creating a cardboard boxlike structure in which to neglect a plant to death, making the same drawing of an oil lamp over and over, and making plans to publicly humiliate self

most art isn't functional. I think. I guess there are lots of potters. And then some paintings are later informative. There was that painter whose paintings were studied by geographers to determine water levels.
but for the most part, not very functional.
I'm going to make a piece about this. out of cardboard. I think it will hold and kill a plant. it'll be about how art cannot fulfill basic needs.

was the concept of "decorative" even in the artist's notion of art before Manet? Is it still a part of the artist's notion of art today?

I'm looking at the art of George Condo and wondering how much the modern cartoon owes to cubism.

ephemerastudies.org

- Art History Professor Zalesch's website, created by Truong Nguyen, a communication design student.

here's my self portrait in oil:

here's Professor Jones' self portrait:



here're a couple classmates':

It seems like what the viewer and critic look for in art is evidence of intelligence. If a work seems to have been made by an intelligent individual, it is respected; if it seems dumb, it's not, almost regardless of subject matter, feat of effort, etc. It's like, the search for intelligent life in some ways.

here's Chelsea Food, possibly finished:


here's my onion painting, not very successful:


here's one of a few gesso studies I did: