For our third trip we visit the MoMA museum once again. This time we went to see different kinds of art design galleries. In the Architecture and Design Galleries, I saw many type of unique designs. Unique designs in which I was surprise to be once used by us human being. In our visit to the MoMA I was told to find two piece of work that I thought had a high functionally and two with a low functionality. Below you’ll see the 4 pieces of functionality I’ve chosen. For one of the high functionality I’ve chosen the objects from “Out of the Box: Italy 1960s-1980s.” I find the objects of “Out of the box” so unique in which we today could afford to use it. What makes it so ergonomic is in the way that you could have everything you need in just only a box. For example, the image below, you have your bed, your couch, your desk and your drawers where you could fit anything you want to put in. This is really helpful especially for those who live in a small studio. It doesn’t take up so much place and you have everything in 1. The second work I’ve chosen to be High functionality was the “Nature-City." “Nature-City” is a sketch on what a group of artist believes what an ideal neighborhood would look like. What makes it so ergonomic is the way everything runs on water instead of using power. The reason why I’ve chosen this to be High functionality is because of its environment. Where the urban life has health benefits and access to agriculture of country living. It’s a great way to live especially because of its nature. For low functionality I chose “Forks”. The type of forks I saw were very different compared to the once we use today. It was weird in the way it was bent and shaped. I looking at the fork I find it very dangerous. I don’t even think you could even eat with that kind of fork because you could end up poking yourself. It looks so strange that I don’t think you could even pick up your food. I think these types of forks are mainly for design and not for using purposes. Compared to the forks we use today I believe that those forks can’t be used. Another work I found that is low functionality is the “Experimental Plywood Recliner.” Even though it’s designed beautifully I don’t think anyone would like to be seated on it. I myself wouldn’t sit on a wood chair. The fact that it’s hard I know it’ll hurt to be seated for a while on it. That’s why I believe it’s a low functionality. In my opinion I believe I believe that functionality is determined depending on how the art/design fits our necessities of our daily basic life. An object can be low functional in a creative and uniqueness way and still assist our needs. That’s why I believe that an object doesn’t have to be highly functional to be good design. In conclusion these were the 4 works that I've chosen for high and low functionality. Some in which can be use as a decoration and others can a daily use of everyday life.  |
| Name Not Given "Out of the Box Italy" 1960s-1980s  Amale Andraos, Dan Wood "Nature City" |
In my opinion I think Cindy Sherman is a great example of an artist who can transform herself and set a unique transformation in a particular drawing. Her works are very unique. She uses herself to transform into different kinds of people in society we see in the world. She would take pictures of herself where she put tape on her face to bring her face back so her rinkles wouldn’t show and then add things such as wigs to transform herself. In other words her works of transformation makes us think of what shes trying to present in it. Such as rich people, clowns, and how people looked back in the days. So she uses herself to make these type of transformation.
On our second field trip we visited MoMA PS1. Here I saw different type of arts I’ve never quite seen before. There were arts different from each other on different floor levels. Some of the arts I seen at the museum didn’t catch my attention at all and some did. I’ll briefly describe the type of artworks that I liked, disliked, and quite didn’t understand.
The one piece I really liked was Janet Cardiff’s "The Forty Part Motet”. Once I walked into the room I felt like I was in heaven. It’s a stunning sound installation that features 40 different speakers with each speaker playing a single individual’s voice. I found it amusing when I got to the center of all speakers. This is the type of art I like that really caught my attention. Being in the room made me feel very calm and in peace. Such thing like that helps me release my stress. I don’t know but to me this is what I call a good art.
An art piece I didn’t quite understand was the room where there was an iguana and croissant. I had a puzzled face while I walked around the room. What does a croissant has to do with the iguana? In that room there was also an oven with a pizza pie. An addition to my confusion of the visual art I was looking at.
The art piece I disliked was Frances Stark “My Best Thing”. This artwork was extremely boring. All I saw where these two avatars having a conversation. I only stood there for 5 minutes and I had to leave. It just didn’t catch my attention at all. This is the type of art work I call bad. It didn’t have any meaning to me at all.
In conclusion, each one of us has our own thoughts of what is bad or good art. These were the piece I believe to be good or bad art. The artworks I chose made me questioned myself what was the artist thinking when they created the artwork? To them this art but to me it leave an undecided option.
