numba 8

Nick Corona   
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
4 March 2011
                Numba 8
    This week our presenters name was Amanda Wojick. She is a sculptor and is the head of the sculpting department. Her works are pretty cool and very contemporary. It was also very abstract and I cant say that there was a particular meaning in any of it. This made me think of the comment Ty said that Professor Wojick said to her the day of her grad review. She said, “Why are you using this media?”, which was something I tried to ask myself throughout the presentation. I guess its all a matter of what type of media one is comfortable with and what, essentially, ones gut tells them to use. Amanda’s presentation consisted of nine female sculptors whom she referred to as her heroines. They had some interesting things, and I could tell how a lot of them were very similar. Especially Ursula Vonrydingsvard’s sculptures. They looked a lot like Amanda’s initial work that she showed us on her web page.
    The first artist that she showed us was Louise Bourgeois (1911-2010). She was born in France and then later moved to the United States. She worked well into her old age and when interviewed, explained her fear of abandonment and being forgotten. Thus she tried to make a big impact, which she did successfully. One of her big pieces was the Maman. This huge metal spider-thing is about 3 stories tall and after seeing it in real life, I am sure that one would not be able to remove it easily from the mind. After all, one of her famous ideas is that “All art comes from terrific failures and terrific needs”. Maman in French means mother. Aesthetically ironic, but from her vulnerable view, something seems right about it. Maybe I am remembering the movie wrong, but I am pretty sure that in Charlottes Web, the spider is quite motherly.
    One of the other artists she showed us was out of her mind. Literally. Yayoi Kusama literally lives in an insane asylum and goes to her studio to make her art every day. Like wtf (pardon the language). Apparently she obsesses over her work which from what we saw, had a lot to do with a plethora of dots. Her coolest one that we saw was a white room with some blob things with red dots everywhere. I didn’t know what was the ground and what wasn’t. It was trippy. In “Just Looking” by James Elkins he says, “no two people will see the same object”. That was real clear in this piece, in my opinion. That thing was basically moving for me, I thought I was high. ‘
    It also reminded me of what he had to say on shopping centers. He said that all the objects in these places are “hunting” for your attention. Its funny because when one is in a shopping center, they are the ones hunting for things, and I always find that it takes me forever to find where they are. I always just happen to start looking in the wrong direction. The room with all the dots seemed like something that would instantly grab the viewers attention and they would instantly be scanning the room, trying to take everything in. Maybe its more like Elkins idea of an “eye rest” or whatever he was trying to say when he was talking about how he would sometimes look out his office at the city, and kind of just let his eyes relax on the whole picture instead of taking in the individual happenings.
    Richard Serra just proves to home the whole idea of viewing art from the viewers perspective. Every person sees the art differently. In Serra’s “Tortured Ellipses” he has pieces of metal bended and twisted to form these like room looking things. He commented in an interview on how he was surprised at home many people enjoyed his work. I thought that was kind of funny. Yet once again, its just Elkins coming out of his writing into the real world. That’s how you know he’s right, and its true. It seems obvious once you have read it that people will see things differently. Just like we are all different, so are our views of art.
    This is pretty obvious. Its one of the Inkblot test things to see how one thinks. Its something that is pretty simple in that everyone sees something different in everything. Yet these are used to see what people are thinking. Maybe we can do the same with art.

Larger Image

numba 7

Nick Corona
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
23 February 2011
                Numba 7
    This week our presenter was Anya Kivarkis. Her area of field is highly crafted and highly skillful objects. The big point she made though, was that just because you think its worth a lot, doesn’t mean its value is as high. A connection I saw instantly that most likely wasn’t her doing, was the fact that she just spit images at us and told us information about them in rapid fire. Like commercials. It reminded me of John Park and his idea that technology changes how we operate. She was pretty young, so I would be willing to bet that when she was young she liked things coming at her at a high speed, just small sound bites of information. I don’t think I like this, but maybe I am the same, because although a lot of times I get bored during these presentations, I was actually surprised at how much time had passed when she finished.
    Anyways, she had a theme throughout her presentation that I am pretty sure I captured right from the beginning. The first artist she showed us was Robert Gober, who sculpted what seemed to be an unfinished sink-thing. It wasn’t very smooth and seemed like he was trying to give the appearance of a hand made object, like just throwing it at us. It made the piece venerable, yet sometimes that can give an object a demeanor of value. The next was Gijs Bakker who is a jeweler who hand makes his pieces, but uses a mixture of real and fake jewels. This is where I got the “what do we value” vibe. It didn’t make sense, and I didn’t like the way the items that he had looked, so the obvious conclusion to me was that one would be making a subtle point in wearing the item. That point, if I am right, is that we (humans) take too much value in a price tag, and not enough in the actual process of making the item. These artists make fun of that, and use obviously cheap materials to make is known that they are ridiculing this stereotype.
    Ok. So I was exact on with my analysis of the presentation. The minute I finished the biography on John Fedorov, I knew that I had nailed it and it was all about stereotypes and the diminishing of actual good work. John was born in 1960 in Los Angeles and was brought up in LA and a Navajo reservation in New Mexico. One of his biggest protrayls in his work is the way that Native Americans were being portrayed by, and stereotyped in contemporary America. Items that are considered sacred by his tribe can bought at stores as common goods. He read that Navajo Nation is the most-studied group on Earth. This is something I didn’t know. It is pretty crazy too, because not only did we rape, pillage and steal from these poor guys, but now, we pitifully try to make up for it by giving them “special right” and things of this nature, while we contaminate their objects of worship and turn their land into dirtholes with casinos in them.
    Fedorov also makes fun of a similar issue in the work place. His videos “Office Shaman” and article and video “Office Diety” show that we work harder in these places for the wrong reasons. Well he doesn’t implicitly say that, but its what I got out of it. He first explains how he got the idea for these things. He read a book where the Native American author compared corporations with tribes. While Fedorov says that he didn’t know if he agreed or not, it was an interesting idea that he expanded upon. He made these works that made it seem like the boss/ceo was some sort of god that all the workers worshipped. The process of training was like some sort of initiation. Then there are all the rituals, which we would probably just refer to as what we do on our average work day. The things they do however, are all for something that really has no real value for them though. They might acquire some currency for their extra troubles, but people are putting too much value in money. We don’t see the real value in things as easily anymore.
    This is Spam. It might look nice on the front, just don’t open the can.

numba 6

Nick Corona
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
17 February 2011
                Numba 6
    This week the guest speaker was Carla Bengston, who’s is in the field of Environmental Art. One of the first things she spoke of was the connection that we have to art and nature, and the connection those two have. From the early centuries, we have always associated nature with a sort of romanticist view that many big names have commented on. Jean- Jacques Rousseau, a Genevan philosopher in the 18th century had the view that man was corrupted by literature and the evolution of society. In his opinion, we would have been better off sticking with our natural ideals. These ideas were very simplistic, and very basic to our natural states, hence, nature. This is a romantic view because we as humans are always drawn to our natural states.
    We also talked about art and nature and how nature itself can be almost an art form. “Not everything is art, but everything is art supplies”. I don’t know who she quoted there but it is relevant and, in my opinion, true. One of the things about natural art is that it is always trying to connect humanity to nature. Motives of the sublime are always expressed, the idea of an awesome power that is beyond our comprehension. The problem is that nature is a part of us, and we can comprehend it, the thing that we cant comprehend is how it got there and how we got there. Those are the underlying questions that we ask ourselves when we see these majestic sights. 
    Another problem that we discussed is the misinterpretation of art. One man put giant snowballs in London, and one, which was in front of BP in London, was seen as a political statement which he did not mean to be entailed. This destroyed the image he was trying to impress upon his viewers. People thought that he was using nature as a political weapon. We take nature for granted and things like this make us feel less connected to nature. While we are separated from nature, I believe that it is a part of us and a foundation for our way of being, like Rousseau says.
    Kiki Smith has a very intriguing style to her art. At first I was kind of perplexed by the whole human coming out a deer thing, but her other works were very interesting and spoke a lot about her spiritual upbringing in the Catholic church. She also creates sculptures of witches and connects death to beauty. This was kind of weird at first, but then kind of nice to know that she doesn’t fear death. Many people criticize these spiritualities because they force ideas onto you and things of this nature, but I find the idea of death being beautiful kind of nice.
    Barthes’s “The Death of the Author” was a challenging read, that really annoyed me because I happen to be reading a read that is just as hard, if not harder right now. Ok, maybe John Locke is a little harder, but this one was still annoying because of the vocabulary chosen. I think that the point of his essay was that to get the full scope of a reading, the author has to relinquish their hold on it and let the true meaning of the work become tangible to the reader. Art works in a similar way, and I think that writing can even be considered an art form, as well.
    The connection between all of these things is that there is a bigger relevance of art beyond the aesthetic. There are connections that need to be made that are beyond what we see. Nature is something huge that is hard for us to comprehend unless we view it from a very basic level. We can then connect to it and find a common ground that we can relate to. Same with spirituality and death, they are things that naturally occur and we have to find meaning in them besides their obvious enormity, we have to make these connections and break them down in order to ever understand and connect to them.
    This is a picture of Mount Olympus. It is obviously a computer generated image, but it doesn’t really matter. The idea is that Mount Olympus was a human construct that Greeks invented for themselves for explain events that they couldn’t understand. The Greek Gods, whether you believe in them or not, are something that help us understand things we can grasp with a mere glance.

BIGGER! but maybe not...haha

numba 5

Nick Corona
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
11 February 2011
                    Numba 5
    This week we were presented with John Park, a digital art guru, and program expert. He was young (apparently dreamy) and went to University of Oregon about six years ago. He was never very specific, but I believe that his focus in art is 3D animation. He also is working on a music and art program with a dancer at University of Oregon. It has to do with combining technology, sound and art together to form some sort of super stimuli. The main focus of his presentation, however, was technology and its problems, strategies and solutions.
    He first explained how technology is something that, although made by us, is not really under our control. People will always be innovating and trying to make faster ways to do things, and cooler ways to do things. It is inevitable. It is hard to judge the morality of such a course, for many reasons. One of the most basic ideas is that technology gives jobs. The more things we have to take care of, and make, the more people will be employed. Yet, the more we innovate things to do things for us, faster, more efficiently, and more cost effectively, the less jobs we will also have, because the machines will be doing the work for us.
    The reading that we had was first on Paul Pfeiffer, who is originally from Honolulu, but lived most of his young life in the Philippines. He works in video, sculpture and photography. He is most famous for his works of photography and video where he edits out certain scenes to get a different perspective of the works he is taping or shooting. His “Four Horseman of the Apocalypse” is  an ongoing series of photographs in which he erases certain parts. For instance: one of them depicts Marilyn Monroe, in one of her famous photographs. He removed her from the picture and it changes the way people view it.
    When asked about erasure, Pfeiffer responds that he doesn’t really think of it as erasure, but more like camouflage. He uses the background to make a the image that he is “erasing” become transparent. Its more like an illusion of the audience or whatever is behind the point that he takes out. He is using his technology as a tool to make the view of his art different. The name “Four Horseman of the Apocalypse” actually is a reference to Albrecht Durer. Who was a pioneer in the field of representation and helped create the foundation for the whole field. It also has a biblical reference, which Pfeiffer likes. It gives a sort of epic foundational image to those who know them.
    In the article about the “Poltergeist” Pfeiffer is asked about the technology he uses to change his pictures and how it helps him do his work. He responds by saying he thinks that it is a big dilemma, in that, the image tools and so complex and almost needed to capture certain images that it is hard to just if we are using the images or the images using us. I think this connects to Johns lecture in that he thinks that we should use technology as a tool and not let it change the way we live our lives. We cannot let our increasing technology to harbor us to a point of necessity.
    A couple of the short videos showed a bit of how he works as far as erasure with the famous Muhammad Ali fight. Its really cool, because you can make out the vague outline of the fighters, but not quite. I kept trying to look behind them though, for the mess-ups in the crowd, but couldn’t catch any. It really does look like more of a camouflage though, than actual erasure. Also, in the scene of the diorama it was interesting to see how he re creates these things, and how the viewer can have no idea of what is real and what isn’t.
    This is a picture of the famous Mona Lisa. Yet the face is missing. I thought that this was a good example of erasure, even though it is a somewhat blunt and obvious explanation of the literal word. Yet, if the Mona Lisa was seen without the face, which is arguably the whole point of the work, it would be seen very differently. It makes me wonder what would be different about views of art if it was actually created like this. If people actually thought in this way of erasure back in “the olden days”. Art would have been totally on a different path, in my opinion. As ridiculous as that sounds.

for bigger

numba 4

Nick Corona   
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
2 February 2011

                Numba 4
    This week, the topic was Photography. Craig Hickman decided to bless us with his presence, and teach us about the abstract wonders of photography. Although I say that photography is abstract, it is ironic because one of the big reasons Craig decided to go into photography is because the realness of it. He first started in high school, and was really not influenced really by a photographer in general, but mainly by magazines and things that he would see. Although I don’t know his exact age, he told us that photos were black and white when he was starting, so I can imagine that photography wasn’t as big a thing as it is now.
    He showed us a bunch of photography by a variety of different photographers. One of them, Martin Parr, had a crazy website that at first looked like a PleasantVille scene or something, but his art was viewed as books. So he would have like a picture book style, that would turn over like a book (obviously). Yet his art was not at all pleasant like the style of his website seemed. It was actually kind of grotesque. He had many pictures of gross looking food that, in my opinion, might have shown his view of American diets. It also shows an underlying culture of the average American (again, in my opinion).
    Another photographer that he showed us was Fraenkel. Who had a very modern, vogue feel. Fraenkel was from San Francisco and I could see that his photos had a very San Franciscan feel, as far as the stereotype goes. It was very rebellious and unseemly in that liberal view that a lot of bay area artists express. A lot of voluptuous women, some naked, some not. Almost the opposite of the next photographer he showed us, Yossi Milo, who was focused on modern architecture. Really cool buildings that were usually black and white and in urban settings. The fact that they were in urban settings was probably the only similarity between the two, if I were to hazard a guess.
    These all seemed to be under the foundation of why Craig started in photography, which is what I think (hope) that he was trying to show us. They all were very real looking. Expressing views that seemed to be right in front of ones face, although that might not be what they were trying to express with their photos, this is what I at least got out of it. Kirk Thompson, another photographer had very modern, digital, pictures of landscapes that seemed to have an abstract meaning behind them, but I just thought they looked cool. I don’t know if that’s the wrong way to approach it, but Craig didn’t seem to have any explanation of his own, or the others art
     After reading the article, “Photography as a Weapon” my whole view on photos has changed. Well, maybe not so dramatic as a full turnaround, but it was definitely something to think about next time I see the news, or any photo, for that matter. I already knew a bit about Photoshop, and although I am more computer “savvy” than most, I cant say that I am an expert, especially in Photoshop, something I have never used before. Yet, I know a fair amounts of the limits, which are almost non existent, as far as I know. What I didn’t expect was that something like the LA Times would have a photo that was photo shopped. I mean, how does a company with that much power and revenue not have experts checking these things? And if they do, maybe they don’t even care. Its all about manipulation, my dad has been telling me for years on how little things like the shows we watch on TV, their commercials, the news, its all manipulative. These people just want money, and if they can convince you that the things they put in their media is accurate, and dramatic, why wouldn’t you read it. I guess the old saying, “Bad news is the best news” pretty much sums it up. If there is blood in the paper, people will read it, and they will be interested.
    This also changes my view on digital photos. Although easier (as far as I know) to manipulate, they also are of such a high resolution that it might even be easier to spot fakes, or things that improbable. The other readings; on Chilean, Alfredo Jaar, expressed a similar point of view on manipulation. He was more on scale of how media can be influenced more for people in developing nations. These people, obviously, are less tech savvy than people end up growing up in industrialized nations. Thus, they are more prone to be manipulated by these things, they believe what they see, because being less informed makes them more naïve.
    Believe me, I don’t mean that in a bad way, its just the basic truth, while there are plenty of developing nations that are far from naïve, the general population of these countries sometimes are not even accounted for. In the two articles, Jaar talks a lot about how people become manipulated to, in the case of “The Rwanda Project”, criminal indifference, and desensitization to violent photography and ideas. People are seeing these images, and just throw them away in their minds. It happens so much in the present day and media just throw them at us, and of course the response to such repetitiveness is just non existent almost. The other reading, “ The Gramsci Trilogy” seemed to me to be more informative as to how people connect to media differently. To steal the example of the article, “The Chilean audience will read this peace in a totally different way than the people of Milan”(Jaar). It is hard to make something with a meaning that is universal. This all ties back to Craig’s original thoughts on his starting to be into photography because of the reality of it. Now that I have read this article, I realize why he doesn’t explain any of the art that he showed us. The deeper meaning of things can be totally different than what we think, so in a way he is just telling us to, screw it, and take it how it is.
   

This image is a clearly photo shopped image of a man standing on top of some building in a densely populated urban area. It doesn't really matter what city, or if the plane is actually there or not (although it would be horrible). The point is, if people saw this in a newspaper or magazine that they were used to believing in, they would believe it, and the response would be immediate and immense.

larger image

numba 3

Nick Corona
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
28 January 2011
                Numba 3
    This week our presenters name was Sara Rabinowitz, she is a master of fibers. First we had to actually fathom fibers though. My first thought as to what fibers are was connected with the internet. I took a class on the physics of the internet and we learned a bit about fiber optics. What happens is physicists get rods of glass and super heat them, then they extract very thin rods from this original rod and transmit light through them which in turn makes signals that gets your information around super fast. So at first, I thought that she was going to bust out some crazy glass.
    But she didn’t. Instead she showed us some fibers of cloth that were used to form intricate patterns and designs. At first I was pretty bored, but then I saw something that was familiar to me. The way the fabric was used to cover figures and that bus she showed us was something that I was very used to. I used to go to Mexico at least 2-3 times a year because of my family there. We don’t go so much anymore because my dad pays for my sister and I to go to school, but I still remember a lot of it clearly. I love the bright colors that just embody Mexico to me.
    People always say that Mexico is corrupt, and poor, and all that garbage. Yet I have never seen a culture so bright and centered. Their family values are far superior to ours and I believe that this gives them an amazing edge in moral and ethical values that people think they lack. I can agree that people in Mexico are poor economically and thus they might be corrupt in their lines of work, but they only do it to help their families. The problem is this cycle gets continuous and thus harder to break, they dig themselves into deeper depressions of labor and corruption. Yet, despite all the calamity, they maintain their bright atmospheres and always try to teach their children better family values and try to support each other as much as possible.
    The readings were about Ann Hamilton. She works with textile design, fabric and sculptures. The biggest thing about these readings for me was that it was hard to distinguish the arts from the crafts. Although I don’t truly believe that there is a distinct difference, I am sure there has to be or else there wouldn’t be a difference in name. In one reading, “the malediction”, Ann shows the importance of making. In the streets of New York she sets down rags that were soaked in wine and then watered out, making a damp and pungent odor. This makes the person viewing think of a urban area, and the distinct smell that cities have. This made sense for me because one thing that I notice when I go back home from out of the country, or even from Eugene, I can instantly tell that I am home from the smell. It is actually quite comforting.
    Ann also makes use of “the making” by using hair and light to focus the attention of the piece towards a person at a small metal desk. She also had placed a “creepy” audio track that made the audience perplexed at the dull sense of depression that the studious environments sometimes entail. In the “tropos” (above piece with hair and light) the student at the desk is burning the words of a book after reading them, and the mixture in the smell of the hair combined with the burning words makes a similarly disgusting edge that provides the viewer with an environment to see the smoke combined with the hair. Supposedly the viewer is supposed to “traverses the space, while metaphorically wading through language” (Hamilton, tropos).
    The last essay, “Kaph” was about a work of hers that was a wall that wrapped around a perimeter that actually was two walls connected. The walls were soaked in bourbon and distilled water that made a weeping impression on the viewer. The smell, which comes up in a lot of her work, also makes the impression of a seemingly icy glacier. The curving walls impress upon the viewer an icon of human suffering and remembrance; walking, breathing and working. “Kaph” in Sanskrit  literally means hand, which just impresses more the ideal of the working image. All these pieces represent the making of which the author is the supreme owner. I believe that the making of a piece is very important for the artist to actually impress his or her ideas on the viewer.
    This piece of sand sculpture was made on a beach in Puerto Vallarta, a place that I have been many times. I have seen works like this before many times and I have seen people create them, its actually astonishing how fast they can created these massive structures and the intricacy that they can put into them. This sculpture was created entirely by the hands and I believe that it is a good piece of work.   

bigger image : http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/jmrobledo/jmrobledo0806/jmrobledo080600044/3168753.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.123rf.com/photo_3168753.html&usg=__A7Si9s5s0k6xRT8FQkOxPIogML0=&h=1200&w=801&sz=142&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=5ddulAatuEU0qM:&tbnh=165&tbnw=109&ei=z3BCTZKlAoyosAOF-sWWCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfigures%2Bcreated%2Bout%2Bof%2Bsand%2B%252B%2Bmexican%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DgH4%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D638%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=132&vpy=52&dur=1096&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=108&ty=151&oei=z3BCTZKlAoyosAOF-sWWCg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

numba 2

Nick Corona
Tyrras Warren
Art 101
20 January 2011
                Blog 2
    On Tuesday, the guest speaker that came described to us an even different kind of art style than Laura. While Laura tried to broaden her scope of art to almost everything, Michael Salter was more specific, in my opinion, at least. He told us of how he grew up in a generation of over analyzers, everything that was brought to ones attention was instantly questioned and the logic behind a lot of things he observed was most definitely flawed. He began his art career at a very young age and was interested in surf/skate brand logos and things of that nature. He worked very hard for his internships and his first business was while he was in college, that he start going door to door handing out flyers. He was influenced highly by his youthful interests in science fiction. Star Wars, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes(when it was a cartoon) and Battlestar Gallactica where some of the many shows/movies that he watched as a kid that he loved.
    His surf/skate logo career was pretty successful, until he realized that he didn’t want to do graphic design for the money. He was much more interested in the things that he liked and didn’t really care what other people thought. “Graphic design in the corporate world is ruled by the buyer.” (Salter) He liked graphic design a lot because of its flexibility. He has made 20ft high robots out of trashed Styrofoam, full murals of one piece, or the same piece compressed to fit on the average shirt.
    Another thing he loved about the idea of graphic design is the freedom, it is totally up to the creator or the person getting the item created for. The limit is ones imagination. He showed us many slides of logos and things in China and Belgium and the United States that seemed to make no sense at all. Yet he said that was almost the beauty of it. The idea of the design not making perfect sense, yet catching the eye, almost reinforces it in the mind, because you think about it more than something obvious and boring. I thought a lot of his pieces were really cool, not just in the way the design was made, but the idea behind them that I might or might not have understood exactly how he meant. Either way, they were cool to me and I think it would be really interesting to see one of his galleries. I also asked him after class if he screen prints onto t shirts, and although he basically said no, he also hinted that he might some day. So perhaps I will eventually get one.
    The Vocabulary of Comics was pretty interesting and it pertained to the information that Salter gave us. He told us about how some logos didn’t make any sense to him as far as logic goes, and that almost gave is a more interesting factor. The vocabulary of comics was saying that we look for deeper meanings in things whether we try to or not, these images are focused to make us think a certain way, thus making us slaves to the institution. “We assign identities and emotions where none exist”(McCloud 10). McCloud wrote of other things as well, that people normally don’t really think about. He wrote about the realm of concept and the realm of the senses. What he says is that peoples’ identities belong to the realm of concept while the realm of the senses has to be reached by thinking beyond ourselves and experiencing them.
    This reminded me of a segment of the Chris Coleman video “The Magnitude of the Divide” most of the movie seemed quite outrageous to me and there weren’t many moments where I wasn’t wondering how many hallucinogens he was on when he made it. Yet one part in the middle with a hand in front of the screen going through a forest then a burning (suburb?) reminded me of the part of the vocabulary of comics that talked about the senses.
    All of these works and multimedia reminded me of a friend of mine that is really into graphic design and sort of abstract modern art. I really don’t know how to label it to be totally honest but pieces of the art show he went to that was labeled on facebook only as “Claassen art show” really came to my memory a lot, not only during the presentation but during the multimedia as well, and a little for the vocabulary of comics too. This piece, titled: Swine Flew, was just one of the many that I was reminded of. It plays on the words to give a meaning past the one that people would think of right when they read “Swine Flew”.

 Larger image on google : http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1090/5138433455_91b52e10ff.jpg&imgrefurl=http://jeffclaassen.com/blog/tag/pascals-peeps/&usg=__trfG3OIpu_NneM66WL01CO-mD80=&h=500&w=399&sz=153&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=WHcK2pr33L4V5M:&tbnh=131&tbnw=116&ei=6bc3TZ-JMZOasAOSvdmMAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclaassen%2B%2522swine%2Bflew%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D638%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=485&oei=6bc3TZ-JMZOasAOSvdmMAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=82&ty=35