I did mention her initially but I couldnt' remember her name. I love her
work "her pictures" or whatever you want to call them. They are cute babies.
I'm not digging for some psychological meaning in all artwork, maybe she has
some or not. Do you think art has to have some deep meaning to be art, or
can I be at home one weekend and just mess around with clay and make a
beautiful clay pot "work of art". It's great that we know how Wegman feels
about his art and the messages he wishes to convey. But can you create
something just because you want to make something beautiful. Make an
aesthetically pleasing pot. Paint a lovely scene of a beautiful English
Cottage. Just because they make money and have become somewhat Okay overly
commercialized is that wrong? We do live in America a democratic socity and
people can buy the cottages or not. I mean look at Andy Warhol. He was a
messed up individual "personally" but he created art, pushed limits,
challenged ideas, are we bashing someones character because he paints
cottages? Sorry I'm rambling a bit, but I have many contrasting thoughts on
the whole subject. However I do like Thomas K, Anne G, and Wegman.
btw wasn't trying to offend anyone :)
From: Jayna Huffines [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:37 PM
To: ArtsEdNet Talk
Subject: Re: Wiliam Wegman,etc
No one has mentioned Anne Geddes yet.
Patricia Knott <email@example.com> wrote:
There are a few things going through this list that I want to make
comments on. (00Ps ended with a preposition!)
Wegman is a serious artist. He loves his dogs, he has used his dogs, and
he has made A LOT of money from his dogs. But there is something to his
photos beyond the immediate appeal.
(BTW if you research the history of Man Ray and Fay Ray you will cry)
Wegman challenges the interpreting of art. His work is assessable and
maybe has become too commercial but his work appears in major museums.
Sometimes his work is "cute." But does that mean that it does not need
Wegman is an artist - he paints, draws, photographs, and makes videos.
He was a conceptual artist in the 70's; he made "fun'"of the art of the
time. Wegman was always serious about critiquing the conventions of serious
art. He redirects the viewer as to the 'seriousness' of art history. He
parodies fashion photography, he questions mastery (who is in control, dog
or man?), he questions the traditions of animal art, he plays off
advertising photography, he deals with the mechanisms by which power
manipulates us, and many of his photos make reference to art history. I
think he is always asking "who is in control?"
Wegman's work is appreciated by kids watching Sesame Street as well as
critics who read much deeper reading.
Wegan's site is down now as someone mentioned. But you can learn more at
Try to find "Lolita" and tell me it is not the most seductive, sensual
thing and tell me it doesn't make you think about what is seductive
and then tell me a photo of a dog can't make you think.
My high school kids will watch and watch the Sesame Street videos. They
are enthralled. And when I explain Wegman's intentions, they are more
curious. The curiosity is what makes the artist. Wegman is an artist and
does it well. He makes statements on society and most don't even know it.
It's not so cute, it's very pointed.
hate thinking putting Wegman in the same subject line with Kincade ( and
I don't care if if know how to spell Kincade)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --- You
are currently subscribed to artsednet as: firstname.lastname@example.org To
unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-artsednet-20359V@lists.getty.edu