Aims of Jackson Pollock

Explain the aims and goals of Jackson Pollock. What is significant about his work?

http://serdar-hizli-art.com/abstract_art/jackson_pollock.htm

Jackson Pollock wanted to express his feelings and not describe them.  

http://www.biography.com/people/jackson-pollock-9443818 

Jackson Pollock gave up painting with modern techniques and switched to abstraction expressionism.  As you can see in his splatter and action pieces.  This involved pouring paint directly on the canvas.  After Pollocks dad died he fell into a depression.  And the colors of his art work started to fade to black and white.  

Today people are still inspired by Pollocks work.  

Pollocks use of color really set the mood.  Except when he used blue, I think that was a symbol of being calm not sad.  Since when he was sad about his dad he used black and white.

Responses:

"That is interesting how he limited his colors to black and white when he was going through depression.  It was very thoughtful of you to compare his 'depressive state' work to his 'normal' work to define his use of blue.  It is a great point, because blue must represent something other than 'depressed' to him since he didn't use it while depressed."

"I think it's really cool that you found out about how his art was effected after he lost his father. I agree that his colors really set the mood and it definitely makes sense that he would chose darker colors to represent his grief about his father."

"In last week question when we read about the colors and what the colors mean in different cultures. Some blue means helps to slow human metabolism, is cooling in nature, and helps with balance and self-expression. Blue is also an appetite suppressant. So this is how he express himself."

"I agree that was a very interesting find about how he would use black and white when he was sad. Really gives the work a deeper meaning."

Tenebrism

Explain Artemisia Gentileschi’s use of tenebrism in her painting, Judith and Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes, and discuss the effects these techniques produce.

Tenebrism is where most figures are engulfed in shadow but some are dramatically illuminated by light.  Artemisia Gentileschi used tenebrism in her painting, Judith and Maidservant with the Head of Holofemes.  The bright light emphasizes Judith's facial expression.  She seems satisfied, confident, and determined.  What I thought was interesting, is that as long as I stared at the sword, I could not see any blood on it.  I thought it was wierd because there was was so much detail.  The maid was holding the head in a white rag that had spots of blood on it.

Responses:
"I also found it quite interesting that the sword did not have any blood dripping from it or anything considering they had just taken out Holofernes's head. Either he didn't bleed very much or they did a really good job cleaning up afterward."

Technology

Discuss how new technologies are redefining our sense of space. What does this mean for the future of art?

Before doing this assignment I read a few of my classmates posts to get a better sense of space.  

One post I read mention 3D movies.  I really enjoyed this, because I forgot about movies as art.  I remember going to a 3D movie, putting on those plastic glasses (once used to be card board with one lens red and the other blue. now look like normal sunglasses.), and feeling like i could touch the things on the screen.  Not only did it take an artist to make the movie itself, but it took a smart person to use new technology to make the movie pop out at you.  They creatively found a way to put you in the art.  

Line

Compare and contrast the use of line in the works of Vincent van Gogh and Sol LeWitt. How do the different types of lines affect how you read the artwork (omit color, texture, composition and content, and just evaluate according to the types of lines each artist used).

Vincent van Gogh and Sol Lewitt both used lines in their artwork.  But they both used them a little different.  Sol LeWitt used lines by mathematical terms.  Everything was so geometrical.  Every line had a place.  Also, Sol Lewitt's work was so colorful and fun.  There was not really a mood behind them just the intelligence.  

I noticed with Vincent van Gogh's work there was more of a flow.  Lines were placed in groups but not geometrically found.  They were placed to create images such as landscapes and portraits.  His paintings had more of a mood.  When you look at his work you can feel the emotion in his work.  Also, some of van Gogh's artwork is abstract.  While Sol LeWitt's work is more, like I said before, geometrical.  In the texture of the work of Vincent van Gogh some of his lines look almost three dimensional, as if they were just laid down.  

One thing I thought was cool, was that when I was reading about Sol LeWitt, I saw that he liked to refer to his paintings as "sculptures".  I think him calling them sculptures could make us look at his art work in an abstract way.  He turned his drawings three demensional.  They look as if they were just placed on a piece of paper.

Responses:

"I agree the way LeWitt describes them as sculptures definitely could lead people to look at them as more abstract and they do appear that way compared to Van Gogh's."

"Made me wonder, what if you combined the two artist and made a strong popping environment, something beyond comprehension (4rth dimension). nonethelss, good job, definately made me think about perfect their artwork was; as well as their desire."

René Magritte’s Treason of Images

Using René Magritte’s Treason of Images, discuss how representational paintings can be more abstract than abstract paintings. You’ll need to define the differences between “representational” and “abstract.”

This is not a pipe

COLLAPSE

The book defines abstract as, "In art, the rendering of images and objects in a stylized or simplified way, so that though they remain recognizable, their formal or expressive aspects are emphasized."  It defines representational as, "Any work of art that seeks to resemble the world of natural appearence."

Rene's Treason of Images is interesting.  Without knowing what the words mean, looking at the picture you would think that this work of art that it is representational.  Well, then I looked up the words, "This is not a pipe."  I saw that some people wrote that they were unsure of what Rene meant.  I do not know if he meaning was my reaction.  I was looking at the painting with my little brother and when the words translated, I looked at him and said, "Well, duh, of course it is not a pipe.  It is clearly a painting."  In a way I still feel the painting is representational.  The words are representational, but only if you understand that you have to take them literally.  Representational paintings are abstract they make you think to figure out what is actually going on.

Responses:

"I also think this painting is quite representational because it does represent an object from everyday life. Although some might say it's abstract because the pipe does not have a physical or concrete existance, it in fact does have an existance because it is painted, and paint is very concrete. Just as Rene said himself, "this is not a pipe", it's simply a representational painting of one."

Historical Items = Art?

In the West, when we see objects made in African, Oceanic, Native American, or Asian cultures in museums, we see them as works of art.  Why is this problematic?  How were many of these objects originally “used”? How much does context have to do with how an “artwork” is “viewed?” Is graffiti any different? Explain.

When we look at these "works of art" in muesems, we do not see them for what they really are.  The are religious aspects, family heirlooms, sometimes they are recreations of something evil.  And the only thing we see is something that looks cool.  Most people do not try to get to know a work of art.  Context has a lot to do with how art work is viewed.  You could be looking at a beautiful statue, out of context.  And not know it represents the devil.  Graffiti is not different at all.  Graffiti tell a story.  It represents something you want people to know, but sometimes people take the message differently.  

Some responses I got:
"I agree, that graffiti is something that the artist wants to let people know; I also believe that its just random in some cases, like when the artist is feeling inspired to just draw something crazy with no meaning or message at all."

"I definitely agree that context has a lot to do with how art is viewed. As you said we could look at something as beautiful when really to that culture is was a symbol of something bad and evil. I also agree that graffiti is no different, it tells and story or recreates a past event but because of the stigma attached that its illegal people tend to look down upon it."

"I defintly agree with someone could be looking at a piece of art and if they dont know the context and what it truly means they have no idea why it is truly a piece of art. Just like when people sing along with songs and if they dont know what the song is trying to portray and just like the beat they have no idea what message they are sending or what the artist truly feels."

Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa

Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa (fig. 8-21) is an interesting exercise in scale, with the boatsmen and their crafts dwarfed by the scale and the immensity of the sea.  In the distance is Mt. Fuji, also dwarfed by the wave.  However, as the text tells us, the wave will collapse, while Fuji will remain.  This is significant, as it affirms the Japanese view that Mt. Fuji is everlasting, like Japan itself.  Compare this work to The Inlet of Nobuto by Hokusai (this image is not in the book -- you can find it below).  In this image, Mt. Fuji seems void of descriptive information.  Are other subjects in this image handled in a similar fashion? In each of these two works, what do you sense is the unifying theme?  Is this theme fundamental to Japanese Art?

" In this image, Mt. Fuji seems void of descriptive information.  Are other subjects in this image handled in a similar fashion?"

The image does not tell you much information.  However, the the people in this image do have information in a way.  You can see that they look hard at work.  They are not done.  Looking closer, it seems as if the people are divided into their own social classes.  Looks like maybe children are swimming,  Looks like there is a higher class lady and gentleman in the middle.  And the other are lower class people working for their living.  

"In each of these two works, what do you sense is the unifying theme?"

If I am right on dividing these people into social classes than the image of the Great Wave states that everything will come crashing down eventually.  The socail standards would change and come to an end.  Just like the Great Wave will rise to its peak and crash til it is even with the rest of the ocean.

"Is this theme fundamental to Japanese Art?"

Japanese art depicts nature and water and peace and even though I don't see peace in the images.  I think that was the point to get across.  To get peace.