design ile Etiketlenmiş Yazılar
I design at Zazzle.com
admin tarafından, Art and Design, Works, photography kategorisi altında, 14/12/2010 tarihinde gönderildi
I’ve recently started to design at zazzle. If you haven’t heard of it Zazzle.com is a store where you can custom prepare any printed object, from iphone cases to t-shirts, mugs, and any stationary. It’s a great place to get stuff printed, as a gift or even in bulk amounts. Besides designing your own stuff you can choose from the many cool stuff people have prepared and put on sale over there. I just started, but I hope my collection will grow with pace and soon there will be lots of stuff I will be selling. For me it is also a good place to take use of my media and create cool stuff.
For now you can follow the link below to my store at zazzle.
Related Reading:
Recycled bottles and lampshades
admin tarafından, Art and Design, Eco Design kategorisi altında, 14/05/2009 tarihinde gönderildi
What to do with all those bottles that don’t get recycled? Sarah Turner from Eco Art & Design has innovatively designed lighting fixtures to add a solution and draw attention to the growing problem. She states that:
It is estimated that only 5.5% of plastic drinks bottles are recycled in the UK. So these lights aim to do something creative with them and overall save a few bottles from the landfill sites.
And to top that she creates lovely decorative objects that we can proudly display in our interiors. I wish all products were designed with a similar sensitivity to the environment.
This design was awarded 2nd place @ Innovation Nation Competition 2009
For further reading:
Sarah Turner, Eco Art & Design
Related Reading:
Ain’t ya famous yet?
admin tarafından, Art and Design, Popular Culture kategorisi altında, 13/05/2009 tarihinde gönderildi
Fifteen Minutes by Andy Warhol

In 1968 the famous American popart artist Andy Warhol said his famous words: “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”
It was considered to be an exaggerated prophecy then, now it is a fact.
15 minutes of fame (or famous for 15 minutes) is an expression coined by the American artist Andy Warhol. It refers to the fleeting condition of celebrity that grabs into an object of media attention, then passes to some new object as soon as people’s attention spans are exhausted. It is often used in reference to figures in the entertainment industry and other areas of popular culture.
The expression is a paraphrase of Andy Warhol’s 1968 statement: “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” In 1979 Warhol reiterated his claim: “…my prediction from the sixties finally came true: In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.”
In 1986, Warhol had a short-lived MTV television series, Andy Warhol’s 15 Minutes.
Wikipedia: 15 minutes of fame
Well what made Warhol say these words that were later going to paraphrase the change of popular culture? He definitely saw the effect of mass production of art on society and media. I hear you say “What does that mean?” It means that since the invention of the camera, we have been able to save, store, multiply, duplicate, reproduce works of art, such that the difference between the original and the replica fades away. The original work of art has no orginality left for us to observe.
Andy Warhol also questions industrial production and the outcomes. Can Industrial products be considered as art? Warhol creates his major works from objects of mass consumption such as the Campbell cans to the left. He states that what we consume is what we admire as art.
What has all this to do with being famous?
Let’s make an assumption: If celebrities are products of mass media and the images we receive via transmittors such as tv, radio, cinema, press and of course internet are reproductions, then we consume the images that pass on to us.
The more the images reach us and we respond the more the fame. The more we see images of the celebrity the more we get detached from the original person. Look at the images of Marylin, we know who the images belong to very well. The image of Marylin Monroe is maybe the most reproduced personal image of all time. The thing is it is not a reproction of Marylin, it is the copy of her image. The fame of her image has outgrown her being as a celebrity. In this case we would say “look at the famous image of MM”.
We want images of ourselves to be reproduced and distributed all over. We want ourselves or our products to be reproduced and to be consumed by popular culture. We all want to be Marylin Monroe!
100 Campbell’s Soup Cans by Andy Warhol
Nowadays with the internet we have so many things to pick through, so many people have so much to say. We produce and want to distribute our products, whether it be words, imagery, video clips, or objects. We want to reach a wide audience, maybe even everyone in the world. Well think about it, so many people want to be seen, read, thought about, admired, and so on. We have a limited capacity to absorb all these. Our attention span of accepting each images is shortening with the increase of the number of broadcasts.
Before the internet there was a specific amount of media out there waiting for us to receive, now its numbered by zillions. Competition is strong, however being famous has become much easier, if you accept the fact that you can be famous for a limited amount of time. How is that?
Google the line “how to start a blog”. Read and learn the topic, it’s easy don’t get discouraged! Start your blog, publish your stunnung content, reach out to your audience and you’re famous. Ain’t ya famous yet?
Ten Marilyns, c.1967 by Andy Warhol
For further reading:
About Andy Warhol’s “15 minutes of fame” quote
Andy Warhol
The Philosophy of Andy Warhol
The Warhol Foundation
The Andy Warhol Museum
Related Reading:
Las Meninas: who is painting who?
admin tarafından, Art and Design kategorisi altında, 15/04/2009 tarihinde gönderildi
What do you see when you look at this painting? It’s difficult to describe at the first glance isn’t it?
It isn’t a scene of a landscape or of some flowers, it neither describes a scene from history, nor is it a simple portrait. Well, what is this interesting painting, and what distinguishes it from it’s coevals?
Let’s have a look at the background of this painting. This is one of the major works of Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez (June 6, 1599 – August 6, 1660), painted in 1656. Velazquez was a successful painter in the court of the King Philip IV of Spain, but painting was accepted as a craft not as art such as poetry or music, therefore he worked hard to serve in other duties in the palace court. In 1651 he was appointed palace chamberlain, and had many heavy duties and not much time to paint. However, Velazquez was able to paint a few works, mostly portraits of the royal family.
The most famous of his works as a painter of royal portraits is this painting named “Las Meninas”. What creates its signnificance is the extra-ordinary composition of characters we find in this painting, which makes it an important turn-point in art theory. At the time it was painted it set an inconvenient example of art. Let’s see how this is so:
At a first look we see a little girl at the center of the scene, the Infanta Margarita is the daughter of the King Philip IV. The Infanta Margarita is surrounded by her entourage, maids of honour (Las Meninas) besides the infanta, two dwarfs and a dog at the front, and behind the Infanta’s maid to the right stand the Infanta’s chaperone and a bodyguard. To the left of the Infanta we see Velazquez the painter himself, and at the rear wall we see a mirror reflecting the King and Queen standing side by side as if they were posing for their portrait to be painted. Finally we see a man who is standing at the doorway, he is the queen’s chamberlain and is probably checking out what is going on in this chamber.
Now we know who is who in this painting, if we observe the interactions between the figures we can see that there are a lot of things going on.
1. Let’s start with the mirror that reflects the King and Queen who are looking towards us. Almost everybody in the scene are focused on the royal couple whose presence in the painting is missing. It seems that this painting was actually supposed to be a portrait of the royal couple. However, it turned out to be a painting depicting the royal couple being painted. The royal couple (objects of the painting) have been left out on purpose, and they are watching this scene through their own reflection. How did Velazquez come up with a plot such as this, I wonder?
2. The Infanta Margarita is at the center staring at us with her head turned to her left with a dignified look, too dignified actually for a little child. She is at the center of attention according to the depicted scene, it is as if she were posing for her own portrait, however she is not actually what this portrait is about. She seems to be watching us instead of her parents being portrayed.
3. The two maids of the Infanta (Las Meninas as in the title of this painting), on her left and right are leaning over towards the Infanta. The maid on the Infanta’s left takes a slight glance at the missing King and Queen. Their primary interest is not in who is being painted, they are carrying out their duty, to assist the Infanta. They seem to notice us, but still go on with their duty, and do what they have been told.
4. The two dwarves at the front seem detached from the Infanta, one of them is staring straight at us out of curiosity wondering “what will happen next”, and the other is trying to catch the dog’s attention. They look like they are after some kind of mischief.
5. The Infanta’s chaperone and bodyguard seem to be talking to each other, maybe gossipping while taking place in the crowd. This doesn’t seem to be an appropriate thing to do in front of royalty. The Infanta and her maids, the two dwarves, the chaperone and the bodyguard all show an informal presence. Maybe Velasquez was trying to display the true characters of the royal entourage, we cannot know.
6. On the left Velazquez is working on a large painting, nearly twice his height, and he has taken a few steps back to take a good look at what / who he is depicting. As we know the King & Queen have been left out of the painting. We are standing where they were supposed to be. Is Velasquez painting a portrait of us? Could it be that we have become the objects / models of this painting? Instead of being an observer of a famous painting, the characters are actually observing us. We have become objects instead of subjects.
7. And finally the chamberlain is looking down through the doorway. He is passing by and spontaneously taking a glance at this scene. He doesn’t belong in the crowd. It is as though he wants to have control over what is happening from a distance, a distance that is neither too close to be present, nor too far to be ineffective. Something in the scene might happen that can get out of control, and he is there to fix it. He displays the omnipotent presence, the “gaze”, he is always and never there.
The power in visual interaction
Are we the real subjects experiencing this painting? Our power as observer or as being a subject has been thrown off course. We think we are observing a portrait, however we have replaced the King and Queen of Spain (the icons of power of the period) and have become objectified by the characters in the painting.
Michel Foucult begins his book “The Order of Things: An archaeology of the human sciences” with an interpretation of Las Meninas, where he investigates the visual structure of this painting, without considering the historical context. He simply analyzes the positionings of the characters.
Relevant to what I have mentioned previously, Velazquez has left no space for any “visitor” to intervene in the scene. Therefore, any observer, who stands before the painting, experiences a dis-positioning of his / her own subject. Within this context, Foucult observes that:
Around the scene are arranged all the signs and successive forms of representation; but the double relation of the representation to its model and to its sovereign, to its author as well as to the person whom its being offered, this relation is necessarily interrupted. (Foucault: 1970:16)As we now know that the author (Velazquez), model (King & Queen), observer (us – subject), and the visitor (the chamberlain) have all been dis-positioned. All have been deprived of their power to experience the expected outcome; to be portrayed, to paint, to observe, to visit…
Who is really in control of this scene? Actually no one. Not Velazquez, he is trapped in his own scene; Not the King & Queen; their reflection says more than themselves; Not the Infanta, the dwarves or the chaperone or bodyguard… Even the chamberlain who is “passing by” does not have control. He maybe seeking control, but if he did actually have control, he wouldn’t need to pass by. Maybe the Maids of Honour have control over the scene, since they are applying their duties and the painting is named after them? Who knows…
Experiencing this painting means asking the question am I the subject (observer) of my experiences, or have I become the object? And this question has set a primary discourse in art theory. Aren’t we still asking the same question?
Related Reading:
A melodramatic visit: In Bruges
admin tarafından, Book and Film Reviews kategorisi altında, 10/04/2009 tarihinde gönderildi

How can a film be increadibly gloomy, funny, touching, artistically fulfilling, and, catching at the same time? With “In Bruges” we see it is possible. The film is both; a visual fiest of medeival architecture of the well preserved city of Bruges, and a good example of English black comedy.
The scenes of the city create a sublime atmosphere in the film, and overwhelm you to go there, and the dialogues, contradicting the atmosphere of the city, are full of slang and comic remarks displaying the humanistic side of two Irish hitmen trying, however failing, not to catch attention.
The language is goofy and sly, to the extent of mocking midgets and the Americans, and the acting is touching; especially Brendan Gleeson who plays the mature hitman Ken always looking out for his rookie partner Ray (Colin Farrell), who are two Irish hitmen told to “lay low” in Bruges for two weeks by their boss’, after a job that has gone terribly wrong.
It’s not surprising that the Director Martin McDonagh is an Irish play-writer who has won the Oscar for his short film “Six Shooter” last year. McDonagh has done a well job with his fellow Irishmen Farrell and Gleeson. Finally, Ralph Fiennes also displays some surprising acting. After we have gotten used to his sophisticated English accent and role accordingly, we see him as a Cockney speaking gangster boss from London, reminding us of Michael Caine.
The only bad thing about the movie is the poster. It underrates the quality of the film by presenting it as a thrilling action movie (which is what I thought it was). The poster also doesn’t give Brendan Gleeson the credits he deserves since he plays the pivot role of the whole film. However, as much as I like surprises, despite the promotion, this film well overcame my expectations.
This is one of the most impressive movies I’ve ever watched. I sincerely recommend “In Bruges” as a film of both artistic and cinematographic quality.












Latest comments