2. I did agree with the elements and
principles listed for the images and yes to the next question as well in that I
did see other elements and principles in the images. Meghan Kelley realized
that and used the same image for multiple elements and principles and for Julie
Laforest, she had pictures that represent multiple elements and principles such
as her unity picture represents more than just unity.
3. There were no images in my peer’s
blogs that were the same as mine while only one person went to the same gallery
as I did. I found that their decisions in the art works that they choose were
well founded based on their reasons for choosing them that they answered in the
questions.
4. There were two images that caught
my eye and they were by Gustave Courbet in Julie’s blog and Lee Bontecou in Meghan’s
blog. My connection to both of them actually in the way they both convey depth
and substance using their respective medias. I want to know, for both of them,
why they were created and then for Lee Bontecou’s work I want to know why it is
untitled because it feels almost incomplete to me without one
5. I thought this was a decent
process while I do believe people should review their peers work, I believe
that there should be less formal constraints on it and more of a free way to
review and post about it. I found this to be valuable to my learning experience
because it gives you a better whole understanding and it opens your mind to
alternatives that you may never have considered.
6. I found the comments helpful
because they helped me to see what people thought of my work. The person who
did comment on my work was very positive about it and seemed to achieve a
deeper understanding by reviewing someone else’s work.
No comments:
Post a Comment