Post #9 - Option #2

            There have been a lot of defining moments in changing the face of how artwork has been viewed or created over this entire course.  However, one of the most interesting periods of art that has stood out to me over the rest is Impressionism / Post-Impressionism.  I couldn’t decide which I liked better, so I figured I’d discuss how I have found an appreciation for both.  There are many aspects that have drawn me to this era, of course the visual details but also the historical context has opened my eyes to a new light.

            One of the most impressive artists during this time was without a doubt, Gustave Caillebotte.  Although questionable as to which category he fit into, he gave me a new appreciation for the later changing concepts of artwork.  Alongside of this, one of the most avant-garde artists, Vincent van Gogh- with the rather famous piece The Starry Night (page 996 in Stokstad).  Both of these artists are very different, but somehow both fit into the Post-Impressionist period, as they were both unappreciated at their times, they have stuck around for centuries as some of the most pronounced artists of their timeframe.

            However, looking at Impressionist works by artists such as Claude Monet really emphasized how the era has changed from technique and composition.  Before this period, artwork was very well planned out, paintings were composed of rich detail and vast amounts of hours put into it.  This is where Impressionism was unique and different from those times.  Since the invention of paint in tubes, artists were able to paint and depict exactly what they saw, changing the rules of the game.  While painting outdoors became widely popular during this time, it changed the techniques used, such as the exposure of loose brushstrokes that were various in color and appeared to have the quick-sketched appear to them.  One of the pieces where this is really highlighted is within Monet’s Impression: Sunrise (Stokstad 985).  Just taking a quick glance at the piece, you can see each individual brushstroke as if it were quickly done on the go.  This is where Impressionism stood out amongst the rest of the artistic eras, the idea and concept of neatness and perfection was out the window, for new beauty in simplicity had emerged.  Through this piece, there are a variety of colors but most are within the same hue/shade, making it appear that there is changing colors throughout the piece, giving it the realistic look without overcompensating on detail.  In my opinion, this is the perfect balance as to something that could be created as aesthetically pleasing, but yet the technique is so fresh that it has yet to catch on the general public.  Just another way Impressionist painters were considered to be avant-garde.

            Most of Monet’s paintings follow the same guidelines as far as composition and structure, giving him the title of being on the original Impressionist painters.  My reaction to these paintings is that they appear to be simplified compared to what we as art viewers are used to seeing such as painting from the Renaissance, but there is no denial in the fact that what they have done is still remarkable and creates a wide array of beauty for the eye.

Post #8

            One of the pieces that have caught my interest that I’m sure everyone is familiar with is the Gateway Arch, located in St. Louis, Missouri.  Such architecture has yet to be seen within America concerning this piece of architecture, especially since it holds the title as the tallest man-made monument in the United States.  The architect Eero Saarinen was the lead design behind the monument and was approximated to cost around $13 million U.S. dollars at the time.  The Gateway Arch stands at 630 feet overlooking the city, while the stainless steel arch was proclaimed as a “perfect monument to the spirit of the western pioneers.”

            After reviewing some of Saarinen’s unique architecture, such as the Trans World Airlines Terminal (at John F. Kennedy Airport), you can start to notice Eero’s artistic style through his structures.  Since looking over these structures, I have taken a new appreciation for architecture and how quickly it advanced considering the time frame in which these buildings have been constructed.  Having 60 feet anchored foundation into the ground, this unique piece was built to withstand earthquakes and extreme winds.  According to nps.gov, it sways around 1 inch in a 20 mph wind storm, and is built to sway up to 18 inches.

            The Gateway Arch was not only an impressive structure, but also contained mathematical equations for the structures stability that made it even more notable.  Being set by Hannskari Bandel, this equation provided has been used to create the blueprints in geometric forms.  It makes sense, since the arch of the structure is a weighted catenary- meaning its legs are wider than its upper section in order to stabilize it.  The project was meant to be created with 5,000 workers and new job opportunities, however, by half way through the construction, they only had 100 workers on board.  Covering over 90 acres of park use for the monument, it has become an architectural breakthrough for America and even through the world, especially since the geometric equation sort of set the tempo for creating the catenary stability.

            Eero Saarinen, a Finnish-born American who immigrated to the States at around 1923, was widely engaged with furniture and sculpture design, leading him to opportunity to creating some of the most famous pieces of American sculptures that still remains.  Creating a firm and creating these great American masterpieces, his life came to an end at the age of 51 when he was undergoing a removal of a brain tumor.  While Saarinen was unappreciated and unrecognized for his great masterpieces during his time, he was elected as one of the Fellows for the American Institute for Architects and also a winner of the AIA Gold Medal for all of his notable pieces of work.

            These architectures built and designed by Saarinen were some of the major foundations for stepping stones for unique and modern art within America, they shaped the new standard for which was considered modern and outdated.  In my opinion, these buildings stood out amongst all others and brought a higher level of sophistication to the table as the involved geometric equations to test their survivability.

Sources:

http://www.stlouisarch.com/experience/the-gateway-arch/

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/historyculture/index.htm

http://www.eerosaarinen.net/eero_saarinen.shtml

Post #7 - Option #1

            With the introduction of the Dada style artwork, many art criticisms were made, stabbing both the visual concept and the destruction of what those who claim true art was.  Surrealism closely trailing behind, also gave more of a representational aspect to the changing face of avant-garde artwork.  But what makes these two styles of art so under appreciated?  Artists at this time took a different approach in what they wanted their viewers to see.  It wasn’t about who could create the most aesthetically pleasing oil on canvas painting, or accuracy, it was more of the concept of creating something that gives more than one emotion.

            With Dada style art emerging in the early 1900’s, it was no as respected as new art styles were during the past centuries.  As a matter of fact, it was highly misunderstood.  Popular artists of Dada used form as a new outlet to express their artwork, such as Marcel Duchamp’s Bottle Rack (from page 228 in A-G).  While the normal viewer would look at this and find close to little aesthetic reasoning behind this piece, it was more of the concept of how it was performed, how the artist constructed this to be considered artistic.  While the form and content seemed to be a bit different than what previous art lovers were used to, it had its own place, through utilizing the idea of sculptures of abstract or ordinary objects.  Some artists explained it as beauty and art within the everyday things/objects.  One thing I really enjoy about the Dada era of art is the concept of emotion.  At first glance, I really have to sit down and think about everything, it is very captivating and makes you want to double look over the entire piece and each individual connection.

            On the other hand, you have another style, Surrealism, which took place after Dada art.  While Dada focused a lot on objects and how the construction of the piece captures the emotion of the viewers, Surrealism emphasizes similar traits but has a deeper sense of creating abstract or representational images/objects.  Surrealism changed the face of art by combining multiple conventional techniques to create one piece.  For example, some pieces could be mixes of paper, photography, and paint, all into one piece of art.  The method and idea of using all these techniques in just one formal piece was considered unnatural for this time and also went highly unappreciated.  Looking at the piece by Salvador Dali, Metamorphosis of Narcissus, (page 248 in A-G) it is easy to fully explain the concept of Surrealism.  The level of abstraction is highly anticipated and rules out of the normal concepts of human-like qualities or normal human practices.  It changed the concept by giving a new outlook to these pieces of work, since most of them involved sexual, violence, or sadism concepts- it gave forth a new way to perceive this style of art.

            Overall, I believe that there are many things in this world that we can consider art, even music is a form of art.  Visuals that attract the eye for the sole purpose of aesthetics is not what classifies something as art, especially since everyone sees things in a different light.  So yes, I do believe Duchamp’s work can be considered art because it is visually engaging and keeps viewers thinking about the convention and construction of what this piece makes, or how it is represented.

Post #6 - Option #1

            After taking a quick glance at Gauguin’s painting, The Yellow Christ, a few different emotions and thoughts come to mind.  First off, this painting is not exactly what you would consider the “Mona Lisa” of all paintings for a few particular reasons.  While this painting looks somewhat staggered and colored like a coloring book, it was considered under graded and incomplete.  It didn’t contain all the unique visual composition techniques that most paintings prior to this painting had.  Although it does include subject matter that has been portrayed for hundreds of year’s worth of artwork, it still stands out as “different” to the normal being.

            While starting to take a sway into the social norm of painting standards, Gauguin’s unique piece made him a true pursuer of avant-gardism.  By relating Pollock’s theory of “reference, deference, and difference”, we are able to relate all these characteristics to this slightly unappreciated piece of work.  Focusing on the idea of difference is something I’ve already touched upon, but for further examples, I’ll explain more.  Since this painting stands out to me as almost immature and not fully developed, almost as if it was drawn and painted by a younger child.  However, this was Gauguin’s approach for reaching out for something different.  It wasn’t everyday that a painting in this composition was exposed to society, especially being well accepted.  But negative criticism is one of the key components that has established artists as avant-garde due to the fact that although it maybe new and interesting, it isn’t what society is accustomed to versus previous piece of work.  From being a unique new artist, this lumped artists like Gauguin as avant-garde or even “radical” in some critics’ eyes, boycotting such artwork from the Salon.

            Aside from being different than most artists during this time, he emphasizes extreme deference through this piece.  Basically, his work is straight to the point, it doesn’t leave audience thinking and wondering what the hidden message that is trying to be portrayed is.  Painting images of Jesus during his crucifixion was a very popular trend, not only for this time, but also for centuries before hand, making this painting not completely out of the ordinary as far as subject matter is concerned.   Although, according to the text, this piece has more meaning than what is illustrated, referencing the fact that it was a self-portrait that was facing the struggles of a close-minded society.

            Focusing on certain aspects, such as the idea of “primitive” paintings make this piece unfold even more.  Since Paul Gauguin adopted some of these values, he feels that painting contrasts with the earlier life styles versus the newer modern day ones were under appreciated.  This eventually molded both ideas of primitive and modernism to collide into a newly found expression of art, giving birth to the idea of innovation and simplicity through artwork.  In my opinion, taking a stand to create such a piece of work that will surely be criticized by the general public because it seems to stray away from the norm, is the true courageousness of an avant-garde artist.

Post #5 - Option 1

            Since we have started focusing on the Impressionism era, I have always been drawn to the unique style of Gustave Caillebotte.  Something that stands out from Caillebotte’s style is the amount of personal emotion that is thrown into every piece.  It seems as if every drastic event that has taken place in his life has somehow molded his views and emotion for each new set of paintings.   I have decided to cover the first option since I don’t think there is a crystal clear answer to this; I say this because I feel like Gustave’s work could be considered a celebration of modern life, while on the other hand, some aspects of his work could be considered a critique on how modern life is affecting individuals in his subject matter.

            When viewing certain pieces of Caillebotte’s, such as Paris Street: A Rainy Day, we can tell that it is depicting more of an idea of celebration through his subject matter.  An interesting note is that in a lot of his earlier pieces, he focuses on artwork based on the bourgeois, which most explore the idea of modern life as optimistic.  Within the subject matter, people seem to be slightly content with the fact that it’s raining and you can see most of the figures are grouped with another with some minor exceptions.

            On the other hand, you have certain paintings like Pont de I’Europe, which focuses on a couple individuals who all appear to be slightly isolated from the rest of the interacting world.  While this painting can give the appearance of celebration and wonder because of the large truss that scales the outside of the steel barrier, giving a sense of modern life, it has a certain element of isolation that leaves a more empty feel to the piece.  As noticed, you can see the man standing alone next to the barrier, while there is a dog wondering the streets alone.  This is interesting to take note of, especially after the critique from the lecture that focuses on how it created a large public scare from the exposure to rabies.  When normal people envision a painting of upper class bourgeois, they typically wouldn’t imagine seeing a stray dog within the foreground.  Something else that was mentioned during the lecture that plays an important role is the fact that the man walking towards the viewer seems to be a few steps ahead of the woman.  It is speculated that he could be making a proposition to her, perhaps implying prostitution.  Making all these characters isolated from one another really gives a feeling of desolation and uncertainty, in my opinion.  At the same time, the perspective and overall composition is quite a view, giving this piece a contrasting feel than what the subject matter is actually depicting.

            Throughout Caillebotte’s work, especially seen in his other pieces like Luncheon and Still Life, his mood changes play a direct impact in how his emotion and representation of modern life is perceived.  These are some of the reasons why I don’t believe that there is a right answer in regards to some of his pieces emitting the idea of celebration or critique.

Post #4

            The Festival of 30^th June 1878 was more than just a date, it was a reminder of how France would celebrate their reborn stability as a nation.  This date emerged two unique avant-garde based pieces by similar artists, Claude Monet and Edouard Manet, each representing this extravagant festival in different ways.

 

               Within Claude Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil, there are so many initial elements that capture our attention and make us want to dissect this piece of art.  First off, this piece is filled with excitement, the streets are just flooded with people while the overwhelming amount of French flags are crowding the buildings towards the sides.  In terms of color and shades, there is such a variety that it makes the painting extremely busy.  There appears to be a fairly darker balance of shades towards the bottom half of the painting, while the tone eventually brightens as it makes its way to the sky, giving this piece a good sense of balance.  The piece doesn’t necessarily represent extreme avant-garde messages, but does help portray the importance of the festival and really captures the essence of the revived French citizens.

 

             In contrast to Monet’s piece, Edouard Manet’s The Rue Mosnier with Flags seems to take an entirely different approach on the outlook of the June 30^th Festival.  Unlike Monet’s painting, the streets are empty.  While some flags are still hanging on the sides of the buildings, it doesn’t nearly express as much excitement as the other piece.  In fact, this piece has a rather darker side, especially focusing on the French veteran who appears to be missing a leg.  Like mentioned in the lecture, this is an important part of what Manet is trying to depict in terms of how the French are thankful for their freedom and expresses just what they had to go through to achieve this new standard of life.  In regards to color on Manet’s piece, it is very different to the cluttered piece constructed by Monet.  This oil canvas has a more slightly limited amount of color and shades, but utilizes the shades from the shadows and blacks/whites.  Also discussed in the lecture, Manet focuses on more political based aesthetics, especially considering his past influence from political events.  Although the term avant-garde has been slightly diluted from what it used to mean or means to us today, this piece is a great representation of what avant-gardism symbolizes.  To elaborate, Manet has a certain aspect of trying to create political messages within his paintings, and has yet to let go of his already acclimated ways.

            While both of these paintings seem very different, they do have some things in common.  Aside from the artists having similar last names, they both appear to have been composed in plein air (both painted outdoors) and share common brushstrokes within certain pieces, such as the French flags strung around.  While both artists created different messages or imagery through their paintings, it is quite evident to determine each artists unique style of painting through the era of Impressionism.

Post #3

            When comparing Impressionist paintings versus other genres of paintings, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what defines this period as such an extravagant introduction of paintings.  One very famous painting that instantly caught my attention was A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grand Jatte, by Georges Seurat.  However, I assume many others will discuss this painting since it is such a remarkable piece of art.  Therefore, I will be taking a further look at Gustave Caillebotte’s painting, Paris Street, Rainy Day (on page 991 of Stokstad) and look deeper at the formal elements that compose this piece.  A general overview first off, I think that the transition in the formal aspect is an interesting change of pace.  Certain characteristics have been withered away, such as the extreme attention to detail in art periods prior to the Impressionism movement.

 

            Something that has stuck out immediately to me was the variation of line and brush stroke techniques.  If we were to take a look at the Realism movement style lines, for example, the popular painting The Stone Breakers that we discussed last week during lecture.  In comparison to this painting, it is clear to see that each line is clearly defined; figures are almost outlined with lines, enhancing this piece with rich detail and smoothness.  On the contrary, within Impressionism pieces, we can easily decipher that most of the figures and buildings have no definite lines that build extreme emphasis towards the subject matter.  It is mostly composed of open brushstrokes with various amounts of shades that help build a sense of depth in the piece.  The thing I thought was really unique about this painting in particular is that if you glance at the painting in the book from a reasonable distance, it looks very detailed, crisp, and clean.  However, if you move your eyes closer to the book, you can see each individual brush stroke on the reflection of the street lamp behind the approaching figures and so forth.

            While most critics during this time commented on this emerging Impressionist style as fast, sloppy, and had the looks of being unfinished, I think there is a lot of complexity and dynamics that go into this certain style.  Since most of these stylized paintings contain the subject matter of outdoor objects or landscapes, the loose brushstrokes really help bring out the light and color to create more of an understanding of what the audience is really looking at, to not understand the subject matter, but to illustrate the rebirth of the techniques used in these paintings.  Even the dynamic of perspective and time helps create a real unique sense of feeling through their artwork, mostly consisting of everyday events, this piece in particular really brings forth and captures all the elements within the downtown streets of Paris.  The shades of color throughout the tile on the streets has deep contrast as well which helps add the element of depth as the detail fades from the brushstrokes in the distance.

            These elements within the unlooked style of Impressionism contain so many of the obscure compositions while retaining some of the most interesting overall pictures.  I personally think that the whole aspect of fast brushstrokes with the unfinished look appears more as excitement for me because it leaves a lot of imagination for the viewer to try and fill in the caps in their own mind.  The way it appears as almost photographic quality from a distance and then each brushstroke is revealed with closer viewing distance makes it very intriguing as well, allowing the audience to construct their own inferences based upon the composition.  Even the principle of using small canvases (not enormous sized) made it even more remarkable that artists were able to utilize such small space with varying strokes and color shades.  All of the colors are pretty controlled, since they help blend in the idea of depth and perception throughout the street-like setting, but they are all very realistic as in comparison to real life outdoor sceneries.  I think one of the greatest thing about this painting is the fact that the Caillebotte was able to make the sidewalk the figures are walking on appear to be wet.  By blending the reflection of the street light, it really adds a personalized feel to this painting that can only be appreciated from noticing the close individual brushstrokes.