On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Saturday, September 15, 2012
OMA visit
Your blog response for Monday should be based on your interpretation of the work you looked at during our visit to OMA. Use the handout questions as your guide.
John Chamberlain was an American sculptor who used scrap metal and car parts. He repainted the metal and molded it together. This is non representational art, Abstract Expressionism - having three dimension twist. Some parts of his work are arguably realistic based on Chamberlain's medium. Again, his initial sculptures were made from automobile parts in which he molded and formed. He would expand the steel car remnants, exploiting the existing colors of the material in his sculptures. When I look at Chamberlain's "Lazzarini's Pie", I interpret in various ways. Firstly, I see: ingenuity, mass production, power and wealth. I see it this way because it represents to me what America is; it shows me what this country is capable of. On the other hand it shows me the human psyche. The scrap metal is precisely placed, paralleling with the cognition. There is color that has been added to the work before the melding takes place. The color makes me feel warm and mysterious. It makes me feel safe and protected. It makes me feel happy and comfortable. The lines are placed so well that it gives me a clear understanding of what the artist was intending. David Hume said that to interpret work you need to have an imagination, and you need to discriminate. This work requires discrimination; you need to look at it from a trained eye. Susan Sontag would enjoy Chamberlain's work. "Real art has the capacity to make us nervous – by reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art." This work stimulates my senses, it puts me on edge. It has the capacity to make me nervous, and the ingenuity tames my reflection. I think this work would be seen most clearly in Sontag's reasoning, as this work requires interpretation and knowledge. -Peter
Malcolm Morley painted his "Family Portrait of the Ruskin Family" in 1968. This painting immediately caught my eye because of its large scale and the attention to detail. Morley practiced photorealism in this work by taking a photograph, projecting it upon the canvas, tracing the outlines, then naturalistically portraying the figures within the scene. The work depicts a glimpse into a real family's life; two children, a mother holding the family cat, and a husband casually sit around a breakfast table with dirty plates, glistening jars and uneaten food remaining from their meal. The use of color also captured my attention, especially in the kids' strange mustard and ketchup outfits that reflect the background.
In interpreting art, Barrett suggests researching the artist's intent to better understand the work. When I began interpreting Morley's "portrait," I was intrigued by the use of an everyday scene rather than the typical, staged poses for the family. After taking Barrett's advice and reading the museum's wall description for the work, I understood more about the composition of the painting. Morley intended the work to be a "modern parody of the stiff and traditional family portrait." Thus, I respect his decision to go for a more obscure method and depict the family at breakfast, which I believe is a more accurate representation of the Ruskins, anyway.
While viewing Frank Hallam Day’s RV Night series at the Orlando Museum of Art, I was struck by how hyper-realistic his photographs were. At first I didn’t believe that they were photographs of real RVs but were rather employing the use of digital manipulation. After some time spent in front of the works, however, it became evident that these were photographs of an actual moment in time regardless of how much of an otherworldly quality they possessed. Despite the initial interest that was sparked, Day’s choice in subject matter began to confuse me and interest began to wane. Why would he choose to use RVs and why in Florida? After reading the artist’s statement and its contentions on voyeurism and isolation, I began to view the photographs in a different way and, in a way, re-like the works. The way Day sets up his shots so as to make it look like the RVs are completely immersed in nature leads one to believe that the vehicles are abandoned, save for the glowing windows. The general absence of streets and people or any other signals of civilization intensifies the isolation the viewer feels. The juxtaposition of the untamed quality of nature with the hermetically sealed, futuristic-looking RVs inhabited by families “roughing it” in front of the TV screen creates a tension that creates an interesting composition. I think that Barrett’s theory that “to interpret a work gives it meaning” applies to Day’s series. Without interpretation, the photographs are simply pretty pictures and it is only after understanding the artist’s intent and taking a second look that all of the intricacies and details can be fully appreciated.
Frank Hallam Day is a fine art photographer who's work revolves around the themes of culture and history, and humanity’s footprint on the natural world. In a photo series entitled "RV Night" Day takes time exposure nighttime photographs of RVs camped out in the Florida wilderness. Day's photograph "Laredo 2" caught my interest right off the bat. At first I just enjoyed the scenery and vividness of the photo. However, it was not long before I began to notice smaller details of the piece and began to interpret them.
Barrett suggest that "to interpret art is to give it meaning." In this case, I completely agree with Barrett. The star streaks show the process of time exposure to capture a long length of time in on moment which help create a mysterious and desolate atmosphere to the work. The flash photography also reminds me of animals that freeze a moment before they attack. The bright lighting seems to capture the trees and nature encroaching and devouring on the RV which emphasize the disconnect between humanity and nature and the jurassic element I feel throughout my experience with the work.
After researching the artist and reading the museum's artist's information, as Barrett suggest to do when interpreting, I better understood the artist's message of "a humanity isolated from a dark, unpredictable and ominous nature" and "the powerful sense of displacement and alienation from the natural world." By interpreting the piece I was able to gain so much more for it and enjoy it even more. The artist's medium, cropping, and lighting of the piece are not only visually appealing but also translate the artist's message very well and combine for a very interesting, and beautiful work.
Like Nicole, I also chose to interpret Morley’s “Family Portrait of the Ruskin Family.” While the vibrant colors and interesting apparel choices (come on, it was the 1960s) drew me into the work, it was the realism that kept my interest. The work is an example of photorealism, where a photograph was transferred and the details painted over. Morley used sharp detail to draw the viewer to certain spots of the painting, for example the breakfast table littered with products and dishes, to create a sense of chaos.
The interesting part of this work was the expressions on the parent’s faces. The father, wrestling with his two children, seemed sheepish, as if trying to show how he was a good father. The mother seemed displaced from the family, gazing away from her children and husband with a blank stare. To me, this work stretched beyond a parody of traditional family portraits, and went as far as being a statement on the weakening ideals of family life.
While Sontag may feel I divulged too much into interpreting the work, I feel Barrett would appreciate my interpretation. After all, “to interpret art is to give it meaning,” and that is exactly what I was trying to do. Finally, the piece is a fine example of realism, not only for its technique but the captured, realistic moment. Overall, Morley’s work feels voyeuristic, like gazing into a candid moment of family life and struggle.
Gregory Crewdson’s piece Untitled (house in the road) caught my eye right away because of its play in realism. I stood there in front of it for some time trying to figure out if it was a digital painting or one picture that had photoshopped elements. In the artist’s bio, it was stated that he sets up his scenes and has actors placed in the shots, but it never was fully stated as to what mediums were exactly used (Digital C-Print). Even though I know Crewdson works a lot with photography, there is still the sense of something isn’t completely truthful; whether it is the fact that there is a house in the road, the different focus points, strange lighting effects, or a combination of all. I tried to keep in mind of Sontag’s belief not to ignore the first reactions and quickly dilute them with interpretations, but the artist’s statement set me up to try and figure out the narration of the piece. The statement included questions like “Does he just realize that his house is in the middle of the road?” “How did he get that far?”
Like Clareese, I chose Hallam's RV series as my focus on this trip. Unlike Clareese, I wasn't particularly struck by his photographs at first glance. Although I'm a nature lover who's always dreamed of roadtripping across the country in an RV, Hallam's work didn't originally speak to me. I couldn't decide what he was trying to get across in his pieces. I wondered why he hadn't spent more time lighting the scene to project a specific, haunting mood, or create more artificial lighting to emphasize the growing divide between humans and nature. Overall, I just didn't get it. Then, I read his artist statement and my entire view of the works changed. I began to love them and view them in a very admirable way. Funny the way that happens, huh?
Like Barrett said, "to interpret art is to give it meaning," however, any good critic should have knowledge of an artists background (body of work) in order to fully understand what this meaning might be. Before I did my research, I was unprovoked by Hallam's work. After 5 minutes of reading, I was in love with it. Now, every time that I view a work I remind myself that I should research it more carefully before making a decision about whether I like it or not.
I chose to write about the RV pictures by Frank Hallam Day. These works caught my eye as being particularly realistic. The cinematic quality of the lighting, and plants added another element that adds to the realistic quality the series gives off. I also like the quality his work gives off, that it looks like miniature sets of objects, not the life-size quality in actuality. Day uses time exposures to capture these images at night. Day shoots from trailer parks, the people inside oblivious to his presence. This aspect is also what makes the pieces so interesting to me, that the people were so unaware of not only the photographer, but also of their surroundings in general. Instead, they sit inside their trailers watching TV, through a thick division between themselves and nature. . As Barrett says, “To interpret a work of art is to give it meaning”. Much of this meaning and information was found through reading the artist statement that accompanied the works and expanded knowledge of the subject matter.
I also chose Gregory Crewdson’s Digital C-Print that depicted the house in the middle of the road. My first impression of the picture was that it showed the destruction of a small rural town after a tornado or hurricane. The people in the street as well as the many police and firemen present further reinforced this idea. However, after scrutinizing the piece for a longer period of time, I realized that there were multiple sources of light coming from different directions in the picture, leading me to believe the entire thing was staged. After reading the artist statement it was revealed to me that Crewdson does indeed use movie like stage production for his photographs. The artist statement also asks two questions which further threw me off from my initial response. The questions went along the lines of, "Is he just now realizing that he's building his house in the middle of the road? How did he get this far?" There are many interpretations that can be made from this work, but I think the questions that the artist throws in at the end of his statement are pretty far off of what the average interpretation would be. These questions are what make this piece for me. Not only does the artist create a very complex stage to be photographed and interpreted, he creates a very complex realm of interpretation through his statement.
We were supposed to find a piece of art that stood out as real. As i walked around the museum i found a lot of pieces that seemed to be very realistic. There were two main pieces that stood out to me while in the museum. I really liked the house in the middle of the street. I thought it seemed very real, however after reading the description of the picture i changed my mind. He staged the entire process so it seemed real, however it is actually very fake. The realest piece in the museum was a photo of the mandella family at a wedding. The emotions captured in the picture were so raw. you could read their faces and see that everything depicted in the picture was very true. You could tell their ages by the expression on their faces. It was one of the realest and most amazing pictures i have seen.
The work of art I chose to analyze at the Orlando Museum of Art was "American" by Gregory Crewdson.This work stuck out to me because it was such a bizarre scenario, especially upon first look believing it was an actual photograph of some sort of catastrophe in a suburban neighborhood. Realistic qualities of this work included photograph, real people, and a suburban neighborhood. It has a bit of a sitcom/soap-opera feeling and without reading the description for the work it would look like the aftermath of a bad storm. When engaging with the work, a lot of things go through my mind when trying to interpet its meaning. Some things I questioned were what was going on, why the house was in the middle of the street, who was the man standing with the fireman, whether or not there was a storm, and why everyone looked devastated. This work, in relation to Sontag, is similar because her photos were staged well but they still were not real photographs. Even though Sontag's are more realistic, Crewdson's could still be real as well. Crewdson's images are rich in detail and every person and object in his works are meticulously selected. The intriguing part of his work is the abundance of detail balanced with a striking lack of misinformation. The setting is ordinary (suburban neighborhood), but the frame is contextualized. The viewer does not know what happens before or after, or who the people even are. This makes his work engaging and also gives it a mysterious allure. The way he presents his work gives viewers a scenario but leaves it up to them to give it their own interpretation. This also made me think of the topic of context/meaning in a work and whether or not it is important- sometimes it is nice to look at works as aesthetically pleasing or have that mystery but sometimes it would be nice to know what is going on! The visual detail and narrative constraint in Crewdson's work is effective in leaving the viewer questioning the content and making it memorable.
John Chamberlain was an American sculptor who used scrap metal and car parts. He repainted the metal and molded it together. This is non representational art, Abstract Expressionism - having three dimension twist. Some parts of his work are arguably realistic based on Chamberlain's medium. Again, his initial sculptures were made from automobile parts in which he molded and formed. He would expand the steel car remnants, exploiting the existing colors of the material in his sculptures.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at Chamberlain's "Lazzarini's Pie", I interpret in various ways. Firstly, I see: ingenuity, mass production, power and wealth. I see it this way because it represents to me what America is; it shows me what this country is capable of. On the other hand it shows me the human psyche. The scrap metal is precisely placed, paralleling with the cognition. There is color that has been added to the work before the melding takes place. The color makes me feel warm and mysterious. It makes me feel safe and protected. It makes me feel happy and comfortable. The lines are placed so well that it gives me a clear understanding of what the artist was intending.
David Hume said that to interpret work you need to have an imagination, and you need to discriminate. This work requires discrimination; you need to look at it from a trained eye.
Susan Sontag would enjoy Chamberlain's work. "Real art has the capacity to make us nervous – by reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art." This work stimulates my senses, it puts me on edge. It has the capacity to make me nervous, and the ingenuity tames my reflection. I think this work would be seen most clearly in Sontag's reasoning, as this work requires interpretation and knowledge.
-Peter
Malcolm Morley painted his "Family Portrait of the Ruskin Family" in 1968. This painting immediately caught my eye because of its large scale and the attention to detail. Morley practiced photorealism in this work by taking a photograph, projecting it upon the canvas, tracing the outlines, then naturalistically portraying the figures within the scene. The work depicts a glimpse into a real family's life; two children, a mother holding the family cat, and a husband casually sit around a breakfast table with dirty plates, glistening jars and uneaten food remaining from their meal. The use of color also captured my attention, especially in the kids' strange mustard and ketchup outfits that reflect the background.
ReplyDeleteIn interpreting art, Barrett suggests researching the artist's intent to better understand the work. When I began interpreting Morley's "portrait," I was intrigued by the use of an everyday scene rather than the typical, staged poses for the family. After taking Barrett's advice and reading the museum's wall description for the work, I understood more about the composition of the painting. Morley intended the work to be a "modern parody of the stiff and traditional family portrait." Thus, I respect his decision to go for a more obscure method and depict the family at breakfast, which I believe is a more accurate representation of the Ruskins, anyway.
While viewing Frank Hallam Day’s RV Night series at the Orlando Museum of Art, I was struck by how hyper-realistic his photographs were. At first I didn’t believe that they were photographs of real RVs but were rather employing the use of digital manipulation. After some time spent in front of the works, however, it became evident that these were photographs of an actual moment in time regardless of how much of an otherworldly quality they possessed. Despite the initial interest that was sparked, Day’s choice in subject matter began to confuse me and interest began to wane. Why would he choose to use RVs and why in Florida?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the artist’s statement and its contentions on voyeurism and isolation, I began to view the photographs in a different way and, in a way, re-like the works. The way Day sets up his shots so as to make it look like the RVs are completely immersed in nature leads one to believe that the vehicles are abandoned, save for the glowing windows. The general absence of streets and people or any other signals of civilization intensifies the isolation the viewer feels. The juxtaposition of the untamed quality of nature with the hermetically sealed, futuristic-looking RVs inhabited by families “roughing it” in front of the TV screen creates a tension that creates an interesting composition. I think that Barrett’s theory that “to interpret a work gives it meaning” applies to Day’s series. Without interpretation, the photographs are simply pretty pictures and it is only after understanding the artist’s intent and taking a second look that all of the intricacies and details can be fully appreciated.
Frank Hallam Day is a fine art photographer who's work revolves around the themes of culture and history, and humanity’s footprint on the natural world. In a photo series entitled "RV Night" Day takes time exposure nighttime photographs of RVs camped out in the Florida wilderness. Day's photograph "Laredo 2" caught my interest right off the bat. At first I just enjoyed the scenery and vividness of the photo. However, it was not long before I began to notice smaller details of the piece and began to interpret them.
ReplyDeleteBarrett suggest that "to interpret art is to give it meaning." In this case, I completely agree with Barrett. The star streaks show the process of time exposure to capture a long length of time in on moment which help create a mysterious and desolate atmosphere to the work. The flash photography also reminds me of animals that freeze a moment before they attack. The bright lighting seems to capture the trees and nature encroaching and devouring on the RV which emphasize the disconnect between humanity and nature and the jurassic element I feel throughout my experience with the work.
After researching the artist and reading the museum's artist's information, as Barrett suggest to do when interpreting, I better understood the artist's message of "a humanity isolated from a dark, unpredictable and ominous nature" and "the powerful sense of displacement and alienation from the natural world." By interpreting the piece I was able to gain so much more for it and enjoy it even more. The artist's medium, cropping, and lighting of the piece are not only visually appealing but also translate the artist's message very well and combine for a very interesting, and beautiful work.
Like Nicole, I also chose to interpret Morley’s “Family Portrait of the Ruskin Family.” While the vibrant colors and interesting apparel choices (come on, it was the 1960s) drew me into the work, it was the realism that kept my interest. The work is an example of photorealism, where a photograph was transferred and the details painted over. Morley used sharp detail to draw the viewer to certain spots of the painting, for example the breakfast table littered with products and dishes, to create a sense of chaos.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting part of this work was the expressions on the parent’s faces. The father, wrestling with his two children, seemed sheepish, as if trying to show how he was a good father. The mother seemed displaced from the family, gazing away from her children and husband with a blank stare. To me, this work stretched beyond a parody of traditional family portraits, and went as far as being a statement on the weakening ideals of family life.
While Sontag may feel I divulged too much into interpreting the work, I feel Barrett would appreciate my interpretation. After all, “to interpret art is to give it meaning,” and that is exactly what I was trying to do. Finally, the piece is a fine example of realism, not only for its technique but the captured, realistic moment. Overall, Morley’s work feels voyeuristic, like gazing into a candid moment of family life and struggle.
Gregory Crewdson’s piece Untitled (house in the road) caught my eye right away because of its play in realism. I stood there in front of it for some time trying to figure out if it was a digital painting or one picture that had photoshopped elements. In the artist’s bio, it was stated that he sets up his scenes and has actors placed in the shots, but it never was fully stated as to what mediums were exactly used (Digital C-Print). Even though I know Crewdson works a lot with photography, there is still the sense of something isn’t completely truthful; whether it is the fact that there is a house in the road, the different focus points, strange lighting effects, or a combination of all.
ReplyDeleteI tried to keep in mind of Sontag’s belief not to ignore the first reactions and quickly dilute them with interpretations, but the artist’s statement set me up to try and figure out the narration of the piece. The statement included questions like “Does he just realize that his house is in the middle of the road?” “How did he get that far?”
Like Clareese, I chose Hallam's RV series as my focus on this trip. Unlike Clareese, I wasn't particularly struck by his photographs at first glance. Although I'm a nature lover who's always dreamed of roadtripping across the country in an RV, Hallam's work didn't originally speak to me. I couldn't decide what he was trying to get across in his pieces. I wondered why he hadn't spent more time lighting the scene to project a specific, haunting mood, or create more artificial lighting to emphasize the growing divide between humans and nature. Overall, I just didn't get it. Then, I read his artist statement and my entire view of the works changed. I began to love them and view them in a very admirable way. Funny the way that happens, huh?
ReplyDeleteLike Barrett said, "to interpret art is to give it meaning," however, any good critic should have knowledge of an artists background (body of work) in order to fully understand what this meaning might be. Before I did my research, I was unprovoked by Hallam's work. After 5 minutes of reading, I was in love with it. Now, every time that I view a work I remind myself that I should research it more carefully before making a decision about whether I like it or not.
I chose to write about the RV pictures by Frank Hallam Day. These works caught my eye as being particularly realistic. The cinematic quality of the lighting, and plants added another element that adds to the realistic quality the series gives off. I also like the quality his work gives off, that it looks like miniature sets of objects, not the life-size quality in actuality.
ReplyDeleteDay uses time exposures to capture these images at night. Day shoots from trailer parks, the people inside oblivious to his presence. This aspect is also what makes the pieces so interesting to me, that the people were so unaware of not only the photographer, but also of their surroundings in general. Instead, they sit inside their trailers watching TV, through a thick division between themselves and nature. . As Barrett says, “To interpret a work of art is to give it meaning”. Much of this meaning and information was found through reading the artist statement that accompanied the works and expanded knowledge of the subject matter.
I also chose Gregory Crewdson’s Digital C-Print that depicted the house in the middle of the road. My first impression of the picture was that it showed the destruction of a small rural town after a tornado or hurricane. The people in the street as well as the many police and firemen present further reinforced this idea. However, after scrutinizing the piece for a longer period of time, I realized that there were multiple sources of light coming from different directions in the picture, leading me to believe the entire thing was staged. After reading the artist statement it was revealed to me that Crewdson does indeed use movie like stage production for his photographs. The artist statement also asks two questions which further threw me off from my initial response. The questions went along the lines of, "Is he just now realizing that he's building his house in the middle of the road? How did he get this far?" There are many interpretations that can be made from this work, but I think the questions that the artist throws in at the end of his statement are pretty far off of what the average interpretation would be. These questions are what make this piece for me. Not only does the artist create a very complex stage to be photographed and interpreted, he creates a very complex realm of interpretation through his statement.
ReplyDeleteWe were supposed to find a piece of art that stood out as real. As i walked around the museum i found a lot of pieces that seemed to be very realistic. There were two main pieces that stood out to me while in the museum. I really liked the house in the middle of the street. I thought it seemed very real, however after reading the description of the picture i changed my mind. He staged the entire process so it seemed real, however it is actually very fake.
ReplyDeleteThe realest piece in the museum was a photo of the mandella family at a wedding. The emotions captured in the picture were so raw. you could read their faces and see that everything depicted in the picture was very true. You could tell their ages by the expression on their faces. It was one of the realest and most amazing pictures i have seen.
The work of art I chose to analyze at the Orlando Museum of Art was "American" by Gregory Crewdson.This work stuck out to me because it was such a bizarre scenario, especially upon first look believing it was an actual photograph of some sort of catastrophe in a suburban neighborhood. Realistic qualities of this work included photograph, real people, and a suburban neighborhood. It has a bit of a sitcom/soap-opera feeling and without reading the description for the work it would look like the aftermath of a bad storm. When engaging with the work, a lot of things go through my mind when trying to interpet its meaning. Some things I questioned were what was going on, why the house was in the middle of the street, who was the man standing with the fireman, whether or not there was a storm, and why everyone looked devastated. This work, in relation to Sontag, is similar because her photos were staged well but they still were not real photographs. Even though Sontag's are more realistic, Crewdson's could still be real as well. Crewdson's images are rich in detail and every person and object in his works are meticulously selected. The intriguing part of his work is the abundance of detail balanced with a striking lack of misinformation. The setting is ordinary (suburban neighborhood), but the frame is contextualized. The viewer does not know what happens before or after, or who the people even are. This makes his work engaging and also gives it a mysterious allure. The way he presents his work gives viewers a scenario but leaves it up to them to give it their own interpretation. This also made me think of the topic of context/meaning in a work and whether or not it is important- sometimes it is nice to look at works as aesthetically pleasing or have that mystery but sometimes it would be nice to know what is going on! The visual detail and narrative constraint in Crewdson's work is effective in leaving the viewer questioning the content and making it memorable.
ReplyDelete