module 12

            I selected the video the power of art.  I’ve heard about Rothkos art before, but only seen it on occasion.  I was glad I could get some further insight.  Rothko was a painter who’d “spent so much time in the realm of death that he killed himself”.  Quite a way to start a video.  When you take a look at some of the painting, you can read see this.  As an abstract painter, Rothkos suicide might leave some too solemn to view his works, which were in stark contrast to much of the more lively art at the time.  Mostly, art was bright and popish, and Rothkos art was not.  His suicide did bring up some interest into his art, and the art of other solemn pieces of the same nature.  Even the lighting in Rothkos works room was to be kept low, which also helped set the mood.  The Dark reds/purples were really allowed to cut deep into your psyche without the reprieve of lighting.  Interesting that Seagrams would enlist such a dark painter to do the décor in their headquarters, although Mark was in his prime.  Rothko questioned, as did many others, how far art can take us, how much effect can it put over us. At 2.5 million offer, Rothko took an uncanny amount of time before accepting the offer.  Even Rothkos early art was dark and bleak.  Interesting to see that Rotchko felt his art was not an expression of his own feelings, but of the world for what it is.  Many artists express themselves.  Rotchko focused on the dark nature of the simplest of human emotions, but objectively, not out of his own heart.  Matisses “Red Studio” had an impact on Rotcko, and you can really see if you look into Rothkos art as to why.  Thebook mentions Rothko in a very minimal way.  It shows Rothkos painting orange and yellow, 1956, which is lighter than many of Rothkos other works.  It makes no mention of the real dark, dreary nature of most of his paintings, but does show us a different version of several of his other works.  The fields of color with a constant, hazy border is still present.  At times is seems to me that while Rothko claimed to not be displaying any inner feelings, I believe he had some serious psychological issues.  This is reinforced by the fact that he spoke a desire to have people negatively effected, influenced by the darkness of his works.  He wanted them to feel the despair and sadness of the world.  Others not being overwhelmed by these feelings caused Rothko personal anguish.  The film showed a strong opinion of the artist without questioning any of his positions.  I think it would have done well to do so at least a little considering how deep into the person of Mark Rothko as it did.

            The second video I watched was Uncertainty:modernity and Art.  After exploring Rothkos realm I felt slightly engrained and interested in an aspect which showcased depravity and chaos, a realm of art I’d only slightly explored in the past. (Chapmans' Fucking Hell)  The title drew me in, being similar in material or not.  5 yards of red, interesting and compared to Greek sculptures, a unique view.  The fil begins by showcasing many of the differences in modern society vs classical society relative to cultural cohesion and uniformity.  Moving onto specificities, Picassos works are cited, referencing a change to abstract visions.  Hitler and the Nazis identifying modern art as a perversion is a very interesting concept to me.  The idea that things are not concrete and life is always changing and true, however in a sense we dictate the differences and uniformity in our lives.  Creating a world of consistency and uniformity is just as likely and real as a world of realistic art.  Art seems to come from a form of our society, a display or our feelings and current political fervor.  This is interesting and supported by the different art based on the governmental scheme possessed by the different major factions prior to and during WWII.  Abstract art seems to be the anti-realism.  To say a truth is in abstract art, is purely subjective.  While subjectivity is an interesting topic, no one can say that they mean any more or less than realistic art.  How can one understand abstract art?  However they want.  What type of art is more true?  Is open mindedness truly good?  Is it bad?  Is it subjective.  The book shows some of the differences in art, from photographic to digital, but says nothing about the nazi views on art.  Also the book really goes into little detail about some possible causes (modularity)  of the transition, but rather of what modern art is.  This was an interesting video, but slightly chaotic.  It didn’t really follow a constant theme, besides the theme of chaos and difference, which is exactly what contemporary art is.    

A talk with the twelve

       The theme of my art exhibit is the Greek Gods.  I called my exhibit "a talk with the twelve".  I have always been a fan of the ancient greek and roman cultures, and I'm a big fan of the sculptures they created.  I think this work took an enourmous amount of skill and find it just a fun topic.  I called my exhibit a talk with the twelve because there are twelve major greek gods.  I would put some conversation in the pamphlets for the exhibit, and reference some of the detail about each specific God.  Since the Greeks often went to temples with sculpts of the Gods I think it would be a cool way to kind of take a trip into their shoes.  The sclupts were massive and designed to be more than human.  THis is referenced in one of our weekly videos 'more human than human", and really being able to look into a sculpted face of a God could almost alow you to picture them in an earthly and very comprehendable way as opposed to just the theory.  Finally, I included some much more modern versions of the greek sculpts.  Typically, when we think of sculpts of the Gods we think of old chizzled marble.  When you toss in some totally contemporary and abstract versions I think it creates a very unique juxtoposition that I thought was an original idea so I ran with it.  I can understand it may not 'mesh' the exhibit as well as some might be, but that was sort of the point.

From my discussion post^
______________________________________________________________________________

I was really trying to take something that was old and stale and maybe add a little spice in the middle to make it relevant again.  I'm not much a fan of modern, contemporary art but when I see something like the original contemporary art that I found while searching through for this project I really could relate.  Many times I see a random set of splotches on paper and really just cant pull anything from it.  the sculpt Demeter I selected for example...just wow.  After reading about the god and seeing some ancient sculpts about her, I took a look at the organic take by Jean Arp and I could really 'feel' it.  Really cool feeling.

       As far as coloring, I imitated what I would use at the exhibit through my text in the slides.  I would try and remain very neutral for my backgrounds, pedestals, and mountings that were classic, and really try and add something for the ones that are contemporary.  Some color, colored lights, maybe a little sound for the newew pieces.  The older pieces I think I would set in a very classic look, maybe some plants and marbled floors or small fountains with running water.  After some thought, I would try and switch out maybe every piece or two contemp, classic classic, contemp, in a way to create some juxtaposition and allow the viewer to really see the same thing from different angles.....very different angles.   Not really ever mixing the two types, but instead placing them side by side for comparison.  I really tried to explain an aspect or two using specific terms from our videos and assignments, but I sort of found it to be kind of redundant as most of the pieces were sculpts.  I enjoyed this project a lot as I had the freed to more or less plow along as I felt on a topic of my choosing.  While its easier initially to have a set goal and perameters, being able to chose ones own topic and explore it as they like it more rewarding in the end.  This project was, as other have been, a realm of which I have no experience in.  It's extremely refreshing that we're able in the class to be able to vary so much on the subject of art the assignments are not simply the same grind every week!

Module 11, a different direction of art

The two videos I selected this week were "matisse and picasso" and "dada and surrealism.  The first I selected based on the fact that I'd heard of picasso.  The latter was selected based on randomness :)

Matisse and picasso was an interesting video, and differed from many of the other videos that focused on two artists because of the relationship that the two had.  In most cases, famous artists appear to deal with or interact very little.  In the case the they do interact, it is typically not the most friendly of cases.  Matisse and picaso had a very strong relationship.  During some times, they were close and actually conversed with eachother about their works.  Other times, they would communicate from a distance.  One may see the others work and mirror it, or compose a work of a complimentary nature.  Their art was unusual to me, and I wasnt really aware of picasos style.  To me, the unnatural appearences in these two artists work is not very appealing.  It's seemingly lower quality then many of the more realistic works we've been seeing.

Dadaism is very unique.  I've seen some modelling expos that appear to have been an offshoot of this type of art.  They were a hodgepodge of smaller statues and trinkets, combined with smaller gears and other mechanical items, all combined together and then painted into blend them all.  This seemed similar to the idea of dada'ism without the political element. 

The video on matisse and picasso went very in depth about the relationship between the two, while the book made little mention on this.  On the subject of dada'ism and surrealism, the videos paid special attention to many of the artists personal.  It showed and explained how some artists personality fir well with their work, while others lived lifestyles completely devoid of the expressionism that was showcased in their art.  Also, the videos mentioned a lot of the political cannotations that were evident in the work while the book went less into this type of detail.

The two videos I selected for this weeks video review were hinduism and budhism.  I originally selected the budhism video because I was interested in seeing if the mini budha statues I've seen were really based on something and how they came about.  Also, I was interested to see if there was any connection made with the art and sculptures from the Mediterranean and India.  The other video I selected was Hinduism.  I guess I figured that it would compliment the hunduism video and maybe fill in some gaps that were left open or compliment the other.

The budhism video was unique in that it really showed a religion that kind of originated out of nowhere.  True human belief in humanity and a unique perspective on our existence and how subjective we can be.  The art that was shown was relatively simplistic in nature, and really represented the religion itself very well.  I found the temple designs to be thought out, and while ordinary and seeminly bland, possesed a true balance and correspondence with the overall theme of the religion.
 
Hinduism on the other hand was much different.  Some of the temple designs were extremely complex in nature.  I was pretty skeptical about the statues with all the sexual themes right on the temple.  This seemed very out of place to me, as I've never really drawn any type of sexual messages out of the idea of religion.  Their art was also shown in some of the rituals that they performed.  There was a certain method to their rituals that was adhered to from the physical body motions to the actual display. 

I didnt really find too much to focus on in the artistic area besides the temple design that was displayed.  The book focused more on smaller detailed works rather than looking at the religion at a whole and the life and culture behind it.I did like these films and felt they provided a view on many aspects of religious art and history that has not yet been portrayed in any of the other topics covered so far in this course.

This was an interesting project...I'm not much of an artist myself, so I was pretty worried with how this was going to come out, but I'm not as horrified as I thought I'd be.  It's weird to draw your hand...we use our hands so much, focusing on it is almost like focusing on an object....but it's not because really it's you.  When I switched to drawing with my non dominant hand, I kept wanting to just put the pencil down and use my normal (right) hand to draw in the details and stuff.  It was kind of frustrating but also kind of a neat exercise. I'd say it was pretty successful, but I wouldnt really use my off hand in the future unless I put a lot of practice with it first and trained my brain to be able to use my left hand.

Mod 9, Mike n Leo

One of the videos I've selected for this weeks video review was The Drawings of Michelangelo.  The video
 showcases several of Michelangelos work, but primarily focuses on his development as an artist and the inner workings of his thought processes.   The video shows us several of Michelangelos works, as well as many of the design stages of these major works.  There is much to be found in viewing the design stages, as we can really see what the artist was thinking in producing and planning.  It's interesting, as mentioned in the article most of the sketches and design prototypes were destroyed, not through war or other destructive activity, but by the artist himself.  One thing that was learned through the sketches was that much of
Michelangelos work and early learnings show much of the same techniques used by his mentor.  Although
Michelangelo claims to owe little to his mentor, he owed much to his teachings.  Also, we can see how exactly the artist came about some of his works.

The other video I selected was Leonardo da Vinci: The Mind of the Renaissance. I selected this video because I wanted to compare da Vinci and Michelangelo.  Da Vincis life, while similar, seemed to be painted in the video in a much darker sense.  Forced to cope with much political strife, da Vinci seemed to travel a lot more.  Also, due to many other factors including his own doing, there seem to have been many works by Da Vinci which never were completed.  This is a shame, as there may have been many more works from him for us to flounder over.  Interestingly enough it seems that there was some dissent between these two men.  This makes sense, as both existed during the same time and surely had to hear about how great the other was.  It's too bad, perhaps with different circumstances the two may have worked together to create.  Similarly, it seems both men left little to go on with regards to the stages of their work.  Maybe it was due to the times or their own desire for perfection, but each man did much to prevent their sketches from remaining and being shown to the world.

The movies differ from the books in that rather than focusing on the works specifically and who they were being made for, the videos showed really a much deeper, more 'real' version of these men.  It questioned and focused on their inner workings, and really how their work correlated with their stage in life.  The book gave a much more paper man type feel to the artists, and seems to have forgotten that in light of their accomplishments, they also suffered and experienced what we all do.  It was a much more relatable way to get to 'know' the artists.  I feel that the videos did this very well, even if the video on Leonardo seemed rather dark and sort of depressing.

Video Reviews MOD 8

The video more human than human was quite interesting.  The majority of the video was centered on the expanse and use of art in Egyptian culture.  This is probably because Egyptian culture is really the first and oldest widespead use of art in a culture  that has endured through the ages. The video was investigating not only how art was used in the past but actually why humans show art in the way we do.  One factor primarily centered on humanities natural engrained desire to accentuate varios portions of the human anatomy in representational way.  Before this and the reading I hadnt really fully understood the terminology realistic, unrealistic, representational. 

The video I selected to watch was The greek awakening.  After watching the first video I wanted to see the greek cultures art history more specifically and in more depth.  This video focused more on specifically how the greek culture demonstrated art and the parthenon.  It showed how the greek view of art was effected by their culture, and really how western civilization was sprouted sort of out of a Greek beginning. 

The videos were similar to the text in that both showed the development of art over time, while also showing that even if thousands of years go by, we as humans have a tendency to revert to many of the same styles or similar creations.  They also both show that while culture has a great effect on how we specifically portray ourselves and our art, there are similarities that span not only thousands of years but thousands of miles.  Interestingly enough that the same type of exagerations are shown in different cultures who may have never had interactions with each other.

I believe showing the history and most basic functions of any subject are vital to a full understanding of other aspects of the field.  These vidoes, to me, provide this knowledge and I find them very interesting.  Without really seeeing art from where it began, we cant fully understand it.