Georgia O’Keeffe and Friends at the MCA

By Patrick O’Neill, Staff Writer

Photo Source: Patrick O’Neill


This past week on Friday, February 15, a new exhibit opened at Denver’s Museum of Contemporary Art—Aftereffect: Georgia O’Keeffe and Contemporary Painting. The exhibit gave the unique opportunity to catch a glimpse of some original Georgia O’Keeffe paintings as well as viewing modern artists’ work. The theme of the exhibit was meant to show modern artists whose work resonates the Georgia O’Keeffe style and energy.

There’s some art words in here, so buckle up!

These pieces were particularly interesting in the sheer bold vibrancy of their colors. Many contained abstract structures and shapes which were emboldened by bright color and curving lines that launched the images forward to viewers. I found several paintings by contemporary artist, Loie Hollowell to be the most riveting in this exhibition. Loie Hollowell has mastered, in my opinion, the use of layering to create bold 3-Dimensional shapes on canvas, some of which actually stick out of the canvas making the pictures pop. Her use of color and form excellently portrays her otherworldly subject matter. Pictured below is The Land’s Part by Loie Hollowell which is visible in the Museum of Contemporary Art:

Loie Hollowell’s pieces mirror Georgia O’Keeffe’s with their use of shading and muted color to create a sense of mystery and intrigue.

Another piece that I particularly enjoyed was Lesley Vance’s Untitled piece. In retrospect, I found the coloring to be especially bold and pleasant to look at. Her use of rounded and twisting forms, additionally, seems to mirror the Georgia O’Keeffe style, so I can see why this piece was chosen for this exhibition. Certainly, it is a confusing and abstract piece but the mystery of it makes it all the more enjoyable. The piece exudes a certain hungry attitude which is evident in the almost 3D shapes that lay across the canvas. There’s something oddly fleshy about it.

On a plaque describing her work, Lesley Vance called Georgia O’Keeffe’s style, “elegant” with “serpentine lines” and “sinuous brushwork” which, “contain just the right amount of awkwardness to feel very human.” Indeed, the Vance pieces incorporate those abstract curves and turns, capturing an O’Keeffe-esque logic in their flow.

Pictured below is Untitled by Lesley Vance:


You can catch Aftereffect: Georgia O’Keeffe and Contemporary Painting at the Museum of Contemporary Art at 1485 Delgany Street, Denver from now until May 26.








The Debate on the 2nd Amendment

By Patrick O’Neill, Staff Writer

On Friday February 15, Regis’ Debate Team held a public debate on the steps of the Dayton Memorial Library. The debate focused on two sides of the infamous gun control argument. One side which featured debate team members Nicholas Aranda and Sally Andarge argued that the 2nd amendment ought to be changed to promote gun control. The other side of the debate featured debate team members Amadia Al-Amin and Timothy Smith, arguing that the 2nd amendment was a fundamental human right that should not be taken away.

Debate team member, Amadia Al-Amin, kicked off the argument that the 2nd amendment was a fundamental human right by elaborating on that side’s perspective on the purpose of the government. She continued, saying that “freedom of action” was fundamental to an American citizen’s right and that action includes protecting oneself. She claimed that repealing the 2nd amendment would make the U.S. an authoritarian and oppressive regime. There would be, she elaborated, a fundamental flaw in the system if the right to protection is taken away; and, the intentions of the government would become obscured. She finalized her argument by saying that American rights must be ensured by regulating guns, not taking away the right to bear

arms.

To counter, debate team member, Nicholas Aranda stood at the podium, claiming that there is already a fear of state sanctioned violence in America—that the authoritarian regime that Amadia claimed would develop already existed. He elaborated that Americans already live in a system of tyranny with police brutality, gun violence, and school shootings. The Constitution, he claimed, is in no way a moral document. It is necessary to change and develop the Constitution to uphold human rights and prevent the mass-murder of people. To further his argument, Nicholas utilized mentions of the Abolition of Slavery and the Women’s Suffrage movements. He made the outstanding claim that America will become synonymous with violence if changes are not made to the Constitution. Nicholas also elaborated with examples of how the government might handle the repealing of then 2nd amendment by using buy-back programs such as those in the U.K. and Australia. Nicholas concluded his arguments with mentions of the outdated policies of the 2nd amendment and that changing the Constitution effectively represents what ought to be legal—gun violence, he said, is largely if not completely avoidable.

Two other debate team members, Sally Andarge and Timothy Smith spoke on the issues at the beginning and at the end of the debate, furthering the riveting gun control argument. Sally Andarge kicked the debate off but I unfortunately missed that part of the event.

The debate lasted about thirty minutes and gave attending Regis students and faculty a look at what the debate team really does.

The event went to promote Social Justice Fridays, which occur on the 3rd Friday of every month.