WEEK 10! My Favorite Style this Quarter

WEEK 10!

During this quarter’s lessons throughout art history, I really enjoyed going deeper into Realism.  Until recently, I had not thought so deeply about the huge transition that realism was. The direction that art went when artists began painting unbiased, “un-glamorized” scenes of real, working class people, was a very important turning point. I have really enjoyed looking at how Realism painters implemented small changes away from the classic style and chose to incorporate detail in ways that had not yet been explored. A piece that really struck me, and gave me the most insightful example of what Realism was all about was Gustave Courbet’s The Stonebreakers.

This piece showcases a pair of working class men, who are doing nothing out of their ordinary daily lives. There is so much detail in their clothing and their postures, both of which are very representational of the fact that they are of the working class. This alone was a very heavy statement made by Courbet, he was silently commenting on the fact that up until that point in time, artwork never placed a spotlight on the backbone of society; no one ever took time to paint a picture of the majority. Also, unlike so much art during that time, there was no focus on the men’s faces or the scenery behind and around them; the focus of this piece is in the detail. The holes in their clothes, the dirt on their skin, those are the details that Courbet wanted to share with the viewer. These details were an example of real life, these were the details that had been glossed over and ignored in artwork up until that point. Realism was an outlet for artists to make society aware that the glittering upper class did not deserve all of the attention, their lives were not the only lives worthy of visual depiction. I enjoyed seeing the examples of the different types of Realism work, and noticing how the styles of the artists differed in their attempts to showcase real life people and activities.

 I don’t necessarily enjoy political undertones, or social commentary in artwork, and I wouldn’t consider Realism to be 100% representational of any of those things, but I do think the style itself was somewhat instrumental in the artists’ efforts to send a message. I normally appreciate the visual, atheistic beauty of artwork; I am not the type to read too far into a piece, it’s just not how I, personally, appreciate art. I enjoy pretty images, some may call that an ignorant or immature appreciation but I disagree. I am an artist myself and my appreciation of initially pleasing imagery to is my own individual reaction. Knowing this about myself, I am pleasantly surprised to find that I have enjoyed Realism. I appreciate the progress it made in showing society truthful representations, while in a very subtle and beautiful way. I have also enjoyed gaining insight to the thought process and reasoning behind many of the Realism work, which, like I mentioned, is an area I don’t generally read into.

Week 8- DADA!

Throughout my art education I have spent a good amount of time studying the ‘Dada’ period in art history; throughout my findings my initial opinion of Dada being a somewhat lazy excuse for art has indeed changed. Although I will never particularly enjoy Dada or Surrealism artwork I can at least say that I do understand it and am able to accept why others enjoy it.  Marcel Duchamp’s 1917, Fountain, is a perfect example of a piece of Dada artwork that was a real game-changer. He took a very static item, turned it upside down, scribbled his name on it, and set it out for people to observe and talk about. Though the Dadaists would never admit to putting forth effort to the creation of art, they knew that they were creating and supplying visually stimulating objects that allowed viewers to assemble their own opinions, rather than be “brainwashed” to act, think, and react like everyone else.

 During this time in Europe, WWI caused many people to lose faith in their country and the ideals that were failing to be upheld.  A small group of people, later to become known as the original ‘Dadaists,’ had had enough with the direction the country was going, they were fed up with the detrimental effects of the War and decided to reject every aspect of the government’s and societies’ influence. At that time in Europe, art was used to cover up the true travesties that were taking place; artists tried to ignore the present and keep people’s minds in a state of how the country used to be. This façade is what angered the Dadaists the most. Upon their relocation to Switzerland, the Dadaists began to create art based on the “rejection of art.” Their goal was to do the exact opposite of everything the “rules” of art had stated up to that point.  Their intent was to be unintentional; they disregarded all artistic conventions. As their “style” emerged, it quickly became noticed and began to spread around. Or course, the Dadaists weren’t even really trying to produce any sort of style or era, they didn’t even want recognition in that sense, so not long after their debut they receded and disappeared, leaving only a possibility of what art could become in the minds of the rest of the world.

In regards to whether or not I think Dada artwork, such as Marcel Duchamp’s, should be considered “real art” or not, I cannot say either way. I firmly believe that there really is no true answer or set of rules that dictate what is and isn’t art. I think that as much as I would like everyone to look at art in the same way I do, and find beauty in all of the same things that I do, that is an unrealistic request and it will never be. This is one of the greatest attributes of artistic expression; there are infinite outlets and inspirations. Life is art, and without the opportunity for endless expression we would not evolve in the ways that only art has the ability to do. I do think that Marcel Duchamp took a urinal and turned it upside down, and I do not find any sort of message or pleasure in looking at it, but in this situation that is EXACTLY what he was going for. Such a thing had never before been done, art that had absolutely no intention what so ever, and that in it is what I consider an artistic innovation. 

Avant-Garde and The Yellow Christ

When analyzing Griselda Pollock’s three characteristics of the avant-garde, we can apply them to Paul Gauguin’s 1889 painting titled, The Yellow Christ, and see how it may be considered as an avant-garde piece of work.  

The first characteristic of the avant-garde according to Pollock, is ‘reference’, proving an awareness of what’s already going on (167). In Gauguin’s piece, I believe he proved and awareness of the impressionist style of painting through his use of landscape and his repeated style of brush stroke. The impressionists painted mostly landscape pieces or scenes outdoors. Although Gauguin included a landscape, he made the man and cross the main focus of the piece, and then after that the focus goes to the women at the bottom before being directed at the landscape. I think that in the context of Pollock’s “rules,” this is one Gauguin’s piece may be considered avant-garde.

The second characteristic of the avant-garde according to Pollock, is ‘deference.’ In The Yellow Christ, Gauguin used small, sort of loose brush strokes to create the scene, which is very similar to the way the impressionists painted. His technique is a bit more controlled, but still shows he has kept the impressionists in mind while he painted this. He also paid close attention to what colors he chose to depict the scene, although the colors aren’t realistic to the subject matter or in any way “natural,” he used them to evoke a warm sense of emotion within the composition. The impressionists used colors very well, and very methodically. The way they placed their brush strokes was very wild and untamed, so the color choice was key in tying an impressionist piece together. In Gauguin’s use of color and style of brush stroke, he is paying a bit of respect to the impressionists in that he enjoyed their technique and chose to expand upon it in a new and refreshing way; very avant-garde.

The third characteristic of the avant-garde according to Pollock, is ‘difference.’ Paul Gauguin made it visually clear that he was creating a stepping-stone away from the Impressionist period and towards something new. By exploring a style and technique used by artists before him while adding his own twist and skill, he created a path for himself leading into the world of avant-garde. 

WEEK 4. Monet VS. Manet

It is interesting to look at two paintings that depict the same event, painted by artists of the same time period and both being French. Claude Monet’s ‘The Rue Montorgueil’ and Edouard Manet’s ‘The Rue Mosnier with Flags’ are both impressionist paintings that depict the celebration that took place in the streets of France in commemoration of the International Exhibition, which occurred after France gained it’s independence. Although the artistic style is quite similar, the interpretation of this event is communicated in two very different ways by each of the painters. Monet has given a very vibrant and exciting visual, one filled with color and chaos. Although his strokes are somewhat abstract and difficult to depict at an up close angle, from afar we can see the shapes and strokes come together to form a large celebration. Monet was depicting the scene as time filled with positive vibes and unity among the French people; they were joyous as they joined in the celebration of their independence. Monet painted a ton of flags, adding to the patriotism and pride in the piece.

On a heavier note, Manet’s depiction of the same event is given with less enthusiasm and more somberness. Rather than showing the streets filled with flags in every square inch, Manet painted only a handful of flags, letting the focal point of the piece be a one legged man walking with a crutch in the bottom left corner. This man is a war veteran, Manet’s way of silently reminding the French people, and everyone else, who was responsible and who gave sacrifices for the independence in which everyone was celebrating. During this time of independence, so much light was shed on the excitement and victory that people often forget to devote proper attention and gratitude to those men who had fought and lost their lives for their country. In many ways this piece is much more historic and political than that of Monet’s. Monet found beauty in the celebration of the French people, and their optimism for the future, while Manet showcased a reminder of the past, and it’s place of remembrance before proper transition to the future could occur.

The way in which each artist used their brushwork closely matches the emotional tone of the pieces. Monet’s work is very busy, rushed, and chaotic, which is what the feeling of the scene is. On the other hand, Manet’s stokes are slower, thicker, and a little more defined, making the scene easier to depict. In his style we can assess what’s going with more ease, and take in the individual aspects of the scene.

Week 3; Impressionism-Claude Monet

Claude Monet- Sunrise 1872

French painter Claude Monet is said to have been a “leading exponent” of the Impressionism period (984). Impressionism emerged in direct reaction to the Realist style, and Monet was one of the first painters involved in the “declaration of independence from the Academie (984). He, among other artists, showcased their work in exhibitions that they organized themselves, independent of Salons. The Impressionist style is most recognized by it’s representations of upper middle class folk enjoying leisurely activities; these  compositions are usually comprised of  both thick and thin short brush strokes. They way in which the Impressionist painters created forms and shapes went against the “rules” set previously by the Academie, the Impressionists used short brush strokes of color to depict value, shape, contour, and light. These brush strokes often looked very textured and as if they needed to dry and/or be blended. The lack of blending and smoothing created a very choppy and unique visual style, one that gave the Impressionist painters a lot of opportunity to visually depict energy and movement.

Claude Monet’s Sunrise is an accurate example of an Impressionist painting. Right away we can see that is composed of brushstrokes, nothing in the piece is an accurate depiction of anything real. The different values of blue used throughout the piece are what give the viewer a sense of the weather conditions Monet was painting in; it is clearly a foggy, cold, dark-ish early morning, illuminated only by the bright orange sunrise. The vertical dark blue brushstrokes seem to represent some sort of ships or distant structures, the legibility of what they are exactly is very unclear, at least to me. But by their color and lack of detail we can assume they are covered in a layer of dense fog.

Monet used his brush strokes to represent the colors and forms as they appeared to him in that situation, often disregarding relaistic or standard depictions of what they really were; he painted objects and sections of color in a very objective way, using strokes color to re-create the blocks of color he was seeing, and if they turned out looking abstract he embraced it.

The use of orange in Sunrise works very well; being the complement of blue and the amount used in comparison to the blue, the orange really stands out and creates a radiating glow of light throughout the piece. The reflection of the sunrise onto the water is done in a very interesting way, the alternating strokes of blue and orange create a sense of movement in the water, like there a tiny waves or ripples and all the boats are silently bobbing upon it.

There are a few areas of this piece that confuse me, and I cannot figure out why he chose to do what he did in those instances. First, I don’t understand why the sun itself is surrounded by a thick ring of dark blueish-grey, and then the orange re-emerges again above it in the dark clouds. Maybe it is an effect that occurs during a foggy early morning sunrise, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like that before, what exactly is that blueish-grey? Second, on the entire left edge of the painting and continuing even more so down towards the bottom left are a lot of lighter gray and almost white brush strokes. I can’t tell if Monet was trying to create a light glow around the scene, or maybe he was just adding to the very crisp and cold feeling of the scene?

I like the impressionist style of painting, I think that it gives off a very free and light hearted vibe. I feel like the artists are allowing the viewers to take the colored strokes and blocks of color and put them together in our own way. They pay enough attention to shape and form for us to mentally grasp the scene, but they also leave out many details allowing us to fill in those parts on our own, and pull the composition together however we see fit. A way of describing what I mean by that is the idea that an impressionist piece can be hung almost anywhere in your house and seem appropriate. There is enough detail to portray a scene, yet not enough to command any specific reaction from the viewer. Some pieces of artwork have pretty obvious intentions and would seem silly being displayed in areas other than those places in which they we designed for; these impressionism pieces have a relaxed flexibility that allows us to react to them in our own, individual ways.

Week 2- Realism of Gustave Courbet

Artists in during the Realism Movement aimed to portray accurate representations of people in real-life, natural situations; it was a time when artists refrained from idealistic views and irrational depictions. French painter Gustave Courbet is said to have been the leader of the Realism Movement in Mid-Century France.
His paintings depicted real-life events and occurrences at which he hoped to steer away from the regularity of the wealthy and their commissioning of artists to re-create them in a heroic manner. Courbet wanted to showcase the working class and make artwork from the daily lives of the common men and women. In doing this, he caused some tension throughout the society because it had not been done before. The bourgeoisie held art to a high standard; artwork was reserved for the highly esteemed and the wealthy, for them to see imagery depicting things other than themselves was not kindly welcomed. To see an artist devote the time and energy that goes into a large scale painting towards people of a lower class standing was considered somewhat insulting in the eyes of the bourgeoisie.
In Courbet’s 1849 painting, The Stone Breakers, he depicted on a large scale of five foot by eight foot, two men hard at work breaking stone with small tools, a job that was only suited for lower class working people. This is realism painting because it is a completely accurate portrayal of two human beings partaking in a realistic activity. At the time, this painting was shocking for many reasons; first of all the large size of it was typically reserved for murals, religious depictions, or grand portraits. For Courbet to display such a “harsh” scene on such a large scale was kind of like underhanded comment towards all who tried to ignore the working class. He wanted to so make large enough that the truth had to be seen by everyone; hard work was a real thing and real people had to do it; they too deserved a large scale.
It is clear that the focal point of this piece is indeed the two men, the background Is given little detail and all the attention is focused onto the foreground, again forcing the eyes of the viewer to really notice what is going on. The detail of the men’s rugged clothing and attention to their job is impossible to ignore, the bourgeoisie needed to realize that painting was no longer reserved for aesthetically pleasing visuals, it had become an outlet for story telling, expression, and could now shed light on aspects of all social classes; nothing needed to be edited or left out. The fact that the faces of the men are not shown is Courbet’s way of letting the audience know that his style of painting is aimed at more than just praising individuals, he wanted to glorify the lifestyle and hardworking attitudes of those who had not been recognized in the past. This in itself made many feel uncomfortable because it caused them to take notice make realizations about how the world was changing.
I think Gustave Courbet knew very well that his work would not be readily accepted, I think that his mind set was that of “any publicity is good publicity,” he wanted to express his opinions through his talent and let people know that life could not be ignored. Even if the bourgeoisie hated him for it and made a big deal about it, at least they would be bringing some sort of focus to the issues itself.

The Rococo Style

A chair designed in the Rococo style.

I can definitely say that I enjoyed this quarter’s art history more so than the medieval art history of last quarter.  It’s very interesting and enlightening to see the series of events that catalyzed each specific art period; how they influenced and paved the way for one another. The whole idea of the Renaissance and how it evolved is quite amazing and filled with such rich history. My personal favorite artistic styles/eras are Art Nuevo, Art Deco, and The Arts and Crafts Movement, so I unfortunately am not a huge fan of any of the art we have been studying, as it is obviously very different from what I enjoy.

So, if I did have to choose one I would go with the Rococo style of art from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Sadly, I don’t enjoy realism, humanism, or mannerism all that much; I have a taste for more graphic, colorful, and ornamental art work. To me, art is an escape and a chance to create something that the viewer may not normally get to see, so the realistic human images and scenes are not very appealing to me.  Which leads to why the Rococo style is somewhat attractive to me; it is filled with color, energy, and ornament. A room adorned in the Rococo style is intimate, and has the ability to make one feel lavish and elegant; similar to a dream. I like how the style can be expressed through many different avenues, such as the furniture, jewelry, lighting, tapestries, and the even candlestick holders in a room.  The style is rich in sparkle, beauty, and all that is fancy; what girl wouldn’t enjoy that?!  Aside from the objects of the Rococo style, I also very much appreciate the painting style. I like the subject matter of the era; love, bliss, and a general feeling of light-ness. I can easily see how such a feminine and “pastel” style of Rococo art may not appeal to the masses, and can quickly become outdated, although in small doses it is absolutely beautiful. The Rococo style had the ability to take the viewer out of their current situation and bring them into a magical world of happiness and luxury; in my opinion that is a huge accomplishment. The style was meant to mask a harsh reality, maybe temporarily or maybe forever, either way I think was successful.

A German Rococo interior; painted walls and elegant, glittering chandeliers.

 

David vs. David

While comparing and contrasting Bernini’s David and Michelangelo’s David it is obvious that they are visually very different. Right away it is apparent that there is a much more dynamic use action in Bernini’s sculpture of David, his body is twisted and crouched in a pose that is ready for a battle or something.  In Michelangelo’s David, the body form is much more relaxed and elegant, suggesting he is contemplating his next move.  Bernini’s David was a product of the Baroque art period, which came shortly after the Renaissance, and in my opinion carried over with somewhat tweaked, but similar characteristics.

Both of the David sculptures incorporate Renaissance values, although I would suggest that Michelangelo’s David has a much heavier Renaissance influence than the Baroque flavor of Bernini’s David.  Michelangelo’s David has a very strong sense of humanism and idealism, two characteristics that powerfully inspired the Renaissance. David’s physique is hat most would call “ideal,” he is very proportionate and stands in a relaxed, attractive pose. The audience cannot decipher exactly what he is doing, what he is gazing at, or what he is thinking about; all of which were very common attributes of idealism. The context of idealistic artwork is more of an “essence” rather than a concept. A far contrast from Michelangelo’s David, the context of Bernini’s David is very upfront and “in your face,” this form is engaging the audience by breaking the invisible viewing plane with his intense and dynamic pose.

An obvious Renaissance characteristic of Bernini’s David is the very idealistic body, like Michelangelo’s statue, his physique is very attractive and somewhat flawless. Bernini’s David has an apparent emotional intensity; the viewer is very quickly going to be captured in the movement and presence of the piece. Michelangelo’s David has a strong sense of grandeur, a very grand presence, one that moves slowly and is highly admired; this was very characteristic of the Renaissance. Bernini’s David has none of that, he indeed has a presence but it is more common and realistic, a presence that common man may better identify with, it is tied in with an emotional factor that is very different than Michelangelo’s David.  The way the sculpture plays off of the use of light in Bernini’s David is very clever and adds even more power to his pose, shadows are created and depth is incorporated even more. 

Protestant Reformation in Europe

The Protestant Reformation was a religion-based movement against the Catholic church that happened in Western Europe in the 16th century. The Protestants chose to express their religious beliefs through an emphasis of their individual relationships with God, and “regarded the Bible as the ultimate religious authority,” (p. 678).  A divide was created between Northern and Southern Europe; Protestants flocked North, and Catholics went South. Followers of the Protestant movement believed that the over-production of religious imagery was a bad thing and and wave of iconoclasm spread, which was the destruction of religious images (p.679) . The walls of churches were painted over, pictorial windows were smashed, and there was an overall decline of religious artwork in Europe at the time. Protestant artists wished to create depictions of modern life, and employed the use of narratives to express their own devotion to God.

This image, titled- Self-Portrait, by Albrecht Durer, is a great example of how the Protestant movement had an influence on European artwork.

Durer painted an image that very closely resembles Jesus Christ; the frontal view, long curly hair, and absence of background in this painting are very common in many depictions of Christ. Durer was making a statement re-emphasizing the Protestant belief that an individuals perception of themselves and their devotion to the Lord was essentially all that was necessary. Durer created a portrait of himself resembling Christ, reiterating the common Christian principal of “imitating Christ in the believer’s own life, (p. 677). He didn’t need to employ any religious imagery or clergy scenes to express a devotional message in this piece, although his message came through successfully, in my opinion at least.

 

 

The Reformation embraced the beliefs of the Protestants, and the artwork of the movement supported their values and the more subtle way in which they chose to worship and express those values.

Sixteenth Century Mannerism

Mannerism was an “anit-classical” movement (p. 659) that arose in Rome and Florence; unlike other styles that originated there, emphasis was placed on artificial qualities rather than balanced, like-life representations. Mannerism is still a very beautiful and realistic style of painting, but while looking at some of the proportions and  body parts it is apparent that the painting as whole is just a little bit off…

While looking at Madonna With The Long Neck, painted by Parmigianino and Entombment, by Jacopo da Pontormo, both share similarities that put them in a category of mannerism. After looking at each painting for a few minutes one will begin to notice some strange details…Both pieces have random human forms throughout; in Entombment, there are people floating around at the top, peeking in from the sides, and crouching at the bottom. The character on the right hand side, behind Mary, is especially strange. The only part of the person visible is the head, it’s much darker than the other figures, and it’s hard to know what he is looking at. In Madonna With The Long Neck, there is a tiny figure on the bottom right,  literally the height of Madonna’s shin. There is no apparent explanation for who this is, or why he is so tiny! 

One of the biggest give aways that these pieces are of the mannerist movement is the odd body proportions of the characters. The creepiest one by far has got to be the size of the baby/child in the lap of Madonna (Madonna With The Long Neck). This baby/child appears to have very large and defined leg muscles, and tiny feet! Each facial expression in this piece is completely different, none of them seem to correlate or belong in the same scene. Each of the people are looking in different directions and seem to be thinking different thoughts. Without knowing the background o this piece, it is hard to know what is going on, and what sort of emotion it is trying to convey. Likewise in Entombment, all of the people are gazing off in opposite directions; they seem to share a fearful expression but it’s confusing to know who they are fearful of when they aren’t looking in the same general direction. In this piece the bodies are often overlapping, but you can still see in the odd proportion of the bottom crouching character. His head and neck seem to be oddly angled in relation to the harsh bend of his spine. 

One of the main things I notice about this style of work is how difficult it is to try and decipher a story behind it. The beauty of these pieces is undeniable; yet it’s weird as a student studying art history to see a style like this emerge after the High Renaissance. Due to the disproportionate body types and ambiguous backgrounds, it’s as though this style is less developed and should have been a precursor to the High Renaissance!