well executed idea, then maybe that is all you need to know.

    I guess this is me reversing positions from last night -

    but maybe we overthink the creative process, and sometimes spend too much time debating that -rather than enjoying a great piece of art for what it is?

    I think in schools in general, students spend a lot of time studying the process, and we overlook our own interpretations, and forget to have a personal reaction to the piece itself.

    I also think we're getting past that in your class, and I'm glad for it.

    Alors, should the public learn to look at a piece of work for what it is - versus what it is not?

    I suppose I think so.

    I'm finding myself developing stronger opinions as we go along with this blog.

  4. This peice was intresting because it takes the word art to a whole nother level. When i thought "art" i thought paint, brushes, pastels, and water color. but now when i think of art i will think of new medians, a broader canvis. From now on when i think art i will think of unlimited possiblities