This artist works with robotics. His stuff is interactive. Its pretty cool stuff. This picture up top may not be the prime example but a lot of his work. But generally what he strives to do is 
collaborate organic and inorganic materials.
I chose to research this particular artist because he is so very different from anyone else I have blogged about before. The art that he does is constructed out of items i know I can find in my recycle bin. ( yeah thats right.. i recycle!) He uses bottle caps, paper, plastic and cardboard. It is funny because he makes these models of utopian cities. This is what he has pictured Africa (where he is from) to look like in the future. This my not be that interesting in today's context but the fact is that he has created this in 1948 and I don't believe it is too far from the truth.
I decided to research this artist because his work is so very different from anything else I have ever seen before. It is really cool actually. Kingelez is from Africa and he builds these utopian scapes out of materials like plastic, paper and cardboard. It is amazing what he can do with basic recyclable items. He uses bottle caps and all sorts of things but what he is trying to make is what he sees as the future of Africa. It may not seems that cool in today's setting but this was created in 1948. I think that he has a pretty good understanding of what is to come.
As you can see by the difference in pieces, his works really vary a lot. I find this one interesting on the left because it kind of tells a story. I can see the chairs in the positions of the people that possibly sat in them. It is funny because the more and more I am researching on conceptual artists for this blog I think that I am finding a new light in it. It is taking a lot but I think I can see where his ideas are stemming from. 
“On the Rights of the Molotov Man,” an article by Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas is a very interesting article in that it takes a look at how contextualizing and decontextualizing images can have an effect on their meaning and their representation of the subject included in the photo or image itself. However, I found the copyright infringement aspect of the article to be kind of ridiculous. While I understand that it had been Susan Meiselas original image, taken for a specific reason and with a specific purpose in mind, it was clear to me, from reading Joy Garnett’s portion of the article, that she had not created her painting with any intention of infringing upon Susan’s copyright. Getting the lawyer involved seemed to be going a little far. I believe that Meiselas should have been happy that her photo which was taken back in 1979 was still meaningful in some way and was still sending a message. I don't believe that Garnett had used her painting to steal any ideas. She was simply trying to create her own statement from a very powerful photograph. Yes, Garnett should have asked for permission, especially due to the fact that her art was going to be displayed in an art gallery. However, I do not believe that it would have made a difference just due to the fact that Meiselas did not actually sue. I think that she had seen an opportunity to be back in the spot light and get some publicity.
However, the one part of the article that I found to be incredibly interesting was how artists online around the world stood up and fought for Joy Garnett’s right to use the image in her painting, since she had clearly not intended to infringe on anyone’s copyright by using it. She had simply found it in an internet search and felt inspired. Seeing that kind of backing from an online community is not all that surprising from me, since I, myself, take part in some online discussion communities for the arts and various things, but it was interesting to see how the story got twisted as it was translated from language to language. I think that is one thing that is universally understood… that language barriers can sometimes make things worse without intending to. For instance, the Chinese thought that Pepsi was suing Joy Garnett by the time the news got to them, and eventually, the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.
Though the whole situation did become blown out of proportion, I think that the online support that Garnett received for her painting had a lot to do with Meiselas having her lawyers back off and not going after the licensing fees. There would have been so many backlashes, that at the time, it probably didn’t seem worth pursuing. Even though she did give up on the legal pursuit, I’m glad that this article gave her the opportunity to voice her opinion and give the real background of the “Molotov Man.” His story is fascinating, and it was crazy to see how many different groups had used his image. Pablo Arauz, better known as the “Molotov Man,” had his image spread on flyers for various political parties, had his image put on match books, had his image painted on walls, and all the while, he was raising a family and taking care of the lumber company that he owned. It was not until 1990 that Susan Meiselas even knew the name of the man in the picture she had taken. This is crazy to me. It turns out that the "Moltov Man" was really just a family man and a truck driver. As much popularity as that picture got I find that it is a bit ridiculous that he became such an icon. It is humorous in fact that America see's something and that it can become such an uproar and meaningful to people when the photographer herself does not know the entire story behind it.
I think the most important question raised by this article was brought up by one of the online posters in response to the controversy and battle over copyright and rights in general between Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas. “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?” Neither Garnett or Meiselas knew this man personally, other than Meiselas having witnessed him throwing the Molotov cocktail long enough to snap the photo that would bring her into the spotlight, but nowhere in the article did it mention asking Pablo Arauz’s permission to reproduce images of his likeness. It just seemed like such a trivial matter to me. It wasn’t a battle over art for art’s sake. It was a battle over rights, and ultimately over money for Susan Meiselas, and that kind of goes against everything that the image itself represented, as Arauz fought for political beliefs and freedom from a regime he didn’t believe in. Overall, I just felt like the article raised a lot of interesting questions about art and copyright.
The current feature in this gallery is "We Art Women." Essentially it is a collection of works from women in the Boise and surrounding community area. At first glance you think that it may be a bunch of feminist style work but it is much more than that. I really enjoy the diversity in the art. Each piece appealed to me in a different way. Many of the different artist specialized in different things. Some of the women were into steel and sculpture while others were into painting and other art.
This one here is by Julie Clemons. It is done in colored pencil!! This is amazing art. She did this one in January 2010. It is about 11" by 3". So it is not painfully big but the detail in it would be so crazy if she had done it on a bigger scale. She calls this piece "Photosynthesis." I think she named it appropriately. After seeing this art at the VAC I got online and found out that she attended Boise State University in the 1980's and has local art placed all over like at Hyde Park. I thought this was pretty neat. 