What I did

What I did was create a presentation for the children about the different types of photography and ways in which Photoshop can be used. This was done at their school. Later on in the week, they was to visit my school where I was able to use the high-tech Macbook's  which has the Photoshop software installed on it.

This is me giving the children a presentation on Photography and Photoshop.

Then I showed them examples of my own work, along with various other people's work.
Some of this work is contained on this website:

http://sites.bushfield.co.uk/site/ART/newsite/ART_WEBSITE/Welcome.html

Check

Before I went to the local Primary School to do this I had to ask to see whether or not it would be alright for me to do that.
I then had to show them my presentation and let them see that all of its content was safe to show to the children.
As I knew that I wanted the children to come into my school later during the week I needed to see whether that was alright. I needed to know that the time was suitable for them, along with their school having enough T.A's to come along to the amount of children that I would have.
But before I even asked the Primary School's permission of this, I had to arrange it with my school and the Art department too.
This was to make sure that the room would be free, and the Macbook's were not being used.
Another important thing I had to check was that the children that were there were able to be photographed. Of course, they all were able to.

Plan

I will be going into a local Primary School and teach them about photography and the uses of Photoshop. I have them planned for them to visit my school where I will hold the activity. There should be some good work being produced from the students themselves. Then during one of their school assembly's their work will be presented to the rest of the school.

The people going to the Primary School will be me, my Photography teacher and another photography student. They will not be doing anything to help me with my work. My teacher had to be there to accompany us two students and that is all. The other student was there for moral support, and because he was doing an activity with the students after I had finished my presentation to them.

For the activity at my school there was the teachers from their school, me, my teacher was in the same classroom but would not be involved, and another photography student. Again he was there for moral support, and just incase any of the equipment failed on me, he would be there to sort it out.

There was 20 students who would be listening to my presentation, and there would also be 20 students that would be coming to my school so I could teach them how to use Photoshop.

Part A - identify the project aims and desired outcomes.

My aim is to teach younger people about the different uses of Photoshop, teaching them how to use different elements of it.
For this to happen, I must do a number of things.
-I must have a class of students, teach them first about where Photoshop is used.
-Show them examples of Photoshopped photos.
-Give them a basic tutoring session on how to use Photoshop simply.
-Then hopefully they will be able to use some of the things I have taught them to create some photos of their own.

Leadership project

For this part of this course, I had to devise a project of my own.

With a lot of thought, I came up with a project which I think could work.
This project was about the use of Photoshop.
I thought that this would be a good project because over the past couple of years I have made myself very familiar with the used of Photoshops and I feel that I know enough about it to teach others to use it.

Another review

A review from my photography teacher.

Amy has developed her skills in creating settings for her photographic work. Being inspired by the work of Gregory Crewdson. Within these settings she has placed people in different ways it is the just a position of the placing of the people within these settings that informs the narrative. And the meaning of her photographs. She has taken this aspect of her work and developed her skills in a creative way.

Responses from my concern.

I posted my concern.

I asked the following questions: 

Do you understand the issue I have?

Do you agree with what I have said?

What are your views on this topic? 

These are some of the responses that I have recieved:

Mandy Meadows.

Do you understand the issue I have?

Yes, I guess it is very hard to classify Art in that what someone thinks is brilliant – others say ‘my 5 year old could do that!’

Do you agree with what I have said?

Generally speaking yes I do. If I took a picture of my unmade bed, would anyone be interested.

If I encased half of an animal in a tank – would people call it Art. If I produced a Rothko type piece of work – would people say I was a genius & give me space at the Tate?....I don’t think so!

What are your views on this topic?

You do have to deal with the fact that ‘one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Art will always be subjective and I guess that’s what makes it special.

John Evans.

Do you understand the issue I have?      Yes

Do you agree with what I have said?       Yes

What are your views on this topic?        

1. I think sometimes how much an artwork is appreciated by the public depends on how well the piece is talked up – like the infamous pile of bricks at the Tate. If you put a pile of bricks in the Tate and call it “art” then it immediately gets recognition and therefore a big price tag.

2. I agree with you that, if an artist has already made a name for himself for producing good art, he can just splash some paint around, give it a fancy title with an intellectual write up and make a fortune – but I’m probably just an old cynic.

Lesley Wicks.

1. I understand the point you are making and that you consider some artworks to be of less value to you than others and that the ‘name’ is what sells the piece rather than the ‘quality’ of production.

2. I agree with some of your arguments, but appreciation of art is very subjective and what you like and appreciate is probably very different to what I like and appreciate.

3. Firstly, I hasten to add that I am no art connoisseur, I just know what I like and don’t like when I see it. I am no fan of what I call conformist art like Constable or portraiture, I prefer artists like Dali, Lichtenstein, Rothko, Bridget Riley and Pollock. Whereas I appreciate the skills required to produce a traditional portrait or landscape I gain less pleasure looking at these than a piece of art that allows me to immerse myself in it, whether in pursuing my own interpretation or just enjoying the combinations of colour, texture and shape.

As for the cost, then yes I agree the sums involved of many artists’ works are hideous. However, this is the same as in many other areas of life. Antiques - some might be classed as old bits of junk – gain high prices if two people want them and will outbid each other. Whilst we have this huge divide between the rich and the poor, the rich want things that no one else has and are willing to pay silly money for them and this excludes the likes of us. Is it right that Wayne Rooney and the likes are paid more per week than most of us earn in a year? I am sure there are other brilliant footballers that are as good that get nothing! Whilst we live in a capitalist society which is money/profit/greed driven then we are just going to have to get on with it – or start a revolution!!! Let me know if you are up for it.

I have lots of pictures on my walls at home and some I have had for a long time. Some we bought many years ago by a young artist just starting out. Not sure if they have ‘made it’ but I know I have had years of pleasure from their work. Many of the pictures are prints that cost a few pounds. Am I bothered that they are not originals – not really because they give me pleasure. In pride of place over my fireplace is an oil painting done by Simon Gray a past student (spookily he came into school today to see us) and I so enjoy looking at it. That was very cheap as I paid him the small sum he was asking – in fact the framing was what cost so much!

Josephine Kelly.

I agree that some prices that paintings sell for are crazy, but you need to look at the wider picture in the history of Art. Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Damien Hirst and other artists who did something original and sometimes shocking changed the way we look at Art. With out characters like them Art would be very boring! A lot of people just like realistic artwork, but Artists need to keep experimenting with materials and breaking visual barriers. Also you need to remember that many, many artists are producing work and selling for much less money.

Sarah Sheppard.

I completely agree and understand where you are coming from Amy. I have been to many art galleries and exhibitions over the years and have noticed famous names and their work receiving much more money for their work than newcomers or newly established artists. I once saw a painting which literally was a white canvas with three paint splats of colour, red, yellow and blue (a two year old could have done better!) I can’t now remember who the artist was but they were well known. This painting was on sale for just over £2000!!!!!!! In my opinion it was a load of rubbish.

Unit 1 - Part D

Part D - form and communicate a view.
-Raising my concern about prices of artwork and whether or not the value reflects the skills used by the artist to create it. 

Art is a term that describes a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities. I am referring to the visual arts, which cover the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media.

My worry is that the pieces of artwork are not selling for sheer talent of the artist or the amount of effort and materials used, but the name of the artist. If there are a well known name, then their work is going to sell more than someone who is perhaps not as famous as them. For example, artist like Jackson Pollock. He creates these images of 'paint splashed' often called the 'drip' technique. Now, in my opinion, I don't think that this style is very creative of there is any real talent behind it. I feel that his works are often very similar, and I don't feel that they should be selling for the prices they go at. Jackson Pollock died at the age of 44, in 1956, and I think that this adds to the success of his work. In 1973 his piece 'Blue Poles' was the higher priced modern painting selling for around £1.3 million. Later on in 2006, his 'Number 5' became the worlds most expensive painting selling for a very impressive £90 million. Again, just this year in 2012, another one of his pieces, 'Number 28' sold for over £20 million. Here are a few examples of his work, Blue Poles, Number 5 and Number 28.

As I consider his work to take less skill than many others he is a prime example of Name over artistic talents.

One of The Scream paintings, created by expressionist artist Edvard Munch, was sold for around £74 million this year. Which is an extraordinary large amount of money. There were 4 versions in various media's, the one which sold for this amount was the pastel version created in 1895. 

I am happier with the price one of the Scream paintings went for over the price of Pollock's  work because I feel Munch's work has displayed real talent. His soft pastel colours work well and blend so nicely together. He has built up a real image which really captures people's eyes. You can clearly see the bridge, the water and the sky all using different colours. Blues, browns, oranges and yellow. Each mixes together like they fit. You can see that Edvard Munch was a person full of expression and passion, his work, in my eyes deserves the amount of attention they receive and the amount of money they fetch at auctions. 

However, I still feel that artist, who can be just as good as Munch, or better are not getting the recognition they deserve.
If you were to look on the Internet, you are bound to find anything related to the topic you search for. so if you wanted to find an artist of any sort, you would get results for that. The Internet shows you what is more popular, and the things that are repeatedly coming up are people like: Claude Monet, Pablo Picasso, Edvard Munch, Leonardo da Vinci and Henri Matisse. The more people look for these artists to research and look up for inspiration, the more famous they get. Making it all a loot harder for the new artist to make a break through. You have to search really hard on the Internet for upcoming artists, which many people are not willing to do. I think it is unfair that amateur artist like myself are finding it very difficult to make ourselves seen. That is one of the reasons that I have decided not to pursue a career as an artist. I feel that if I was to devote myself completely to it, I perhaps wouldn't get noticed, until my work has been around for decades, or until after my death. 

The perceived value of artworks often reflected the cost of the materials and sheer amount of time spent creating the work at least as much as the creative input of the artist, whereas now it is more about the popularity of the artist, the way the artwork is displayed and 'current popularity' in style.
When you make a piece of artwork it obviously takes time and resources. To break-even with what you spent is becoming harder for the upcoming artists in today's world.  People are becoming less willing to give them a chance. The 'well known' artists, most of them who are not around today, are still being the main focus in the art world.  Which I can understand when piece of work become more valuable after the death of the creator, but I don't think it is entirely fair the 'amateur's' and infamous people are being neglected because the same people is stealing the limelight time and time again.
What I would like to see is that other people have to same opinion as me, and that we should all give new artist more chances and places where they are able to display their talents to us all.