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.