Richard Kamler

I have never been to an artist conversation before, so it was very surprising to me how everyone was really into it. It felt so scholarly in the art sense. They talked a lot about politics and art and about the term, politics, itself. They seemed to settle on the fact that the word has become so ambiguous. Anyways, it reminded me about how we were discussing the connection between advertising and design and its interchangeability. It’s interesting to see that these terms that are connected to art like politics and advertising that have a negative vibe to them. Does this make art negative? And if so how do we change it?

            I think this is what Richard Kamler answers on his own. He acts upon feeling and his emotions, a lot of it being of anger. This is how he uses art to change the world. He voices his opinion through art, leaving all viewers to connect on a mental and emotional level. He creates social change through evoking emotions of society on issues that motivate him to create art. Art to him is not a way of making money or trying to please anyone. It is based on his relationship with society and how he feels about certain things.

            One of the topics that caught my attention was the issue about the photographer who took a picture of a vulture, eyeing its prey, a baby. It was very interesting because at first instinct the thought, “What’s wrong with the photographer? Does he not have a heart?” comes to mind. But as everyone started commenting on it, his duty in the situation became more ambiguous. One person mentioned that it might be different because a woman’s first instinct would be to grab the child and go because of her maternal instincts. A couple people argued that he might have been doing his duty by taking this picture and bringing it back as awareness. They claimed that his duty is documenting things, as he is a photographer, thus he did his job. I still think he could have taken the picture and saved the baby, but that is only my opinion.