Avant-Garde

When I've thought about the word “avant-garde” in the past I've always connected it movies or t.v shows with overly artsy people talking about what I saw as really bad modern art. So, I've always associated it as something negative. Our book lists the positive associations of the avant-garde, as forging ahead, breaking down barriers, caring nothing for expectations, being innovative, and challenging conventions. However it also states the its negative associations are, difficulty and incomprehensibility.

I can understand what the avant-garde means to do, by changing art as time goes on by challenging conventions. But at the same time I look at some of these works of art and I don't necessarily think that the avant-garde is always advancing art as a whole.

Just to get this out there, for the most part I can't stand a lot of modern art, and I absolutely cannot stand the topic “what is art?” because I've had that topic drilled into me so much, and the topic never goes anywhere. So, for a good portion of this quarter I'm more than likely not going to be very into/enjoying what we're reading, but I'm still going to give it a chance.

When I was going through our first reading, this is what I thought about the different examples of modern art: Mondrian's Composition with Yellow and White is not a bad painting, even though I'm not a fan of Mondrian he knew how to use color and composition in his art so I respect him; on the other hand I can't stand Marcel Duchamp, the book shows his L.H.O.O.Q painting and I understand that it's supposed to be mocking the Lisa, but my response to that is, “so, you copied a famous painting and drew a mustache on it and wrote that it has a hot ass, so what?” Duchamp is also the one who found a urinal and placed it in a gallery and had people question whether or not it's considered art. which of course there is no answer to; the other artist that I would like to point out is Damien Hirst, and I'm not entirely sure what to think of him between the diamond skull and all of the animals he has suspended in formaldehyde, such as the shark in our book or even the “unicorn.” I mean his work is really interesting, but at the same time I see it more as something that should just be in a science museum rather than as an art exhibit.

Now to move onto Manet's Luncheon on the Grass and how I think it challenges the viewer. Some of the things that Manet did that might have been considered avant-garde were, his use of brush strokes. Up until then paintings, from the Academy, had no traces of brush strokes in them. In Manet's painting he use quick brush strokes with thick paint. Because of this a lot of objects in the painting look like blobs and the painting looks more like a study rather than a completed work of art.

Another thing that Manet did was he depicted a nude of a modern prostitute, instead of depicting a classical nude, with modernly clothed men. One interesting thing about the prostitute is how she is staring out at the viewer as if you're apart of the picnic as well.

The other avent-garde challenge to conventional art that Manet put into the painting is the woman bathing in the background. Even though she's far into the background she is the same size as all of the other figures in the painting, when she should be a lot smaller. This makes the foreground/middle ground/background a bit confusing and a lot of the painting seems very flat.

What I liked the most?

During this term the type of art that I particularly enjoyed studying was, art in the 15^th century by Jan van Eyck.

Considering that I just began to study oil paints this term I have to say that the most inspirational person to read about (and see the works of) is van Eyck. Just the detail image of Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife on page 575 is enough to make me want to head over to the studio and paint. The beads hanging on the wall in particular are my favorite part of the painting. The way that van Eyck was able to show light shinning through the beads and into their shadows amazes me. Another aspect that I like about it is the weight that I feel from the beads as they hang from the nail in the wall. You can see that the thin rope is tight with their weight, but not so much that it is straining the rope or the nail.

Right after reading this chapter I actually had to paint clear beads in a still life, and even though they're no where near as incredible as van Eyck's I'm still proud of myself for being able to show light passing through them, and the little bar in the middle for the line to go through.

Another thing that I just now noticed in the detailed image is the window's reflection in the mirror. It shows the outside world a bit more than the actual window in the painting. I can't exactly tell what I see in the window's reflection, but it looks almost like a row of sunflowers. That mirror really does reflect everything from a different perspective. It's nice to be able to see the backside of the fruit, the rest of the furniture, and even all of the details on the ceiling.

(The only thing that I don't see reflected in the mirror is the dog, why wouldn't the dog be in the reflection? It's standing between the couple so it should be there.)

The other thing that is probably the most striking to me about this painting is the size of it. The whole double portrait is only 33x22 ½ inches. That strikes me so much because it's only a little bit bigger than the canvases that painting students have to use in their classes. It's insane to think that he was able to get so much detail into a canvas that's that small. And because of the amount of detail in the painting every time I look at it I see something new. Just now I noticed the stained glass design above the window, but oddly enough that too is not reflected in the mirror.