What I like in my art.

I would have to say that my art has been somewhat influenced by impressionism. I say somewhat because I'm not strictly an impressionist. Occasionally when I paint with oils I'm told that my work resembles something that Van Gogh did, or it just resembles impressionism because of the kind of brush strokes that I use.

I was told that one of my paintings from Winter term resembled Van Gogh's Irises https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhWW81Qe3RHE6pfuOjUkzPqnN-jVmsHV_IVz9sNQ3iWB_Cg-Q-iWzCgpVoK-sV7ii8vJU8SGlnD9onS_MvIxasWFrgr0WCCCmPfL_jgS_TnvOha4hzOPZQV1IYtqCKzfXfS4SnONkWed0/s1600/van-gogh-vincent-iris-2403781.jpg they said that my blades of grass are in a similar style as his. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0chi3a0GG1qhqw22o3_1280.jpg

Another painting from Winter term that I did was also semi-impressionistic. When painting it I chose to use quick brush strokes, mixing the paint on the canvas, and paying attention to light in the background. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0lamgs0IG1qhqw22o1_1280.jpg I've updated the painting since this photo was taken, so the cup, leg, beak, and foot look different, but you get the general idea of the style.

Impressionism is probably one of my favorite periods in art. When I look at a painting like this http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/26/arts/27402629.JPG by Gustave Caillebotte, I just fall in love with everything about it. The way the different colors and brush strokes are used to convey water and a light reflection, it's just absolutely beautiful! The way the colors are blended, but all stand out on their own as well. The extreme brights and darks; and the wonderful attention to detail with just a few brush strokes.

Aside from impressionism I also liked learning about pop art this term. Or more specifically the work by Roy Lichtenstein, and only him. I loved his work just because of the line quality it has, and I hope that my line quality can be that good someday. http://www.students.sbc.edu/kitchin04/artandexpression/roy2%5B1%5D.jpg

When I paint with watercolors (once the painting is dry) I normally go back over the painting with fine tip pens and create an outline for each object, as well as some descriptive lines for its form. This is probably one of my better examples from my blog http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyr9mb4jmo1qhqw22o1_1280.jpg I have a lot more than this, but the blog needs to be updated to cover all of my work from this term.

I love the black lines because they make the painting pop off of the page; up until then the colors are too dull and flat for me. Which is why I like Roy so much now, he can take those areas of flat color, and add a few different size lines around them and just make them pop off of the page. Someday I hope to be able to find some sort of balance between these two styles. If any one would like to see any other work that I've posted please feel free to check out my blog here http://amandartist.tumblr.com/ Over the next week I'm going to be updating it more to cover over the past 2 months of work that I've done.

Roy Lichtenstein

So, in the past I had heard of Pop art, and I knew of a few works of art from it, including works of art by Roy Lichtenstein, even though I didn't know his name or anything about him (aside from the use of comic book imagery in his art.) The image that I have decided to research is Thinking Nude, State 1, 1994 http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/160529/672973.jpg there is another form of this print just called Thinking Nude that has far less color in it http://roy-lichtenstein-paintings.painting-reproductions.com/image/paintings/Thinking%20nude.jpg I'm not sure if the first image is actually stage 1 of making the final print or not. And for the purposes of this post I will just be discussing Thinking Nude and not State 1.

In the Academic Journals from the library website I was unable to find information on Lichtenstein's Nude series, but on one website I was able to find a small amount of information on the subject. He made his first collection of Nudes in 1993 and used references from 1960's comic book caricatures instead of live models to create the female form. This series is similar to his other pop art works because it keeps a strict color palette, as well a two-dimensional space within the print. Around most of the nudes in this series are either geometric or curvilinear forms to compare and contrast to the female body. http://www.guyhepner.com/pieces/roy-lichtenstein-nudes-thinking-nude

One thing that struck me about the Thinking Nude is the subtle variations of line that separate her body from everything else within the composition. There are very minute changes that keep her outline separate from the outline of the pillow behind her and the blanket under her, even though the blanket and the pillow have the same color of outline and pattern in them as her body. You can even see the pillow continue lower and appear underneath her armpit, it's lined up perfectly so that the viewer can establish the connection to the rest of the pillow.

Through flat color, and absence of color, you can tell what the other objects in the print are as well. The brown rectangle in the back is a door, and the pink triangle is a bit of the floor. The tan shape in the back right corner is a dresser, and on top of it is a bowl of red and yellow fruit, along with a mirror and a drinking glass of some sort, that are pure white with only a black outline. The only object with color that I cannot recognize is the darker blue shape on the bed with her.

The bits of color on her are fascinating too, with the very light yellow used to fill in part of her hair and then the black and red dots used to describe the rest of it and keep it so that the viewer can recognize that her hair is in front of the pillow. The red on her lips is also really interesting because it's on top of the dots describing her face, I really like how it just pops into the foreground. The bits of color used to describe the blankets that she's laying on is a nice touch as well, and doesn't overpower the whole scene.

Lichtenstein did a great job portraying the female figure as well in this print. He was able to use foreshortening correctly to establish that her legs are going back into the background and to show that her right elbow is the shape that is the farthest in the foreground by giving it the thickest actual line in the whole print.

All together this style just works perfectly for me to show off the female form, and I'd have to say after looking at this print, and others by Lichtenstein, he's slowling becoming one of my new top favorite artists.

(p.s. I just looked and saw that everyone in the group so far is doing Lichtenstein lol he's popular)

Dada¿

So for this weeks blog I have decided to discuss how Dada and Surrealism changed the form, content, and concept of art. Before I begin though I am going to bring some of my own opinions on the subject to the table.

Back in my freshman year of college I had to take an art class that discussed different forms of art, and revolved around the subject. “what is art?” In that class we discussed Marcel Duchamp's work, such as the Bottle Rack, the Fountain, and his L.H.O.O.Q. We also discussed other works by Mondrian, Dali, Picasso, and even Oppenheim's Object (Luncheon in Fur.) And for every single conversation a conclusion could never be made about, “what is art?” Even when it became the discussion of what is the difference between “art” and “craft” the conversation could never come full circle.

It wasn't until we talked about Oppenheim's Luncheon in Fur that we gained an idea of how craft and art are different. With Oppenheim's Object not having a utilitarian purpose. It make look like a cup, a bowl, and a spoon, but you cannot use them in the way that you would normally use a cup, bowl, and spoon, because his are made out of fur. It changes the context of the piece and it becomes art rather than craft.

However when it came to discussing Duchamp's Fountain it completely derailed the class and we were back at square zero for figuring out what is art. I know that for that class I was furious about the idea of “ready made art” and to be honest it still upsets me to this day. (I despise Jeff Koons...)

After listening to this weeks lecture though, I finally have a bit of a perspective on the idea of Dada and found art, because of how professor Bowen brought up Duchamp's quote, “...he took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.”

Now that I've heard that quote, I have to say that I like the idea of ready made art. I like the idea of taking an object out of it's original context and placing it in a different one, changing its meaning. Though I don't necessarily like the idea of the object being a mass produced one. The thought that Duchamp could just go out and get another Fountain, practically identical to the original one and replace it in the gallery kind of bothers me.

So for Dada, I would have to say that it changed art so much that art could be anything. It doesn't have to be historic, or a study of light, or even a study of emotion. Through Dada there is no specific definition of what art isn't. At least that's the conclusion I've come to after a lot of years of listening to the subject.

As for Surrealism (or even cubism) I do consider it along the lines of Dada. Because of the unusual out of context objects that you can find in it. Like in Dali's Birth of Liquid Desires there is a white cabinet just floating up in the air with stuff running out of it. It changed art by allowing pieces to be irrational, disorderly, out of context, express sexual desires, and even analyze dreams. It even enabled art to tackled social or political issues in an uninhibited and strange new way, like with Guernica and Cubism.

And while we're on the subject, Guernica was completely ruined for me a long time ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZTDP8Ff9w

The Yellow Gauguin

I would have to say that Gauguin's painting, “The Yellow Christ” can be considered as “avant-garde” for a few reasons, that include “reference, deference, and difference.” To start though, it reminds me of a slide from this weeks lecture that had “Avant-Garde” described as : 1. Challenging authority, and 2. Displayed art with unconventional techniques and modern subjects.

When I look at “The Yellow Christ” I can see that Gauguin is doing both of these. He challenges authority by possibly having Christ be a portrait of himself, while also depicting Christ in a sickly yellow color, within a modern setting. That's not what I would call conventional for a painting of the crucifixion.The painting is also unconventional because it's full of bright, but dirty colors, and it isn't a 'study of light' like in impressionism. Instead the colors give a sad and almost sickening feeling to the painting. And again it's also unconventional because it's depicting Christ in a modern setting, for the modern theme of the struggling artist verses the public.

Here are my broken up ideas for Gauguins, “reference, defere,ce and difference.”

Reference: I see this in how Gauguin chose to depict Christ in this painting. The way Christ is posed is a very iconic and recognizable image that's related to probably a thousand other paintings around the world. It shows that Gauguin is aware, of both current and past depictions of Christ and of the crucifixion. I also see reference in the colors that he chose to use, in order to depict emotion.

Deference and Difference: I would say that both of these connect to a term to describe art from this time period, “Synthetism.” Which is, “based on the idea that art should be a synthesis of three features, the outward appearance of natural forms, the artist's feelings about his subject, and purely aesthetic considerations of line, color, and form. Within, “The Yellow Christ” I can see that Gauguin has made it so that the viewer can recognize all of the natural (and unnatural) forms in the painting. His lines for them are also exaggerated and thick in some areas, while in other areas of the painting they are under exaggerated, and barely there, if not there at all. It makes the painting distorted and focuses attention on the aesthetic, as well as focuses on Gauguin's meaning behind the painting and the feelings that it should evoke.

Caillebotte

One thing that I would like to say before I begin is that I've never heard of Caillebotte before, but I have to say that I'm now a fan of his! His paintings are wonderful! :) I love impressionism!

When it comes to the concept of modernity in Caillebotte's work I think that his art is leaning more towards critiquing modern life, but only because of the use of isolationism in his paintings. However I do think that he celebrated modern life in his paintings as well, just not as much. I can see this in his painting Fruit Displayed on a Stand. Between the vibrant colors and the abundance of the fruit it seems like he is celebrating the availability of fresh food, commerce, and trade. It's a very different painting in comparison to the other ones that I've seen. It's bright and lively, and makes it seem as if not everything is wrong in the world.

But back to the critiquing, I would have to say that Caillebotte's painting, A Traffic Island, Boulevard Haussmann is a prime example of it. In the painting he isn't celebrating the use of the space. Instead of showing it as a busy area, full of life and accomplishment, he shows it as a big and mostly empty space with a few people here and there, either going about their own business or just kind of standing around. I'm speaking of course about the 2 men standing on opposite ends of the traffic island, are they traffic officers? Because if they are they don't seem to have much of a purpose that day. Which is also odd because they are the people in the image with the highest contrast in comparison to the background, you'd think that they would be the most important part about the painting and yet they're not doing anything.

The bright background on the painting also makes it feel as if the traffic island would be a very hot place to be. There are practically no shadows in the area, so it gives off a rather unpleasant feeling, and because of that I wouldn't want to walk across it. Even though the colors are beautiful it's very stuffy. If Caillebotte was critiquing the area, I wonder if that's what he was going for. If he wanted to make the space not as grand as it actually is, and point out all of the flaws it has when it's not filled with people.

Manet and Monet

Edouard Manet, the Rue Mosnier with Flags 1878 oil on canvas

Manet's The Rue Monsier with Flags was painted in 1878 during the festival on the 30^th of June. Manet's version of the festival shows a much quieter picture then what Monet had painted that same day. In Manet's painting we see a small street brightly lit by the sun. The buildings along the street reflect the light while tricolor flags dot along them. Unlike Monet's there are only a few scattered people along the street.

In the very foreground you can see a crippled, 1 legged, war veteran in a blue coat, using crutches to walk down the street. Manet included him in this calm, and almost somber scene, as a reminder of the past, and what was sacrificed so that there even could be a celebration at all. The veteran is juxtaposed against the background, he even has a small black outline around him to help with this. (Manet was known to juxtapose extreme light and darks in his paintings.) Another example of juxtaposition in this painting is the carriage on the right side of the street.. The darkness of the carriage pops it off of the blinding white street.

One thing that makes this painting balanced is the shadowed background, in comparison to the blinding white foreground. Even though the background is covered in shadows, it's very subtle, and you can still distinguish what everything is. Where the street turns, where the people are, the large tree...etc.

.

Claude Monet the Rue of Montorgueil, Festival of 30^th June 1878 oil on canvas

Monet's the Rue of Montorgueil, Festival of 30^th June 1878 was painted on the same day as Manet's however in a very different location, with a different message. While Manet's painting is a reminder of the past, Monet's painting is looking towards a bright future, and celebrating it.

Both sides of this painting are covered in rows and rows of flags, and the street below is completely filled with people, these two elements combined create an incredibly energetic scene. This scene is also from a higher perspective than Manet's. Because of that there is a much larger sense of scale in the painting.

One interesting thing about this painting is the light and dark balance in it. Both horizontally and vertically. The lower half of the painting is much darker, and the upper half of the painting is filled with a bright blue sky. While the right half of the painting is covered with dark shadows, while the left half of the painting is a bright yellow.

Both of these paintings are considered “avant-garde” in terms of style and political views. Monet's painting ignores the war that just happens while focusing on the future. While Manet's painting makes sure to bright the past into light, and to remind the people of what happened.

Impressionism

For this formal analysis I have chosen to write about is James boot McNeill Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold, The Falling Rocket on page 1,000. Impressionism is probably one of my favorite art styles (and artistic periods) so I had a hard time on deciding what painting to write about. But I've never seen any of Whistler's art before, so I figured that I would write about something new and fascinating to me.

Whistler's Nocturne was painted in 1875, is 22 ¾ x 18 3/8 in, and its medium is oil on panel. The first thing to notice about Whistler's painting is how dark the whole thing is. Aside from small bits of very bright yellow, red, and green fireworks there is very little color or light in the painting. The painting is very muted and has an almost haunting feel to it.

The different variants of blacks in the painting range from green to blue in color. On the left side of the painting the viewer can see a very large black shape taking up most of the length of the canvas. However near the bottom of this shape is a break, where one of the brightest shapes is located in the painting. This light shape is symmetrical (horizontally) and suggest where the lake starts and ends. The viewer can also tell where the lake starts because there is a line of horizontal brushstrokes all the way across the canvas. Though a lot of it is hard to see because the dark color of the strokes, blend in with the area above the lake. However there are a lot of very noticeable, long, vertical brushstrokes in the background, to help separate the different areas in the painting.

In the foreground you can see that several ghostly (transparent) figures of women are sitting on the curved lake bank watching the fireworks. Whistler loved to do abstract imagery in his paintings, but I wonder if these semi transparent figures look the way they do because of the smoke from the fireworks? Could the haze actually just be a lot of smoke causing the figures to look strange along the bank? There even just appears to be the shadow of a figure reflecting onto the bank and on the water in the lower right corner of the painting.

Nocturne, even though it is a very dark painting, has a good sense of scale and depth to it, for two reasons. One reason being that the painting is in a vertical format and that the figures in the foreground are so close to the bottom of the painting it focuses the viewer's attention on the very large landscape filled with shadows, smoke, and fireworks. The other reason being that, the viewer is not quite sure what objects are advancing or retreating in the painting. It gives a sense of mystery and I think it's up to the viewer to decide what exactly is in the background .

The limited color in Nocturne provides a strong contrast in the painting. With the wavy groups of light, gold, dots from the fireworks falling out of the sky towards the lake, surrounded by much darker areas. Some of these golden dots even get larger in the size the closer they get to the foreground in the painting. These gold dots work well with the vertical format of the painting because the viewer can see that they are falling from a pretty good distance. The viewer can also see that in contrast to the golden dots there is also smoke rising up towards the top of the painting around the falling dots.

Along with the golden bits of light, there is also a small grouping of much larger red, green and yellow lights at the very top of the painting. I think that these are supposed to be other fireworks off in the distance, but I'm not entirely sure. What I can say though is that Whistler illuminated them so that they look as if their insides are glowing, though they're not producing any light around them.