Man Ray

                                    The Fantasies of Mr. Seabrook 1930

                                                         Cadeau 1921

                                                   New York 1971

As an artist, I feel implicitly that we should have some understanding of the historical context in which we create art.  Not to say we need to characterize our selves as art historians, but simply some consciousness of how history frames our art.  My personal option is that modernism, in a ciprocal scene, is the artistic high water mark of contemporary art.  I feel that artist such a Duchamp and Ray are largely to blame for the movement of postmodernism.  Doing a great job of pushing a revolution to the point of quasi cultural   acceptance, to then witness the recoil.

After attending studio art school for four years I have a pretty good scene of art history committed to memory, a lot of this is stream of consciousness.  I did look at a few articles about Ray but most of this is accumulated knowledge.  I feel that Maine College of Art's artistic principles lie largely in postmodernism.  It was often tough to grapple with and forced me to spend a lot of time thinking about what post postmodernism was going to look like.  A large portion of my time was spent on modernism and the artists of the movement.

I feel that Rays outward gesture to the art world was his benevolence for the movement of modernism.  His contributions to the movement can only be compared to artists such as Duchamp and jointly, I feel there passion for Dada and general modernity forced the movement into true acceptance.
The bottom two images I fell are pretty self explanatory, the top image is only to illustrate how far reaching Rays abilities were.  Besides I think it is sort of a funny image.  He was probably a little before his time on that one, I can only imagine what the critic's said. 

Not sure what you want for a bibliography.  None of the information I have came directly from the articles I read.  If you need me to change something or try to better assign informational credit, I will do my best
http://adrunkenduck.blogspot.com/2010/06/man-ray.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/492395/Man-Ray

Cannonball Press

     This exhibit was a lot of fun.  It is very clear that there is an overall scene of humor to the work.   The large scale crazy carny prints are totally  ridiculous.  I think that the artists are perfectly happy with the viewer being confounded, confused or hopefully humored.  I really enjoyed the super pulpy, freak show nature of the carny prints. They conger up thoughts of  a time long scene past where big top tents loured people from far and wide to come gander at the bearded lady and three legged chickens.  People love the freak show, weather discussed or not they cant help but to look.  The same mentality that forces you to slow down while driving by a car accident in hopes of seeing a body or a decapitated arm that has been flung down the road a ways.
   The print that states "man or monkey, you decide" speaks a language of social commentary.  The idea of capitalist wasteland forces me to look at this monkey as some type of diplomat or political figure.  Reinforcing the idea that the person at the top is little more than a well developed mammal who's interests included eating bananas and flinging poo.  Not necessarily the most important attributes for a person that is in control of a large number of people.
     I loved their artist statement.  Having read plenty of them, and having written a few my self, at times they can have a feel of ego masturbation.  Saying to your self "I know you think you're  great and all, but what dose this have to do with your art".  Their statement is more like a recipe for crazy as hell.  For some I realize  it will be a bit challenging, hopefully an good and engaging challenge.   For others, I am certain they will see the inherent humor and fun in the thing.
     I also wanted to point out that by having prints priced at $20, it not a huge investment for most people.  I really love the idea of affordable art, helping to change the stigma of a art only for the wealthy.  It is sad for me to think that many people have the idea that art is not to be grasped by the common man.  The overly intellectual patron walking into a gallery and slapping down a wad of cash for something that looks as if it could of been painted by a four year old.   This work dose a good job with mass appeal, not to say everyone will like it, more that the subject matter is pretty straight forward.
    This is a great body of work.  Not overly confusing and a lot of fun.  I think many people will really be engaged.  Some of the work is a bit one liner, but I think that is what make some of it really rich.

Question 5.  A few terms I looked up

 Brethren of the Common Life:  An association founded in the 14th century that was focused increasing Christian deviation.  Started by G Groote, he embraced a simpler life largely guided by the love of god.

Lay Piety:  As I understand, lay in this context relates to the lay people or the common people.  Piety is the devotion to god or a reverence for god.  The  common persons devotion to god.

Leonard Baskin.  The Strabismic Jew

Question 3.
     There are a lot of parallels between the printing press and the photocopier.  They can be used to do the same thing, replicate images or text.  There is also the is also the idea of being able to recreate or replicate a piece of art.  This would be one of the greatest benefits to both processes.  The ease of replication allows the object to be more attainable by a greater number of people.
     This idea of replicating art brings up an interesting question of authenticity.  Is there an original, or is the edition of prints seen as a whole.  How is this different from photocopies and how are they viewed.  Are a bunch of photocopies that are identical seen an edition.  I feel that the print, be it singular or part of an edition, can be seen as it's own individual piece or art.  Where the photocopier art needs a certain amount of deviation from it's raw form.  Many of the photocopied pieces we looked at were multimedia or colauge where the photocopy is a component.  I would have a hard time with photocopy in the raw being presented as a finished piece of art.  I suppose that brings up the ever present questions of what is and is not art.  We will leave that one alone for now.  
Question 4.

Michael McCurdy ilustration for Man Who Planted Trees

First Assignment

Question  1.
     Gutenberg's invention of the printing press allowed mass transmission of information to the populous.  During the renaissance period in Europe, only the upper class were taught to read.  One of the reasons for this is only the wealthy could afford the hand transcribes book being produced.  The technology that Gutenberg invented allowed books to be produced much more quickly and affordable.  This made it possible for the masses to afford them and in turn learn how to read them. 
      Gutenberg's effect on current socitey can been seen as simply as the legacy of obtainable information.  Not only that this information is available, but that it is our right to obtain it.   Not to be cliche, but information can be power.  There have been cases where empowered and informed citizens, with a certain type of knowledge have overthrown governments.

Question   2.
     It would not be a stretch to relate the grater availability of information of the late renaissance to the contemporary scene that obtaining information is our right.  This ability to gain information and to portray it in the form of art has been happening for century's in the west.  In contrast, art of Mao era China often shared sentiments of hyper government control through lack of or inability to communicate information.  
     In a more direct comparison, the technology that Gutenberg invented over five hundred years ago is very similar to  the precess that produces large volume publications.  Or at least the precursor to the widely used digital printing methods used today.