In figure 1.3 by Sandro Bolticelli, The Birth of Venus caught my eye. I really like the colors he used and how the picture is balanced and draws you toward the women in the center of the painting. It's almost as if you can see her being created by these floating images on each side of her. There is so much going on in this picture it kind of takes you away from her not wearing any clothes. I defiantly feel this piece is a form of idealized art, because I feel he's trying to create a perfect image of a women and his interpretation of a perfect women.
During the lecture, the work, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews by Thomas Gainsborough caught my eye the most. It looks so natural, as if it's about to rain as the clouds gather up and they're not even prepared. Everything looks so natural, and detailed. it's detailed to the point where you can see every leave on the tree, and almost touch the bark on the tree (illusionary). This piece shows a great example of showing visual texture, on a flat surface. Gainsborough did a great job shading, it made the piece seem like a window to the outside world, natural.
Although it was presented today that all art could be considered political in it's function, I would like to raise the question or whether or not it was the artist's intention to be political. Another question Rose Cherie brought up as well: Can art be appreciated without knowing its history? In looking at the print of Kathe Kolliwitz, "Memorial to Karl Liebkneicht" it is clear the piece is politically motivated since Liebkneicht was an assassinated leader of a Socialist Revolutionary party. However, when we look at Jackson Pollock's "Autumn Leaves" there is no indication of political intent. When the history is revealed (that the piece was used after the war by our government to entice Western Europeans to America), then you know how it is tied to politics. So, to answer Rose Cherie's question about whether or not it is important to know the history of the piece to appreciate it, I think that while a piece can be interesting enough on its own, knowing the history enhances the appreciation and the experience of the piece.
Although the painting "Autumn Leaves", by Jackson Pollock and Pollock's numerous other paintings may have been used as political material, I question whether Pollock in his original thought, had any political intent in his works. It seems that Pollock's work were a convienient happenstance for the political climate of the time. The political climate of the time is clearly the instrument which served to elevate Pollock's works to a political level. The politicization of Pollock's work is what imbued Pollock's work with their political elements.
The painting that caught my eye in figure 2.31 "Churning of the Ocean of Milk." From the texture of the stones to the activity in the picture, i feel the work really comes to life. Taking a close look into the shot it looks like the men are doing labor for the village and the woman are praying. The eccentric dance style gave me the impression that there is some type of worshiping ceremony taking place.
Andy Warhol's silkscreen on canvas of "Marilyn Diptych" raised the most interest to me during the lecture. Although arguably the art itself did not require as much skills or technique as other artists discussed such as Jan Van Eyck's "Man in a Red Turban," but i enjoyed the discussion the Warhol's artwork created in class. From my memory i believe this artwork had the longest discussion during class just about its historical context, its influence on modern art, and its message. His intentions behind the use of color and balance of the brightness across the artwork raised many questions to me. Just from the title "Marilyn Diptych," it can be assumed to reflect her life, and i admire how Warhol is able to express her life and career in film just through this simple silkscreen. The class critiquest help me broaden my perspective of art even if it is just some repetitive image on silkscreen.
There was one class discussion in particular that caught my attention. We were discussing the piece titled "Fountain" by Duchamp. There is definitely humor behind this piece and I love humor in art because sometimes people can get so stuck up when viewing artwork. Like it was said on the first day of class, what is art? and who decides? I think Duchamp was just playing by his own rules and if he calls it art then can anyone really question him? "Art for art's sake" is a wonderful expression and I feel that the statement sums up Duchamp's work very well.
Todays lecture was pretty alluring. Now i know the basic information about architecture and hat some religious buildings are more complex then beyond how they appear to my naked eyes. The geometric strucures, material it takes to construct it and also its shape and size...I enjoyed the dicussion about the stongehenge and its arch components that originated in England around 2000BCE when regligion and science was united as one understanding natural forces.
Ok, so it was asserted today that the ancient Egyptians did not use or developed the concept of the arch. Well I found that argument to be somewhat very improbable. So I did some research. Here is what I found. the concept of the arch can be traced to ancient Egypt as far back as 2467 BCE, a period known as the,"golden age" or the "Old Kingdom". Numerous uses of arches are found during that period. Some of these arches are what is known as false arches. A false arch is simple an arch which has been carved out, for example an arch in a tunnel. However, the ancient Egyptians also constructed what are called true arches. As we know true arches have voussoir, keystones and buttresses as parts of their main components. Examples of these true arches have been discovered throughout ancient Egypt. Arches spanning 3 to 13 feet have been discoverd at the Great Mastaba of Beit Kallaf, at Ramesseum, at Sheshonq, at El-Asasif, at Thebes and at several other sites. Although the ancient Egyptian understood the concept of the true arch, It appears that the ancient Egyptians did not find arches to be architecturally significant-and did not systematically use arches in their constructions. Most of the arches discovered so far are small compared to the much larger arches of ancient Rome. The Romans systematic use of arches in their buidings earned them historic distinction.
I am still thinking about the Maysles Brothers film, 'Valley Fence'. Thoughts and questions: Did Christos's intentionality shift/evolve from, say, this project installed in 1975, to The Gates installation in Central Park in 2006? Experience being the great teacher here, what did he learn from the California earthwork (and subsequent ones) that altered his approach to the New York CIty one? Was one 'greater' art than the other? (Or is 'greater art' even a concept? Is art measurable?) Is originality of thought, a never-done-before, the important factor here? Or is it, again, the installation and 'process' itself? Is there a difference?
The length of both earthworks is almost exactly the same, 24 miles vs 23 miles and change in Central Park. Was 24 a magic number for Christos? I had imagined the California land and its modulations being the defining factor of the length, fitting the project according to the land. But the similarity of number here, in two very different land spaces, cannot go unnoticed.
I read that Christos had the Central Park project in the works for 26 years! Certainly costs changed during those 21 intervening years: the bases, leveling plates, the posts, fabric, and, of course, the assemblage all increased, bringing The Gates budget to $20 million (that was the 2005 number; I do not know the final cost), up quite a bit from Valley Fence's $3 million. However, seeing that there were many young people involved in the installation of the California work, and personally remembering the times as one where young people were heavily involved in social concerns and projects, most often voluntarily, I would imagine assemblage costs there were a fraction of the New York's.
Also, Christos alone underwrote the entire Gates project. Surprisingly, he accepted no grants, nor city nor private donations. This financial burden forced Christos into the studio for very long hours for many months, cranking out numerous sketches and paingings of individual Gates in the park, generating from $30,000. to $600,000. each. Why did he choose this, taking it all upon himself? Was that part of the process as well? Is that called 'suffering' or was that an act of inspired creation? Or both? Must artists suffer?
Another similarity of the two projects was Jeanne-Claude as "Frontman". Just as she was doing in town meetings and in the telephone booth call in the movie, she was the spokesperson for The Gates, fielding politicians, press and investors questions and concerns. Was it the softness inside her French accent that made her the more effective one, the Voice? or at least designate her to that role? That was my idea as I watched Christos feeding her questions to ask as she spoke in the phone booth. Reading about The Gates and J-C's guarding and protectiveness of her husband reaffirmed that thought for me.
During the lecture the work in which stuck out to me was weatfield of Crows. this particularly stood out to me because of its meaning. When first looking at it one would assume that the artist was an amatuer or just didnt get to finish the painting. However once knowing the history behind it and the actual types of paintings that exist one can derive meaning. When figuring out that the painter Vincent Vango commits suicide after he painted this picture the road ending all of a sudden makes so much more since. As does the crows in which are known for destroying wheat fields and causing problems with the crops. it kinda makes you consider life like your the wheat and alll your problems are the birds coming down on you to eat or destroy you. Makes you wonder what he was going through while painting such.
The one architectural piece that caught my eye the most was The Temple of Kukulcan at Chichen Itza, that was presented by one of the groups in class. The piece itself is so magnificent, especially to think about what time period it was built in and how the Myans with what little technology they had created such large meaningful structures. One of the group members who presented the piece asked the class do you believe the Myans were genius'? And in my opinion they were. I cannot think of one modern building today that is built to where that only two days of the year the sun casts a specific shadow on one side, maybe I don't know any due to my lack of knowledge and I most definitely recognize the fact that society today has changed dramatically but my point is the Myans didn't just build a building, they didn't just build it for religious sacrifices, there was so much more thought put into to the process and thats what intrigued me the most about this piece. How each side of the steps had 90 steps or so except for one side which had one less to equal 365 steps like the calender. I guess no one will ever know if that is fully the reason for that many steps but it is a huge coincidence. Also the fact that the shadow casted on one side only happens 2 days a year and it is such a big event and the fact it has this religious meaning intrigues me even more. I believe everyone thinks the Myans did it on purpose and I believe they did but I wonder how they figured out that would happen? How did they figure out that if they built the temple a certain way that shadows will be casted twice a year? Its fascinating to me! I find it even more interesting that the temple also surrounds the conspiracy of 2012 which is always and interesting topic to me.
Looking at the structural piece itself you see the early elements of architecture that was discussed in the lecture later that day. You could see the construction of the building on top that was intended for sacrifices and how it used the early method of post and lintel to construct it. As well as the geometric pattern that surrounded each level of the temple. It contributes to the temple intrigues me.
The Film that we watched in class today 'Valley Fence' by The Maysles Brothers, was a very interesting documentary on Christos's land art. I feel like this documentary gave his art a real deeper meaning of it. I feel like if Christos didn’t go through all the trouble with the government and the entire struggle with the people saying no that it isn’t art makes this land art even more special. I don’t see this as a simple sheet going through the town. I see this as a unity of hard work. This isn’t just about how beautiful it looks this art work was to show what people can get done by working together and have patience.
After watching the film in class today, "Valley Fence" by the Maysles Brothers my whole idea of what I thought to be Art was shifted. The film made me realize that the process to making art is part of the art itself. In a sense it made me feel as if the struggles of the process to make the Art are actually a part of the Art itself;therefore, I believe that we are all artist's because our Art is the life we struggle through every day. However I personally always viewed Art as an object but after watching the film I quickly realized that art isn't always what you can see or touch sometimes its the story and the struggle that created the masterpiece in the first place. I also loved how the movie gave the viewer a sense of unity and a sense of hope and wonder as they showed us how beautiful working together can be.
Yesterday's lecture changed my whole mindset of columns. I always thought columns were just columns, now i can actaully see the art in columns. I've learned that the design of columns tell the audience what time period the columns were made. The dordian for example, was the first of the three columns we learned about. I didn't really realize it was the oldest until i was informed of the very plain designs on the capital. Then from reading the textbook, I began to realize how the new coulmns' capitals started to take a design, which showed how that the latter columns were more fancy and innovative. A very interesting thing i learned so far was the concept of the arcade. When I think of arcade, I think of a place to play street fighter or dance dance revolution, but now I can make a connection with the video game arcade to that of a structural arcade. So now that when I go to play street fighter at an arcade, I would think of how maybe the aesthetics of an ancient arcade was taken into consideration when building the street figther in an arcade.
While I was watching the beginning of "Valley Fence" in class today, I was thinking the exact same thing as the man in the film who had said that he could hang up a piece of cloth and call it art too. When I saw the finished product, and all the work that was put into it by the members of the community as well as the artists themselves, I couldn't argue that this wasn't art. The curtains were majestic in the water and wind, and the sheer length of it was mind blowing. After viewing the film, I understand that art isn't just the finished product itself, but the toil and process of creation by the artist(s).
In this chapter, I took a very close look at fig. 2.37 about the black and white Chinese wood frame system. The art of constructing this building shows where the Chinese valued their homes. They were not concerned with elaborate walls or hallways or rooms since if you walked into these buildings, you would not see anything but columns holding up the roof as the barebones of the structure. Rather, if you entered a building and looked up, you would see a very elaborate and detailed roof system. The Chinese focused and dedicated the most time to constructing a very detailed roof system using various beams and notching the wood to make brackets to interlock the whole system. These roofs had much detail to them and would probably be painted since most, if not all, these roof systems were exposed and seen to those walking under. Many cabin like homes in our society in the country with exposed roofs have a nice detailed roof system; however not as great as the Chinese. We can only marvel, here in the western world, on the dedication and fine art of chinese architecture.
During the lecture the work that caught my eye the most was Wheatfield with Clouds. This painting has a dark and mysterious vibe to it and learning the background of the artist helps you understand the painting more. The road that stops suddenly in the middle of the field is very significant because as we learned, Van Gogh committed suicide right after he painted this it kind of symbolizes the end of life. This painting does not have smooth or elegant strokes which make me believe that he was very angry or frustrated when he painted this. I found this painting and the background of the artist to be very interesting.
I chose El Castillo elevated view Chichen Itza, Mexico. It applyes to Art and Architecture.I say its art because we do not have any new pyramids usually the ones we have are ancient and back then they did not have the same materials as now to build a pyramid and its surprising to see this work today. Its architecture form would be a load bearing structure it is wide from the bottom and it gets smaller as it goes higher with a row of stairs in its four sides. It is a very strong pyramid made of stones and what is interesting about it is that in the spring and fall you can see the shadow of the stairs like a descending serpent it is located in Mexico and maybe one day I would like to visit on the family summer vacation.
The more I think about the question posed in class the first day ("what is art?"), the more confused I become. Although I knew that art could be found in many different mediums such sculptures and even random objects I never considered the actual earth as art. It makes sense to use the earth to create such masterpieces since most of art comes from natural substances. I think that using the earth as your canvas is not only beautiful esthetically but creates deeper meaning in the art. The earth is always changing making the piece unique for every individual that views it. I think that this by far is the most beautiful and inspiring medium to work with even if it is just moving around some rocks or hanging up couple miles of curtains.
I think that one of the most significant topics covered in the chapter relating to architecture is the change in building materials and general approach to architecture. Architecture seems to have taken a turn towards being minimalistic, shown in the Seagram building in NYC. Maybe it's unfair but comparing this type of building to something like the Cathedral of Dubrovanik shows how much more detail was put into the earlier constructions. I understand that it is probably just the natural evolution of what people feel newly built structures should look like. I for one would not mind seeing more structures constructed similarly to things built during the time of the Romans. Updated with steel reinforcements of course.
Before taking this class I was what you might call a "Pollock hater". I would see his art on the news or in media and would immediately become frustrated. Who does this guy think he is? That doesn’t even make any sense. There’s no thought involved in the composition at all! People are reading into it simply because it’s different! While I still get frustrated at some modern, seemingly purposeless art, I at least give it a chance now. I think that the theme of this week, “Language of Art” is key in understanding these pieces. Even thought I may not speak the language of Pollock or Picasso, it doesn’t mean the words don’t make any sense.
In figure 1.3 by Sandro Bolticelli, The Birth of Venus caught my eye. I really like the colors he used and how the picture is balanced and draws you toward the women in the center of the painting. It's almost as if you can see her being created by these floating images on each side of her. There is so much going on in this picture it kind of takes you away from her not wearing any clothes. I defiantly feel this piece is a form of idealized art, because I feel he's trying to create a perfect image of a women and his interpretation of a perfect women.
ReplyDeleteGina V.
During the lecture, the work, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews by Thomas Gainsborough caught my eye the most. It looks so natural, as if it's about to rain as the clouds gather up and they're not even prepared. Everything looks so natural, and detailed. it's detailed to the point where you can see every leave on the tree, and almost touch the bark on the tree (illusionary). This piece shows a great example of showing visual texture, on a flat surface. Gainsborough did a great job shading, it made the piece seem like a window to the outside world, natural.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was presented today that all art could be considered political in it's function, I would like to raise the question or whether or not it was the artist's intention to be political. Another question Rose Cherie brought up as well: Can art be appreciated without knowing its history? In looking at the print of Kathe Kolliwitz, "Memorial to Karl Liebkneicht" it is clear the piece is politically motivated since Liebkneicht was an assassinated leader of a Socialist Revolutionary party. However, when we look at Jackson Pollock's "Autumn Leaves" there is no indication of political intent. When the history is revealed (that the piece was used after the war by our government to entice Western Europeans to America), then you know how it is tied to politics. So, to answer Rose Cherie's question about whether or not it is important to know the history of the piece to appreciate it, I think that while a piece can be interesting enough on its own, knowing the history enhances the appreciation and the experience of the piece.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the painting "Autumn Leaves", by Jackson Pollock and Pollock's numerous other paintings may have been used as political material, I question whether Pollock in his original thought, had any political intent in his works. It seems that Pollock's work were a convienient happenstance for the political climate of the time. The political climate of the time is clearly the instrument which served to elevate Pollock's works to a political level. The politicization of Pollock's work is what imbued Pollock's work with their political elements.
ReplyDeleteThe painting that caught my eye in figure 2.31 "Churning of the Ocean of Milk." From the texture of the stones to the activity in the picture, i feel the work really comes to life. Taking a close look into the shot it looks like the men are doing labor for the village and the woman are praying. The eccentric dance style gave me the impression that there is some type of worshiping ceremony taking place.
ReplyDeleteAndy Warhol's silkscreen on canvas of "Marilyn Diptych" raised the most interest to me during the lecture. Although arguably the art itself did not require as much skills or technique as other artists discussed such as Jan Van Eyck's "Man in a Red Turban," but i enjoyed the discussion the Warhol's artwork created in class. From my memory i believe this artwork had the longest discussion during class just about its historical context, its influence on modern art, and its message. His intentions behind the use of color and balance of the brightness across the artwork raised many questions to me. Just from the title "Marilyn Diptych," it can be assumed to reflect her life, and i admire how Warhol is able to express her life and career in film just through this simple silkscreen. The class critiquest help me broaden my perspective of art even if it is just some repetitive image on silkscreen.
ReplyDeleteMotohiro Yamada
There was one class discussion in particular that caught my attention. We were discussing the piece titled "Fountain" by Duchamp. There is definitely humor behind this piece and I love humor in art because sometimes people can get so stuck up when viewing artwork. Like it was said on the first day of class, what is art? and who decides? I think Duchamp was just playing by his own rules and if he calls it art then can anyone really question him? "Art for art's sake" is a wonderful expression and I feel that the statement sums up Duchamp's work very well.
ReplyDeleteKatie Chappell
Todays lecture was pretty alluring. Now i know the basic information about architecture and hat some religious buildings are more complex then beyond how they appear to my naked eyes. The geometric strucures, material it takes to construct it and also its shape and size...I enjoyed the dicussion about the stongehenge and its arch components that originated in England around 2000BCE when regligion and science was united as one understanding natural forces.
ReplyDeleteErika Beck
Ok, so it was asserted today that the ancient Egyptians did not use or developed the concept of the arch. Well I found that argument to be somewhat very improbable. So I did some research. Here is what I found. the concept of the arch can be traced to ancient Egypt as far back as 2467 BCE, a period known as the,"golden age" or the "Old Kingdom". Numerous uses of arches are found during that period. Some of these arches are what is known as false arches. A false arch is simple an arch which has been carved out, for example an arch in a tunnel. However, the ancient Egyptians also constructed what are called true arches. As we know true arches have voussoir, keystones and buttresses as parts of their main components. Examples of these true arches have been discovered throughout ancient Egypt. Arches spanning 3 to 13 feet have been discoverd at the Great Mastaba of Beit Kallaf, at Ramesseum, at Sheshonq, at El-Asasif, at Thebes and at several other sites. Although the ancient Egyptian understood the concept of the true arch, It appears that the ancient Egyptians did not find arches to be architecturally significant-and did not systematically use arches in their constructions. Most of the arches discovered so far are small compared to the much larger arches of ancient Rome. The Romans systematic use of arches in their buidings earned them historic distinction.
ReplyDeleteI am still thinking about the Maysles Brothers film, 'Valley Fence'. Thoughts and questions: Did Christos's intentionality shift/evolve from, say, this project installed in 1975, to The Gates installation in Central Park in 2006? Experience being the great teacher here, what did he learn from the California earthwork (and subsequent ones) that altered his approach to the New York CIty one? Was one 'greater' art than the other? (Or is 'greater art' even a concept? Is art measurable?) Is originality of thought, a never-done-before, the important factor here? Or is it, again, the installation and 'process' itself? Is there a difference?
ReplyDeleteThe length of both earthworks is almost exactly the same, 24 miles vs 23 miles and change in Central Park. Was 24 a magic number for Christos? I had imagined the California land and its modulations being the defining factor of the length, fitting the project according to the land. But the similarity of number here, in two very different land spaces, cannot go unnoticed.
I read that Christos had the Central Park project in the works for 26 years! Certainly costs changed during those 21 intervening years: the bases, leveling plates, the posts, fabric, and, of course, the assemblage all increased, bringing The Gates budget to $20 million (that was the 2005 number; I do not know the final cost), up quite a bit from Valley Fence's $3 million. However, seeing that there were many young people involved in the installation of the California work, and personally remembering the times as one where young people were heavily involved in social concerns and projects, most often voluntarily, I would imagine assemblage costs there were a fraction of the New York's.
Also, Christos alone underwrote the entire Gates project. Surprisingly, he accepted no grants, nor city nor private donations. This financial burden forced Christos into the studio for very long hours for many months, cranking out numerous sketches and paingings of individual Gates in the park, generating from $30,000. to $600,000. each. Why did he choose this, taking it all upon himself? Was that part of the process as well? Is that called 'suffering' or was that an act of inspired creation? Or both? Must artists suffer?
Another similarity of the two projects was Jeanne-Claude as "Frontman". Just as she was doing in town meetings and in the telephone booth call in the movie, she was the spokesperson for The Gates, fielding politicians, press and investors questions and concerns. Was it the softness inside her French accent that made her the more effective one, the Voice? or at least designate her to that role? That was my idea as I watched Christos feeding her questions to ask as she spoke in the phone booth. Reading about The Gates and J-C's guarding and protectiveness of her husband reaffirmed that thought for me.
What do you think?
During the lecture the work in which stuck out to me was weatfield of Crows. this particularly stood out to me because of its meaning. When first looking at it one would assume that the artist was an amatuer or just didnt get to finish the painting. However once knowing the history behind it and the actual types of paintings that exist one can derive meaning. When figuring out that the painter Vincent Vango commits suicide after he painted this picture the road ending all of a sudden makes so much more since. As does the crows in which are known for destroying wheat fields and causing problems with the crops. it kinda makes you consider life like your the wheat and alll your problems are the birds coming down on you to eat or destroy you. Makes you wonder what he was going through while painting such.
ReplyDeleteKandis chappell
The one architectural piece that caught my eye the most was The Temple of Kukulcan at Chichen Itza, that was presented by one of the groups in class. The piece itself is so magnificent, especially to think about what time period it was built in and how the Myans with what little technology they had created such large meaningful structures. One of the group members who presented the piece asked the class do you believe the Myans were genius'? And in my opinion they were. I cannot think of one modern building today that is built to where that only two days of the year the sun casts a specific shadow on one side, maybe I don't know any due to my lack of knowledge and I most definitely recognize the fact that society today has changed dramatically but my point is the Myans didn't just build a building, they didn't just build it for religious sacrifices, there was so much more thought put into to the process and thats what intrigued me the most about this piece. How each side of the steps had 90 steps or so except for one side which had one less to equal 365 steps like the calender. I guess no one will ever know if that is fully the reason for that many steps but it is a huge coincidence. Also the fact that the shadow casted on one side only happens 2 days a year and it is such a big event and the fact it has this religious meaning intrigues me even more. I believe everyone thinks the Myans did it on purpose and I believe they did but I wonder how they figured out that would happen? How did they figure out that if they built the temple a certain way that shadows will be casted twice a year? Its fascinating to me! I find it even more interesting that the temple also surrounds the conspiracy of 2012 which is always and interesting topic to me.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the structural piece itself you see the early elements of architecture that was discussed in the lecture later that day. You could see the construction of the building on top that was intended for sacrifices and how it used the early method of post and lintel to construct it. As well as the geometric pattern that surrounded each level of the temple. It contributes to the temple intrigues me.
Erika Bonksy
The Film that we watched in class today 'Valley Fence' by The Maysles Brothers, was a very interesting documentary on Christos's land art. I feel like this documentary gave his art a real deeper meaning of it. I feel like if Christos didn’t go through all the trouble with the government and the entire struggle with the people saying no that it isn’t art makes this land art even more special. I don’t see this as a simple sheet going through the town. I see this as a unity of hard work. This isn’t just about how beautiful it looks this art work was to show what people can get done by working together and have patience.
ReplyDeleteDavid Moussa
After watching the film in class today, "Valley Fence" by the Maysles Brothers my whole idea of what I thought to be Art was shifted. The film made me realize that the process to making art is part of the art itself. In a sense it made me feel as if the struggles of the process to make the Art are actually a part of the Art itself;therefore, I believe that we are all artist's because our Art is the life we struggle through every day. However I personally always viewed Art as an object but after watching the film I quickly realized that art isn't always what you can see or touch sometimes its the story and the struggle that created the masterpiece in the first place. I also loved how the movie gave the viewer a sense of unity and a sense of hope and wonder as they showed us how beautiful working together can be.
ReplyDeleteArash Paziresh
Yesterday's lecture changed my whole mindset of columns. I always thought columns were just columns, now i can actaully see the art in columns. I've learned that the design of columns tell the audience what time period the columns were made. The dordian for example, was the first of the three columns we learned about. I didn't really realize it was the oldest until i was informed of the very plain designs on the capital. Then from reading the textbook, I began to realize how the new coulmns' capitals started to take a design, which showed how that the latter columns were more fancy and innovative. A very interesting thing i learned so far was the concept of the arcade. When I think of arcade, I think of a place to play street fighter or dance dance revolution, but now I can make a connection with the video game arcade to that of a structural arcade. So now that when I go to play street fighter at an arcade, I would think of how maybe the aesthetics of an ancient arcade was taken into consideration when building the street figther in an arcade.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Velasco
While I was watching the beginning of "Valley Fence" in class today, I was thinking the exact same thing as the man in the film who had said that he could hang up a piece of cloth and call it art too. When I saw the finished product, and all the work that was put into it by the members of the community as well as the artists themselves, I couldn't argue that this wasn't art. The curtains were majestic in the water and wind, and the sheer length of it was mind blowing. After viewing the film, I understand that art isn't just the finished product itself, but the toil and process of creation by the artist(s).
ReplyDelete-Daniel Park
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, I took a very close look at fig. 2.37 about the black and white Chinese wood frame system. The art of constructing this building shows where the Chinese valued their homes. They were not concerned with elaborate walls or hallways or rooms since if you walked into these buildings, you would not see anything but columns holding up the roof as the barebones of the structure. Rather, if you entered a building and looked up, you would see a very elaborate and detailed roof system. The Chinese focused and dedicated the most time to constructing a very detailed roof system using various beams and notching the wood to make brackets to interlock the whole system. These roofs had much detail to them and would probably be painted since most, if not all, these roof systems were exposed and seen to those walking under. Many cabin like homes in our society in the country with exposed roofs have a nice detailed roof system; however not as great as the Chinese. We can only marvel, here in the western world, on the dedication and fine art of chinese architecture.
ReplyDeleteDuring the lecture the work that caught my eye the most was Wheatfield with Clouds. This painting has a dark and mysterious vibe to it and learning the background of the artist helps you understand the painting more. The road that stops suddenly in the middle of the field is very significant because as we learned, Van Gogh committed suicide right after he painted this it kind of symbolizes the end of life. This painting does not have smooth or elegant strokes which make me believe that he was very angry or frustrated when he painted this. I found this painting and the background of the artist to be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteShavette
I chose El Castillo elevated view Chichen Itza, Mexico. It applyes to Art and Architecture.I say its art because we do not have any new pyramids usually the ones we have are ancient and back then they did not have the same materials as now to build a pyramid and its surprising to see this work today. Its architecture form would be a load bearing structure it is wide from the bottom and it gets smaller as it goes higher with a row of stairs in its four sides. It is a very strong pyramid made of stones and what is interesting about it is that in the spring and fall you can see the shadow of the stairs like a descending serpent it is located in Mexico and maybe one day I would like to visit on the family summer vacation.
ReplyDelete-Jose Garcia
The more I think about the question posed in class the first day ("what is art?"), the more confused I become. Although I knew that art could be found in many different mediums such sculptures and even random objects I never considered the actual earth as art. It makes sense to use the earth to create such masterpieces since most of art comes from natural substances. I think that using the earth as your canvas is not only beautiful esthetically but creates deeper meaning in the art. The earth is always changing making the piece unique for every individual that views it. I think that this by far is the most beautiful and inspiring medium to work with even if it is just moving around some rocks or hanging up couple miles of curtains.
ReplyDelete-Liz Valencia
I think that one of the most significant topics covered in the chapter relating to architecture is the change in building materials and general approach to architecture. Architecture seems to have taken a turn towards being minimalistic, shown in the Seagram building in NYC. Maybe it's unfair but comparing this type of building to something like the Cathedral of Dubrovanik shows how much more detail was put into the earlier constructions. I understand that it is probably just the natural evolution of what people feel newly built structures should look like. I for one would not mind seeing more structures constructed similarly to things built during the time of the Romans. Updated with steel reinforcements of course.
ReplyDeleteProfessor:::The ideal body
ReplyDeletehttp://freddyo.com/media/wpmu/uploads/blogs.dir/1/files/2009/04/amber-rose-10-11.jpg
Before taking this class I was what you might call a "Pollock hater". I would see his art on the news or in media and would immediately become frustrated. Who does this guy think he is? That doesn’t even make any sense. There’s no thought involved in the composition at all! People are reading into it simply because it’s different! While I still get frustrated at some modern, seemingly purposeless art, I at least give it a chance now. I think that the theme of this week, “Language of Art” is key in understanding these pieces. Even thought I may not speak the language of Pollock or Picasso, it doesn’t mean the words don’t make any sense.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete