It's what I think.

I'm supposed to step back and say 'whoa' to this after all I heard? That lecture was way to based off of one mans opinion for me to believe that he uses feeling, emotion, or anything that could lead to "transcendance" in his artwork.

The Tim Lefens lecture wasn't exactly what I had expected. In fact, it wasn't what I had expected at all. First of all, I had expected the lecture to be on A.R.T, his Artistic Realization Technologies organization that he founded. I would've preferred that and I was interested in hearing more about it. But we mostly were there to listen to his very opinionated views on what constitutes "art." He was basically preaching to the crowd the whole time on what "good art" is and why his falls under that category. And that is exactly what it seemed like. He was talking to the crowd the whole time, giving us his one-sided, controversy-full spiel, while never providing any proof. I hate to compare it to religion, but that's really what it seemed like. Even when I listened in on what other people thought of the lecture, a lot of people seem to agree that he was really trying to push his idea down our throat and not telling us why the other arts are no good. 

Understanding he has a pretty severe visual impairment, I understand why he did not rely on images to introduce us to his art. But still, with so much high talk of how awesome it was, a visual for our sake would be nice. 

Also, I just want to get this out there. Really? Really? Do we know who Da Vinci is? Do we know Duchamp? Do we know Warhol? Do we know Picasso’s ‘Guernica’? You know your audience right? We are all artists at the collegiate level and up. We have had at least one art history class ever. Yes. I'd say we're familiar with those guys. I was confused. Was that a diss to our intelligence or did he not know what sort of lecture crowd he was talking to? The latter might make sense.

Another thing I want to get off my chest is the Truncated Pyramid Theory. I am a strong advocate for arts for everyone. Anyone can do it, participate in it, make it, enjoy it. You don't have to be an elitist bigot to be an artist. I understand that he wants it to be special, to transcend. To have that awe-inspired “wow” factor. But...is that now or is he stuck in the Romantic Era? He seems obsessed on the sublime. All I can think of is Beth Wilson's art history class and Caspar Friedrich's painting, 'The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog.' What makes art so great is that anyone can achieve it. It can be done. And clearly, he knows this. His A.R.T. proves this. This is where I get confused and feel he is contradictory. I guess, he expects everyone to make the same kind of art. The ‘transcending’ kind. Not everyone is interested in that. Or will understand it. The literal and mundane are indeed art. At least in my opinion. Listen, I’m not a huge fan of Warhol, but I sure do bet that some people did stand in front of his soup cans and mouth, “Whoa” being totally and utterly blown away by it’s simplicity and it’s obvious nature. Gah! I feel like I don’t have the right words or the ability to organize my brain thoroughly enough to retort in the manner I’d like to!

And also, I’m sorry I’ve been so critical. Hearing about A.R.T. was nice though. Would’ve enjoyed more of that.