Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Ways of Seeing

          Overall, I thought this article was interesting, but confusing at times. While I was able to understand the general concepts of the article, the more specific concepts became a blur to me. Despite that, I found two ideas that I found really interesting and thought-provoking. 
          The first one being, "When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings" (Berger 19). I never really thought about this concept before: how you interpret a painting depends on how and where you see it. Berger then continues on to talk about how a painting on your television screen, has a diversified meaning because it is being projected in a new medium (a screen) and it is now surrounded by different things. In one house the TV could be surrounded by wallpaper and pictures and books, while in the other it is surround by a blank wall. Each family sees the same image but will have a different understanding of the painting because it has a different backdrop. Even though this idea doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance, in the art world, it does. Artists chose to stage their art, painting or drawing in a certain way so that the audience understands its meaning in a certain way. When the setting varies, new and incomplete meanings can come from the artwork.
          On page twenty-three, Berger brings up the idea on how a painting can be more impressive if it has a high market value, "It became famous because an American wanted to buy it for two and a half million pounds. Now it hang in a room by itself." I don't really agree with this concept even though it is true. Just because one painting costs more than another doesn't mean it should be more famous or have a more important meaning. The example used in the text is a painting being put behind bullet-proof perspex. It says that it has " a new kind of impressiveness". This impressiveness comes from the value that is behind the canvas, not what is physically on it or what it means/represents. This is intriguing to me because there isn't any reason that a painting is more special than other, maybe the artist who painted it is more famous than another, but all paintings have their own special meaning which means they all have a special value, it just depends on your interests and beliefs. 
          
         

Monday, September 19, 2016

Perception of Light: Julio Fine Art

          On Thursday the 15th, I attended the presentation of Carol Miller Frost's Perception of Light in the Julio Fine Arts Gallery. I looked around at the canvases and didn't really have any emotion. It looked like there was just a single color painted on a canvas. I was confused by this, asking myself, "What makes this so special?" But as I moved around the gallery and took a closer look at the paintings, I noticed their detail. There were different shades of the color, geometrically blended into the main color. These little details were able to catch the light, giving me a new perspective of the painting. Like Frost says in the pamphlet, "...they are non-figurative, geometric in structure and provide no clue as to meaning." I find this quote interesting because a lot of artists want their art to have a specific meaning, but Frost doesn't. I guess leaving the interpretation up to the audience is a good thing, because they can connect to the art in their own way, instead of being forced to accept an idea. My favorite piece that was in the gallery was called Deep Red. This piece was my favorite because of the color used. All of the other paintings were relativity bright in color, but this one was dark. I also liked it because even though it was a dark color, Frost's technique brought out the lighter side of the color. The colors and title's used were all a reflection of how she perceived art in her own studio. Every painting that was in the gallery, was an experience that Frost went through: each canvas was a different one. At first this gallery did not appeal to me, but with time I found it interesting.

     



Sunday, September 18, 2016

Trip to the Baltimore Museum of Art

While at the Baltimore Museum of Art, three works of art stood out to me. The first one being Nude by Henri-Edmond Cross. This piece of art depicts a nude woman, slightly covered by a blanket, who appears to to be lying in the forest. Cross used many different colors in order to capture the essence of the forest. I noticed that the colors he used for the ground are not natural. What I mean by this is that it isn't green or brown like in real life. It is pink, purple and yellow. I enjoy this detail because it bring more character to the painting. Another technique Cross used was dots. The brush strokes in this painting are short and choppy creating a dot shape. Using many dots to form the image brings in texture and more character. 

 

The second piece of art that caught my eye was Figures and Birds in a Landscape combined with Personages Attracted by the Forms of a Mountain by Joan Miró. I would classify both of these paintings as abstract. They depict people and animals through different shapes and colors. I like both of these paintings because since they are abstract, there are many interpretations of them. Basically you can never be wrong. One of the major things that caught my interest was the explanation behind the top painting, The figures in this painting are twelve small works that reflect "Miró's apprehension on the eve of the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War." I find this interesting because it creates a personal time stamp for the artist. Miró, as well as others, can look back at this painting and interpret how Miró felt right before the Spanish Civil War broke out. The painting turns his emotions and thoughts into figures and shapes which is very interesting. 

 

The third piece of art that caught my eye was Self-Portrait by Andy Warhol. This painting immediately caught my attention when I walked into the big, open room. It has an aspect of mystery that intrigues me. An example of this is the two sets of eyes that are present, one set is pink, the other is black. I also like his use of the color pink. Against the black it really pops and makes his face easy to see. Another piece by Andy Warhol that I liked was the painting Rorschach. Even though it is simple, it is intriguing. It reminded me of when I used to fold my paper plate paint pallet when I was done with it in elementary school. It is another abstract piece, which is something that I like. Putting the black paint on the gold background, makes it eye caching, just like Self-Portrait. Warhol's use of color is what I find most interesting about his works. 


     



Even though I enjoyed all of the art I saw in the museum, my favorite painting was Nude by Henri-Edmond Cross. This painting is my favorite because of the technique and colors used. The colors are warm and brilliant; every time you look at them you see a new shade. The use of dots also makes this painting my favorite. Making every one of the marks must have taken a long while, but each one tells a story. The dots add appeal and character to the somewhat simple image of the woman. All of Cross' other works, have the same dot aspect which I really like even though they are all simple. Cross' work is also my favorite because in order to paint using dots, you must be patient and creative, (two things I am working on), so I admire him for that. 

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Visibility

          As I read through the article, there were many parts that were difficult to understand. I was not familiar with many of the illusions and references the author made because the complex ideas seemed foreign to me. Despite the difficulty that I had with the article, I found a few of the main points very intriguing.
          The first one being the two types of imaginative processes: words to images and images to words. I found this interesting because I did not realize that connecting words and images is something that we do everyday. When we look at an image, we use words to describe what we see. When we read words, we use our minds to create an image in our heads. Regardless of the medium that you start with, the end result is a stimulation of our imagination.
          Another part of the article I found very intriguing was when the author said, "What I think distinguishes Loyola's procedure, even with regard to the forms of devotion of his own time, is the shift from the word to the visual image as a way of attaining knowledge of the most profound meaning" (86). What I believe this means is that when you leave words up for interpretation, many different images can arise as no one imagination is the same. Because perspectives and interpretations are all different, it allows for a variety of possibilities that are distinctly unique, yet important to the understanding of the same words and images. This concept makes the idea of art and imagination special because the experience is rarely the same for people.
          The most captivating part of this article for me was when the author said, "We are bombarded today by such a quantity of images that we can no longer distinguish direct experience from what we have seen for a few second on television" (92). I strongly agree with this quote because the many advances in technology have impacted our lives in this technology driven society. Currently, kids mimic what they see on T.V. and online instead of thinking of things to do themselves. Technology is slowly becoming the center for all of our ideas and taking the place of a lot of our imaginative processes.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The Whole Ball of Wax

          In his article, The Whole Ball of Wax, Jerry Saltz discusses how art has the ability to change the world and how important it is to realize its full potential. Even though I generally agree with Saltz's article, one point that I strongly agree with is that, "Art is an energy source that helps make change possible..." (1). Just like any other subject in school, art has the power to teach people about history, the future, emotions and so much more. You just have to know and try to understand the deeper meaning of the art, not just the meaning that appears on the surface. 
          I believe that people often overlook or misinterpret art because all they see is the surface: the colors, the textures, and the shapes. Saltz brings up the point, "...when we look at art, we're not only looking at it; we're also looking into and through it, into and through the paint, pigment, canvas, or whatever to something else." (2). The image or object that is on the canvas or paper represents something so much more than the still frame. It represents the ideas flowing through the artist's mind, the time it took for the artist to create it, and the society around them at the time. Like Saltz says, "it [art] exists within a holistic system": it represents a whole not just a part (2). I find it very intriguing that one piece of art can distract or change a person because it can represent so much more than what is right in front of them. 
          This article gave me a new respect for the potential that art can have. In life and specifically in this class, I will work towards understanding the background and deeper meaning of art that is in front of me. The one question I have is, how do we go about trying to understand that deeper meaning in a piece of artwork? Should we look up the history behind it or just take our time with the piece in order to absorb ever piece of it and try to understand the deeper meaning?