Lecture 09/20/2011

today in lecture we went over a lot of different artists. The one we spent the most time on was Marina Abramovic. This woman is some kind of freaky. She had one performance art where she had a bunch of items on the table ranging from knives to condoms and even a gun with one bullet. We discussed how artists don't give the answers, they just ask the questions. The question i felt Marina was asking, in the performance with all the items with the sign that said she wasn't responsible for anything the people used the items to do to her, was how far people would go if they were allowed to? This was a really strong performance. It made me think... if murder were legal and had no effect on us would you do it? If whatever holy spirit said murder was okay... what we as human beings kill each other just because there's nothing wrong with it? We also watched a video with lady Gaga in it. In the video she talks about the work marina abromovic does. She talks about the earlier mentioned performance. In the video she said that people tried to cut marina and screw her but that someone always prevented them. I don't know if that were true but if it is then that performance was strong in that it shows that in the end we humans would protect on another. Marina is a very daring artist. She said herself that she doesn't do things that don't scare her. She is a strong woman who captures herself overcoming her fears through art. I feel the reason her art is so strong is because it shows this woman doing things that we would be so scared to do and she does it solely because it scares her. It's like she can overcome any amount of fear. The question, i feel she asks through her art, is how much fear can we overcome? Is fear something with the ability to limit us? Can we surmount any amount of fear? Is anything insurmountable. Through her art, i feel like i can overcome anything. She can overcome any fear she has thought of so far. Fear is probably the strongest force that limits us. With her art, Marina shows that, so far, there is no fear that she couldn't overcome; no fear that could limit her. If we can overcome any fear then we can overcome anything. I feel that is the strongest message i got from her.

Albert Bierstadt The Rocky Mountains Lander's Peak





Jean Antoine Watteau Embarkation for Cythera


The first piece i'd like to talk about is The Rocky Mountain Lander's Peak. This painting is probably one of the painting that captured my attention the most. At first i couldn't tell it was even a painting. I thought it was a photograph. Everything about this picture was phenomenal. The contrast between light and dark, the colors, the values of each color, the mass, even how you can see far being the mountains but it's hard to make out. This picture is so incredibly realistic i blew my mind. My favorite part about it is how the water from the lake reflects the rocks.

The next piece i wanted to talk about it Jean Antoine Watteau's Embarkation for Cythera. This painting is really interesting. At the right side the all the values of the colors are darker. As you follow the picture to the left, the values become lighter. On the right, the images are sharp and as you look further left the images become less sharp. It's like a dream. Like you're going from being alive to being merely a belief, which is that after death you become an angel and go to heaven. On the left are angels. these angels are painted in an unclear way making it seem like it's not a guarantee. The shape of the world in this picture, the texture, the lines and masses all make the picture seem surreal.

The two authors have some similarities. The general contrast of light and dark is realistic, the figures portrayed all have realistic qualities. Both pictures are of a landscape. They both use lines to direct our attention. In the Rocky Mountain Picture are attention is draws to the center of the picture where the lake and waterfall is. In the Embarkation to Cythera picture our attention is drawn from left to right or right to left. The difference between the two artists is that the first artist painting a more realistic painting. The Second artist's painting is more surreal. It involves both heaven and earth and mixes them into one picture; kind of like a mixer. Both artists, however, are artists i would recommend.

heaven and hell

Inka Essenhigh


Raphael The Madonna of the Meadows


In this weeks chapter, I read about the visual elements of art. I read about things like shape, mass, line, light, texture, space, color, etc. So first i'm going to talk about Inka Essenhigh's piece called In Bed. this piece, i thought, was really cool. If you look at the top of the picture you can see some blinds. the blinds are straight but as they curve, it turns your attention to what appears to me like a demon. That figure the blinds led me to seems a bit mischievous. The painting looks like its depicting a nightmare. The cool thing about the picture is that everything from shape to lighting and color resembles some type of twisted event. The bed is made to look like it's about to swallow the main figure whole. Also, the figure looks like she's in a position of agony. It's like she's twisting in pain. It looks like to me there's a puncture wound and from the wound there are veins. Those veins are lines that direct your attention a demon that is on her stomach ripping out what looks like her kidneys. The colors chosen are all cool colors. The colors chosen give the picture a sad or negative effect. The colors make you feel a bit of pity for the person. Also, if you pay attention to the lighting, the shades are made extremely large. The large shadows adds a demonic effect. The person is being haunted. The figures themselves are tiny but their shadows are humongous. I thought it was pretty cool how at first glance it just looks like some abstract piece of art; kind of like graffiti. However, when you look closer, there's a whole different meaning to it. There's so much going on and all the elements tie into giving this picture a scary, nightmarish effect.

The next picture i wanted to talk about was Raphael's The Madonna of the Meadows. I don't know what it is about the picture but i don't like it that much. It could be the intensity of the colors or it could be just the overall style of the painting. The babies seem to be so much smarter that their look would portray. Its like a one year old knowing how to walk and play with a pole with a cross on it. The colors of the woman are intense Her mass, the colors she wears, the space she occupies immediately draws your attention to her. It's kind of like a map in a way. I feel like this is religious propaganda. The painting draws your attention to the woman who isn't even paying attention to you. She's looking at the babies. This then draws your attention to the babies who seem focused on this rod that they are playing with. the rod then draws your attention to what's at the end of the rod which is the cross. I think that's cool and all but to me it felt like a lot of work only to find out it's like religious propaganda. even the baby that's wearing cloth is kneeling before the other baby. one baby is naked which may be indicating his purity. He is then being bowed before by another baby wearing cloth. it reminds me of the world bowing before the pure one which is God himself.

I guess both artists are similar in the sense that they both use all these different visual components to draw your attention around a single idea. However, i feel like the reasons they paint are completely different.

chapter 3

One of the pictures I came across in this chapter was Picasso's Guernica. I've always been a little iffy when it came to picasso's paintings. I wasn't a complete fan but at the same time i didn't hate them. Picasso painted people in an abstract way that captures more than their appearance. He warps their appearance in a style that gives more emotions and feelings about a person than simple facial expressions can convey. However, in some of his paintings i felt like that was sometimes an insult. Why change my face? I am who i am and don't want to be changed and warped into some hideous creation and be called art. With all my mixed emotions about his paintings, Guernica is one of his works that i actually just straight out enjoy. It's definitely not a happy picture but for some reason i felt drawn to it and so i decided to write about it. In the book it talks about the city of Guernica and how it was bombed just to see if the nazi air powers could wipe out an entire city. The way the picture is painted is so dark and sad. The people are in pieces, they're running for their lives, and on the ceiling is a light that's painted to look like an eye. It's like their trying to run but no matter where they run to they can't escape. The painting definitely gives off a melancholy feeling. It makes me sad to see and feel what these people were going through during the last moments of their lives. It is my belief that no person is born for the sole purpose of dying. But what the nazi's did was just so twisted that it upsets me. It fills me with anger and sadness and when i see this painting, knowing the story behind it, i can feel the emotions behind it. That's the beauty that i love in this painting

Another artist i want to talk about is Frida Kahlo. I've never quite been a fan of Frida. All the paintings I've seen by her have been of her. To me i feel like her self is all she cares about. Her painting Self-Portrait with Monkeys is pretty random to me. Like the book says, Frida's gaze seems to keep us at arms length and it's as if she's not gonna let us in. But it's that look that makes me dislike her works. The main thing i love about art is all the feelings and emotions. I feel like when i look at an artists works i understand a piece of the artist. From that point, i feel like i know exactly how the artist feels, what he/she was trying to convey, and i feel like i'm there. On the other hand, in Frida's painting i feel like i want to know more but i can't. Maybe i'm just being selfish and maybe that's what she's trying to show me but i feel that, when an artists is painting or doing whatever form of art he/she is good at, they are putting themselves into there work and sharing with the world all their feeling and lessons and stories they want to share. I don't feel like i'll ever have any connection with Frida nor do i feel like she's trying to teach me or share anything with me. All i get from her is a big silent rude glare.

The natural world

One of the artists i find to be really cool in chapter three is Wang Jian. In his painting titled white clouds over Xiao and Xiang, there are a lot of mountains and houses on the mountains; however, the entire place has clouds isolating them. I've always been a fan of Asian paintings. What i like about this one is that the picture comes off as someone heavenly to me. The coolest part is that the village is on the mountain but it's so high up on the mountain that they are above the clouds. It gives me this feeling that if i were there it'd be like our own world. If i had a bunch of my friends and we all just lived in a place like that then there'd hardly be anything wrong. it'd be our perfect little world hehe. the view would be to die for. It gives off a mysterious feeling and the feeling of being at peace. Landscape paintings make me feel relaxed and the style of this painting just makes me feel a bit adventurous. It makes me feel content. I've always felt a strong connection with landscape paintings versus almost any other paintings. However, I don't like all landscape paintings.

The other artist i wanted to talk about is Thomas Cole. His painting titled "The Oxbow" is one landscape painting that i'm not so sure i enjoy. I mean, i do love the view being painted. However, i don't like the ominous clouds nor do i like some of the darker gray/black tones on the left side of the painting. It's like looking at a painting that would've been perfect had it not been for someone spilling spaghetti on it. I don't mean to be hating on the artist, but i just am not a fan of the way the painting looks to me. I have no sense of adventure when i look at it, which is one of the feelings i love feeling when i look at a landscape painting. The landscape paintings i love make me feel like im actually there traveling, being free, enjoying the view, and just breathing it in taking in the view and how perfect and content i feel with my life. On the other hand, when i look at this picture i feel like i'm only on a journey to escape from the darkest of evils. I don't want to travel under those conditions nor do i wanna feel chased. If i find a view like that, i want to be able to experience it because i, as a free spirit, was just exploring and happened to stumble across the beauty of this view. The painting makes me feel like i just left a war to find refuge or get help. Landscapes paintings, to me, should have a sense of freedom and adventure.

Jocho vs. Jan van Eyck

In Jocho's sculpture, I guess i'll call it that, Amida Nyorai  i can feel a sense of peace. This piece makes is, i think,carved out of wood but looks like it's made out of gold and precious metals. To me, that represents how anything can be important to us. In the world today, money is everything in the sense that we can hardly live without it. We need money to buy food, supplies, go to school, etc... but in the end all money is is a leaf. I cherish a picture when all it really is is paper. This sculpture is just wood but the fact that it looks like gold and precious metal symbolizes to me that this person cherishes it as gold. Also the person looks like a village idol. i like the way it looks because idols for worship are usually things that people go to for hope. To me, if anything, religion gives hope and in a sense that is what this piece of art does. behind the person meditating is a fence type thing that goes up and into the ceiling. This could be his energy overflowing from a container. That makes me feel like this guy isn't limited by anything so why should i be? It makes me question that maybe i limit myself or maybe we all limit ourselves.

In Jan va Eycks painting the arnolfini double portrait there is a man clad in black and a pregnant woman in very colorful clothing. In my opinion, i hate this piece. I don't like the way the people look in it and the way it makes me feel. The man in black is making a gesture that to me seems like he's a holy figure. However, him being dressed in all black makes me feel like he's evil. he also has a butt-chin which makes him look powerful. To me, i feel this man is a demon and the girl has sold her soul to him. I feel this piece is demonic. The look on the girls face makes it look kind of like she's in pain yet has evil intentions at the same time. Her hand looks like it's been cut as if she gave a blood offering. Maybe she sold her baby's soul to the devil or something. in the back there's a mirror and from the back you can see the two people and there's i guess a family in front of her. I don't know maybe he's stealing her from her family or something. But in essence i don't like this picture.

Vasily Kandinsky vs. Rebecca Purdum

Kandisnky's Swinging

To me Kandinsky and Rebecca Purdum are both artists who have styles that i like and enjoy. They are similar in the sense that the paintings are a bit abstract. Kandinsky's painting are perhaps extremely abstract whereas Purdum's painting may be abstract. In Purdum's Painting titled Chin Up, the images are vague and blurry. You can't exactly tell if it's really abstract. If your eyes are blurry, you can see images but they are hard to make out; it's realistic. If what you think you see is actually something else then i guess that can be abstract.
I like the fact that in Kandinsky's work it's the complete basics of art. What i mean is that it's strictly lines, shapes and colors (well all art is shapes and colors) however this shapes are apparent. They are basic shapes like circles, triangles, squares. Yet even with such basic geometrical shapes he conveys so much emotion. Like the book says, music is just sounds and pitches and art is just shapes and colors. However, both convey intense emotion. I think that Kandinskys shapes and colors go hand in hand with music. They both convey intense emotion with just the basis for what it is. Through basic shapes and colors you can feel happiness, sadness, etc... The idea and concept is there and it's easy to feel it.
On the other hand, like the book says, Purdum's art is like an idea is about to take form but never really does. I feel like it could be related to her special family members.  There will always be a communication boundary between them that they can't fully overcome. It shows in her style of painting. I feel her style communicates that boundary. Between the viewer's eyes and her works there is an idea in which we want to grasp. We can see it but it's vague and hard to make out and therefore we each might interpret it differently. There's meaning and feelings behind her work but it's portrayed in a way that makes it hard to fully grasp. The beauty of it is that one person may feel differently about her painting than another.
Both artists have completely different styles however they both convey intense emotion. I like them both because they are both a bit abstract. I love the vibrant colors and shapes Kandinsky paints as it makes me feel like the painting is alive. In Purdum's works i like the feeling of having an idea yet not completely being able to grasp it. It relates entirely to my life in the sense that there's always uncertainty and things that i'll never fully understand. However, there's always my ability to achieve an idea and from that idea i can expand and come up with my own answers. In this sense, i feel like Kandinsky's paintings are more like "answers" for me and Purdum's are more like "questions."

Art Lecture #2

Today's art lecture we talked about some old caves near i think it was france? I thought it was cool cuz they had a chamber called the chamber of bulls where it is believed for large groups from a village may have come and drawn there as a ceremony of sorts. Also we learned that the way the pictures were drawn were with the indents in the walls and stuff. It's pretty cool to know that art has been around since like prehistoric times. It's even cooler to know that it was a seventeen year old and his friends that initially discovered the cave. I was laughing to here that his friends let the boy down with rope and when they pulled him up he was pale cuz of what he found and the carbon dioxide deposits there. The fact that it was a teenager who discovered the cave inspired me because it shows that anything can happen to anyone. It is a dream of mine to leave my permanent mark on history one day and this kid did it by luck. Who knows, maybe i'll make the next big discovery >:)
We also learned that the cave branched off into smaller chambers and that there was a picture that was declared to be a "broken man." It was said that these tribes didn't paint anything but animals and stuff but this was one of the first paintings of an actual person. Also, we learned that this cave became one of the greatest tourist attractions but was shut down do to the cave falling apart. However, on the bright side there's a REPLICA!!! too bad replica's are never actually the same. It's like saying we did need David cuz we got a replica of him!... NO! it doesn't work that way. Everyone knows that I'm where the party's at. =P
Anyway, we also watched some videos of inception and the matrix! i thought that was kinda fun but the real reason we watched that is because it posed the question, "What is reality?" In my opinion, there are many realities, or subrealities if you will, and one BIG REALITY! we live in a sub reality. To me, each life is a sub reality and we have alternate realities which are alternate ways of viewing the world. Each person sees the world one way and another person sees it another way. The one big reality, to me, is inconceivable. It's too much for our minds to comprehend. That's why nobody has found an answer to things like religion. We each think our religion is correct but there's no definite proof. Just a book which was probably written by some other ordinary artist or artists. The concept of God and heaven and afterlife are all beyond our comprehension. Reality is a concept to big for our minds to fully grasp. But as far as i can tell, reality is everything. Dreams are reality because our minds produce them. It may not be happening but that fact that you dream is there and that's real. Feelings are real. An idea is real. Hence, reality includes all things solid, fiction, or non fiction.

Art History Lecture

The only things i can really remember from the lecture was mother teresa in ecstasy and the trajan column. I really liked the bit we talked about on mother teresa because, in response to what she wrote, i would've guessed she was having intercourse with some holy being.  In the piece i remember an angel with a spear and he is going to impale mother teresa in her heart. She has a look like she's loving it though. Her facial expression and the title "ecstasy" suggests that she is in a state of pleasure but at the same time it's kind of wrong. It gave me a new perspective on the so called "saints" in a way that maybe saints aren't as pure as people make them out to be. I mean they are just people after all. The trajan column i thought was cool. Being able to climb all the way to the top of that column and having the trajan font all over the outside of it. In a way it kind of symbolizes the progress in trajan font as it made its way all over the world and, as the video suggests, all over the movie industry. We also talked about people like michaelangelo. I do remember a building that was made and wrecked due to acid rain. i thought it was cool that they built a museum to surround it. I thought it was kind of funny to fill the museum with some fashion stuff though. All in all, I saw many various forms of art during this lecture. It was a lot to process however, it was very fun filled and educational.

Haas vs Hawkinson

Haas is an photographer whereas Tim Hawkinson is... well i don't know what kind of art he does but it's sick! These two artist share similarity in their works titled "Peeling Paint on Iron Bench, Kyoto 1981" and "Emoter" in a sense that they are both things we see everyday. Through Haas' photographs he captures images of things we overlook because they're so ordinary. But when we take a more thorough look we notice that it's much more than that. In Emoter, Hawkinson took a picture of himself and connected it to something he created to make his picture make facial expressions in response to signals to make various facial expressions.

Peeling Paint on Iron Bench by Ernst Haas




Emoter by Tim Hawkinson


The artist share a similarity in these works because they are capturing things we overlook in everyday life. I feel that both works express that we take time to admire the beauty in the things we overlook each day like the look on ones face or benches we sit upon or desks we draw on. To me these artists both show that each moment is a moment worth capturing we just don't pay enough attention to each passing moment. It's like we're so focused on our futures and pasts that we miss some of the little things that are going on right now.

The two artists are also different in the sense that hawkinson's piece is a little bit more out of the ordinary. They both express creativity, however who would've ever thought of connecting a machine like that to make a picture change expression. Haas' captured a moment; just a still moment with nothing changing. But the image hawkinson captured is constantly changed and making faces. It's kind of funny but it's like a person staring back at me and making extreme changes in expression. They also differ in a sense that haas' piece makes me feel pleasure in a feeling of peace and beauty. the leaves and the bench to me feel as if they age together. The picture makes me feel like the bench and the tree are kind of like old friends who grew old together. The bench peeled with age and the tree wilted. It gives me a sense of comfort towards aging and makes me wanna find people i wanna keep with me forever. Hawkinson's work on the other hand gives me pleasure in a sense that it makes me laugh. To me his work is more outrageous, kind of hard to take seriously. However, it does make me remember that I need to take the time to enjoy life. The expressions remind me that no matter if i'm happy, sad, or angry that these emotions are all a part of me and that i need to learn to appreciate myself more.

Brancusi vs Van Gogh

Brancusi and Van gogh are two artists from which I find great appeal. Both artists are similar in the sense that the both make me feel intense emotions from their works. Both artists are somewhat abstract. Van Gogh's art is more realistic but slightly bent to convey how he felt when he saw what he saw. On the other hand, Brancusi's work is nearly impossible to guess upon first sight. When you look at their works, Brancusi's Bird in Space and Van Gogh's The Starry Night, you can feel a lot of emotion coming from them.

 

                                                          The Starry Night

                                                                            Bird in Space

In the piece, The Starry Night, you can see the dark tones contrasted with bright yellow. The way they blend together makes you feel like you're in a dark place. You feel intense negative/mellow emotions kind of like you're hardly there in a sense that your mind is blank. It feels very tranquil. But the contrast in yellow contrasts the dark tones and makes it feel relaxing. The contrast in colors neutralize and gives a sense of peace. It's almost as if no matter how dark you're feeling there's always light to balance you out and keep you at peace or in balance.

This differs from Brancusi's Bird in Space in the sense that when i look at that work of art i feel overwhelmed with positive emotion. It's like an extremely good feeling vs the feeling of balance and peace in The Starry Night. The title suggests that there is not limit to what you can accomplish. People say "the sky is the limit" but the title of this piece suggests otherwise. It states that there is no limit or that art has no limit. The piece makes you feel that this bird didn't just stop by flying through the sky. He could fly anywhere if he so chooses. it gives a sense of freedom and accomplishment.

Both artists are different in a way because brancusi's work are more of an idea of something and on the other hand van gogh's art has more substance. Brancusi would make the idea of a bird in space whereas van gogh would paint a bird in space with a twist. Both artists convey their thoughts on an idea, just in their own way. Brancusi's art, to me, has a more modern feel. Van Gogh's art has more of a classy feel.