Select one of the following to respond to:1 - Select any of the images we viewed last Friday. What were your initial impressions? Why have you selected this image? How might studying the work yield a greater understanding of the historical period and vice-versa? If you did not attend the trip, visit one of the sites below and examine a work online to complete the assignment.
2 - Choose any two works that we viewed and compare them. You do not need to worry about researching art terminology, but talk about why you chose these specific works, what you observed and aspects you can relate to discussions we have had over the course of the year.
48 comments:
Response #2:
On our expedition to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum, two of the works we viewed at Yale were Edouard Manet’s “Woman Reclining in Spanish Costume” and Edgar Degas’s “Dancer Ready to Dance, With Right Foot Forward.” These two works were both part of the impressionist exhibit, although Manet’s painting was an earlier creation than the bronze cast of Degas’s sculpture. Besides both being from the impressionist era, these works also had the common thread of depicting women. However, this thread is where they become very different. Manet’s painting shows a woman in a natural position; she is reclining in a classic, feminine way that is featured throughout the history of art. However, Degas’s structure clearly shows a dancer; she is a ballet dancer. The art of ballet is far from a natural position that you simply fall into- it is one that requires strength, precision, and serious study in order to perform correctly, in such a way that the unnatural movement becomes the encompassment of grace. Even as the dancer in Degas’s sculpture stands still, you can see it is not a natural position because of the misalignment of her hip. This emphasizes that the pose she takes is not natural- it requires her attention in order to align herself and here she has slipped. Also, her arm is falling from the correct position in ballet, where the sharp bend of her elbow should not be so apparent. This shows that the unnatural positions of ballet require the dancer to work and here she is tiring. There is also irony in both these works of art that contrast them. Though Manet’s woman is in an unnatural position, her figure and her clothing are not typical of a woman in that time period. She is built more like a man and she is wearing men’s clothing. In contrast, while the dancer holds an unnatural position, she is not wearing any clothing and it is clear she has the natural form of a woman. Both these works have a similarity that they, in some way, connect to romantic culture; in Manet’s painting, this is done through the Spanish costume, while in Degas’s sculpture it is done through the gesture that is clearly of ballet.
These paintings connect to our class discussions in that they are both of the impressionist era and display the characteristics of impressionist art. The strokes of Manet’s painting are very brushy and undefined, allowing you to see the big picture far away, but lacking in detail. The colours Manet uses are also very dark. This contrasts from the earlier paintings of renaissance Europe in the fact that Manet wasn’t necessarily trying to depict every muscle in the face of the woman or all the individual furs of the cat- he was going for the general picture. This lack of detail is also apparent in Degas’s sculpture. In real life, the muscles of a dancer are easily seen and well defined, even as they stand still and simply raise their arms. Degas doesn’t depict these muscles, even though, for the dancer to move, they must be in use. This also contrasts with the sculptures of the renaissance in the fact that earlier sculptures depicted muscle very definitely.
Question Two: Response:
Honestly, I cannot remember the names of any exact two pieces. If I try to write them down, it is likely that phrases from other names will mingle, and chopped up bits of amalgam will result as the faux titles. And so I won’t tell the names. I won’t. It’s okay, though, since I’m actually more so comparing two rooms from the Yale Art Museum (Not the British Art Museum) than just two pieces, specifically.
The culmination of the first ‘piece’ would be the various figures of Madonna with child, or the saints their golden filigree halos. Especially prominent was the larger work in the room, in which the virgin Mary was nursing her newborn Lord-child, with two saints watching on (the one the tour guide discussed with us). I choose this piece because I puzzled over it for quite awhile. I had initially thought the piece was of four men, and had no clue why the little man, though I knew He was most likely a representation of Jesus, was sitting on the lap of another man and not Mary. After finally figuring out the people’s identities from the very rough artistic technique and very base realism, I feel it’s worth it to talk about the piece a little.
Furthermore, medieval art is so interesting because it’s blatantly symbolic (does ‘blatantly’ even qualify for symbolic anymore?) and heavily religious. The beauty of the piece is incredibly profound in the faith of the audience who view it. If not for the subject matter, many artistic giants today might scoff at such technique (or lack thereof). However, it’s also negligent to ignore the beauty and care given to medieval pieces—that is, the quality and detail of the gold filigree, and the brilliance of the colors that must have been such a chore to mix in those days.
The second piece I choose is the one from the Enlightenment (the Renaissance pieces might have been the obvious comparison, but I feel that skipping over directly to the secularistic tendencies of the Enlightenment really provides for contrast). Remember the piece with the aristocrats (the fuzzy quality, and the pastel hues? Don’t worry, there are actually a lot like it. The tour guide mentioned this one, as well)? I chose this piece because it is actually quite ‘modern’ in the sense that many artists today still paint in this early-Romantic style, in which the subject matter is secular, and the overall tone of the piece exudes a warmth of softer and more neutral colors. There was no vivid gold, no startling light and shade. The overall effect was whimsical, and there is no need to feel profound ‘faith’ in order to appreciate a ‘pretty’ scene with some gentry lolling about on a sunny day. It stands in direct opposition, it seems, with both the morals and techniques of the High Middle Ages.
The piece from the Middle Ages employed dark rings around pale skin for the vivid, almost cartoon-like quality of the people (who all looked similar; so much that I believed Mary to be a man). The pink plump of the aristocrats in the second piece has a more subtle play of light and shade. The purpose of the two pieces: sacramonious versus pleasure-viewing (or personal commission), also differs. In class, we mentioned the fact that the overall role religion played in society during the Middle Ages was to a much greater extent than during the Enlightenment, where secular sentiment had taken over and those dabbling in scientific thought had begun to question God, or at least God’s authority in everyday events (Deism). The first piece greatly paid attention to the figures and halos of the people, showing the importance placed in the symbols of religion and Christian faith that the painting shows. The second piece greatly enhances environment, setting, and background, along with the people’s expressions and movements; this attests that glory was being cast on the living conditions and the lifestyle of gentry, as well as on worldly pleasures, rather than the somber tone of religion.
These two pieces exemplify not only the broadening of techniques and the transition from egg-yolk tempera to oils, but also the transition of values from the gravity of relgious piety to a more light-hearted, human-oriented world. In a transition from religious dominance to secular ‘lay’ artists painting secular life, we see the large differences of the two pieces in tone and balance of individual figures, as well as the attention paid to the background detail. Church no longer had a near-monopoly on art and talented artists—the commissioners of the 17th century were not only aristocrats who had the money to purchase the artwork, but also the confidence and pride in their own lifestyle that seemed to outstrip religion, at times.
The painting I would choose is from the Yale Gallery and is called "Untitled". This painting in my opinion the most unique, for one it was made to look like a chalkboard which is amazingly accurate. Naturally before reading the painting synopsis I thought it was just a chalkboard with weird shapes all over it. But when I found out the truth is was pretty shocking, I thought, "who would consider this art?". Then it dawned on me that someone might have said the same thing about Michelangelo's work, or Vincent Van Go's work when it first came out. This epiphany made me realize that art sometimes does not follow contemporary traditions or any traditions at all. For me I studying art is like studying another culture, there are many perspectives to one custom and what may seem weird to one is normal to another. For this painting it represents the modern era thus one can only present one side of the story. However, as time passes studying this art will probably be the only thing that will give future generations a clue of what kind of culture we have today. As for this painting represents the diversity of this world in that one person may view random shapes on an imaginary chalk board to be legitimate art while another like me to view it as the artist had too much time.
While searching the posted websites, a came upon a piece labeled "Untitled." It was the name, or lack thereof, that caught my attention first. But it was the piece itself that amazed me. It was simple--in a way. I could not tell from the online image whether it was a painting of a chalkboard, or an actual chalkboard itself, or whether the canvas was something different entirely. Scribbled across it, in some sort of medium, was rectangle after sloppy rectangle, some fading to mere scribbles, others sharp and hard and white. There seemed to be no logic to it--or at least, no logic that the average mind could hope to understand. But the emotion of the painting--that came through clearly. It is, at first glance, all anger and passion. Looking closer, one can see the letter "B" written at random intervals throughout the artwork, like the hidden messages of misunderstood genius. It is provocative, and confusing...and brilliant.
It is a contemporary piece, part of the Modern Art section. It cannot contribute much to my historical understanding. Yet it seems to say a lot about the time period in which we are a living. It is a time that is often chaotic and confused. It is a time of madness--of war and the fear of war; of technology and pollution--a time when things don't always make sense. But beneath all of that there is something else. Some sort of driving passion--for change, for a better world. There is a sort of fearless strength within the chaos. Perhaps years from now, people will look at this piece of artwork and and find themselves with a greater understanding of what it means to live in the 21st century.
Question 1:
The one image that I thought was the most intriguing was “An Allegory of Tudor Succession”. My initial impression of this piece of artwork was that it represented visually the complex history of the Tudors. I was drawn more to this piece because I’m more familiar with the history of Queen Elizabeth and the Tudors then I was with any of the histories of the other paintings. The first thing my eyes were drawn to was Queen Elizabeth, noticeably the most regal figure in this image. The other side had a much darker feel to it, which represented the history of Mary, a much darker and violent time period that that of Queen Elizabeth. Since the mythological war God, Mars, is also standing by Queen Mary it clearly represents war and violence. My initial impression was that the artist definitely glorified Queen Elizabeth and her reign over all the others. Edward is painted as a small, insignificant figure almost hidden behind Queen Elizabeth’s skirt, so clearly the artist thought his reign wasn’t as noticeable and important compared to the glory of Queen Elizabeth. The side of the painting dedicated to Queen Elizabeth has someone stepping on a sword and another person holding fruit, clearly demonstrating peace and a happier time.
Studying this piece gives great insight into the historical time period of the Tudors. Mars, the war God, is clearly demonstrating the time of Bloody Mary and the attacks against Protestants to return the country to Catholicism. You can infer from this piece the darkness of the time. You can also get more understanding of the Elizabethan era as well. It denotes a brighter time period by the way the artist painted the image. You can infer that the time period was once of wealth and regality by Queen Elizabeth’s outfit. Also you can infer that this was a time of peace or a time spent trying to achieve peace and end war. This is because of the sword the person is stepping on. Lastly you can infer by the fruit the woman is holding that this was a cheerful time. Since this was painted during the time period, you can assume the artist has accurately painted the feel and thinking of people during this time period, that they hated the violence of Mary, and liked the era of Queen Elizabeth- a time of expanding culturally. By having some background on the subjects in the painting you can definitely infer more of the attitude and feeling of the artist, along with inferring more historical information from the image that is painted.
I selected this image because it was one that I could relate to more, since I had more background on the history this painting represented. It was a lot harder to understand the meanings behind some of the other paintings, such as the ones of obscure mythology. I also didn’t like the modern paintings as much because the artist could have been trying to demonstrate so many different things in the artwork. This painting, “An Allegory of Tudor Succession” had a definite meaning to it, and accurately represented the history of that time period, not a vague and differing interpretation of the facts.
Response 1: On our trip I was able to view many different types of pictures, paintings, and sculptures, but by far the one that interested me the most was a sculpture in the Yale Art Museum of Mary Magdalene. The intricate carvings that made up her features was captivating, and if one was not content with observing, they could wonder about the artists interpretation of Mary Magdalene. Some believe that she was a prostitute, while others insist she came from a noble family. The artist’s portrayal of Mary Magdalene is nothing short of controversial. She is depicted bending over with what appears to be a beer glass in her hand, but unfortunately her other hand was lost or destroyed so as a viewed one can only make predictions about what it could have possibly been doing.
When I first saw the sculpture it didn’t exactly inspire me into deeper thought. I believe that sculptures are nice, but art as a whole doesn’t interest me much. Luckily our tour guide stopped us and had us all examine the piece and look at her from an archeologists’ point of view, trying to figure out who she was and where she came from. Using a plethora of scientific instruments they were able to determine when the sculpture was made and that it was of Mary Magdalene. I am also not very religious. I have had my confirmation and I attend church on a fairly regular basis, but as far as defending or condemning certain issues due to the churches point of view is not my forte. As far as my personal opinion goes in her role, I am indifferent. I believe that people can improve and change if they want to so it is perfectly fine if she was a prostitute before she became a follower of Jesus. Like wise if she came from an affluent family she can still play a part in history. After learning the who what where and when the tour guide had us look deeper into what the artist was trying to convey with the sculpture. Did he believe that she was a prostitute or a noble woman? This interested me very much.
I selected this sculpture to talk about because it interested me in a way that art doesn’t typically do. It made me think about the time period and what would have been socially acceptable. I wanted to learn more about the artists and his religious views. It became a captivating piece once I learned more about it. If I were to study the piece further, or if anyone were to, I believe that the understanding of the time period would not be advanced or hindered. This is a very controversial piece, which is why it interests me so much. The artist could have meant to portray Mary Magdalene ad a servant stooping down serving beer, or as a woman drinking. The missing hand is essential to a more complete picture and without it, the piece could be interpreted in a way completely different that what the artists intentions were. Historians have been able to form a picture of the time periods that the sculpture came from that is pretty complete, and due to the fact that this sculpture is a controversial piece, one can not determine the emotions of an entire people using a piece that can easily be misinterpreted. Overall I believe that this sculpture is a captivating piece that both inspires wonder at the artist’s skill and inspires debate.
The two works that I wanted to compare were two modern art pieces. The first one was Gerhard Richter’s Bildnis Holger Friedrich and the other was Cy Twombly’s Untitled. Friedrich was the out of focus painting of the portrait of the man sitting in the car. Although this painting was created using oil paints, it really did seem like a photograph. Untitled was the faux chalk board with all of the squiggly lines. It was made by using wax paper and oil paints.
Although both of these were considered modern art, I thought that each of the paintings were extremely different. Friedrich, to me, seemed like real art. The artist had to use real techniques to make it seem so realistic. Also since many thought that it was a photograph showcases the artist’s talent even more. On the other hand Twombly’s painting, to me, seemed like it didn’t take real art skill to make. It might have been hard to create something that actually looked like a chalk board but it didn’t seem like a real piece of art.
Relating these paintings, one done by an American and the other done by a German, to our European History class is a difficult task. Especially since the two that I chose to compare were both modern art. However, one thing that can be said about the two is that both show how much art has progressed over the years, which is something that a history class studies: how an event progresses over time. When we studied the early European art the focus is mainly religion with some Greek and Roman tales thrown in. However, when we see paintings painted during the 20th century that don’t really have a focus but were just painted for fun shows how much cultural has changed. For one thing, it shows that society now has free time to paint something that looks like a chalk board. It also shows that the economy now has the money to support buying a painting worth a lot of money that may not look like something to a person. So overall even though I don’t necessarily like modern art, it can show us a lot about a nation and how developed the country is.
Question 1: Response
After viewing the art in both the Yale Center of British Art and the Yale Art Gallery, I took the most inertest in the modern art that the Yale Art Gallery has on display. My favorite piece was title ‘The Unborn’, which I found to be the most intriguing. My first impression and reason that the piece caught my eye was the size of the art. It was fairly large and took up the majority of the wall space it was placed on. The commotion occurring in the piece also drew my eyes to it immediately. My first thoughts were that this piece was a depiction of the Holocaust in some shape or form. It was not a photograph or painting of a Holocaust scene or survivors but the colors, title, and image depicted seemed to allude to themes of this era. As I studied the piece more, it appeared to be a barren family tree with tiny replicas of disheveled clothing with numbers next to them. The tree was withered and some pieces of clothing were attached to the tree while others were attached to broken branches off to the side or even just standing alone. I have always taken interest in studying this portion of world history so it was interesting to me to see an artist’s take on the events of the Holocaust. This particular piece would not provide very much factual information but would allow someone to add another view point from a German artist to their knowledge of the Holocaust. Adding another person’s opinion to a situation such as the Holocaust can help you think more deeply about an event or can aid you in remembering what a horrific occurrence it was. Knowing previous knowledge about the Holocaust prior to viewing this piece of artwork would aid any viewer, as it did me; in realizing what the artist intended to show. Since I had previous information on the Holocaust, I was immediately able to indicate what the artist was depicting.
Response # 1
While in the British Museum, One of the two paintings that we viewed was "An Allegory of the Tudor Succession" by an unknown painter. This painting was oil on wood, and was commissioned by Queen Elizabeth I. When initially viewing the painting, I did not know what to think of it. However, after viewing it for 15 seconds (the guide timed us) the painting became much more clear. My initial impression was that it was commissioned by Henry VIII, because he was in the center of the painting, and he was in a position of prominence on top of a pedastal. It was obviously painted on wood of some sort, because I could see the warping of the wood, which is inevitable.
After further examination, I realized that the painting was not commissioned by Henry, but rather by Elizabeth I. She was dressed much more lavishly than any other person, and she was also in the foreground of the painting, rather than in the back. This shows even more prominence. The painting also shows an older Elizabeth. While Henry VIII was on the throne, Elizabeth was still much of a child. However, this shows her much more grown up and sophisticated.
I love the Elizabethan England time period. Therefore, I was immediately drawn to this painting. I think that art shows the viewer so much about what was happening, because it not only shows period dress, and techniques, but also is filled with metaphors, and symbols of events during that time. Art shows us that history is not just in a book, but all around us.
My initial impression of the untitled work depicting a chalkboard by Cy Twombly was one of disinterest. I was confused as to why a bunch of smudges and scribbles on a chalkboard could be considered art. Considering some of the modern art one sees nowadays I was not in the least surprised, but needless to say I was extremely unimpressed.
I selected this image because it was only after a closer look that my opinion took a 180 degree turn. Up close the viewer is able to see that the “chalk” is not actually chalk at all, but paint. Every smudge, finger print, and streak of chalk was painted. The difficulty that it must have taken to paint it was unamountable. My initial reaction to the painting is what in fact made it so impressive to me afterwards. The fact that it looked so realistic that I actually thought it was just a plain old chalkboard is pretty amazing.
Viewing this piece and many other contemporary pieces give a clear picture of the new and sporadic ideas of the time. Most paintings of the past are very straight forward and realistic looking. These portray the conservative and straight cut thought processes that most people in the past possessed when compared to modern day today.
Modern art, such as the painting of the chalkboard, often show random shapes and colors that don’t truly reflect anything realistic or any clear themes in them. It is in the closer, deeper look that shows the true wonder of the art. People living today are much the same way. People are much more open and spontaneous in recent times now, than say one hundred years ago.
Modern art portrays the life people in modern times are able to live. No matter how random or crazy it might be, there are people that live that way. In contrast, the conservative, religious art done earlier in time shows that people were not as free to express their sporadic and free thinking. Everyone had to follow one line of thought or they were criticized. Paintings such as this of the chalkboard show just how much times have really changed.
One work that really interested me, was a sculpture at the Yale Muesem from the 1500’s of Mary Magdaline. I orginially thought that it was just another sculpture of a common person, but as we began to discuss about it more and more, I realized that this sculpture had more history than its decaying parts appeared to have. By just looking at what types of clothing this woman was wearing, we began to debate about what social class she was in, and what the sculpturist was trying to say by clothing her this way. One way to interpret her clothing, was that the sculpturist wanted to keep Mary as a respectable woman from a well-off and respectable family, instead of the “prositute” that some labelled her as. To keep her at her high status, he clothed her in fancy, high-middle class clothing. Another interpretation was that she was a “tavern-girl” due to the fact that she was holding a beer-cup. Others though that maybe the sculpturist was mocking her low social status by clothing her in clothes she was technically not deserving of. By analyzing these interpretaions, we then began to form ideas on attitudes of the people during that time period. When we learned that it was sculpted in the 1500’s, we knew that the Roman Catholic Church was still in high demand, and that art was based around the church’s teachings, and therefore the message of this sculpture could also represent the message of the church. This sculpture fascinated me, for I had never realized that by just viewing one piece of art, you are actually viewing various possibilities of what message the artist is trying to say, and despite all your efforts one still will not know what the artist is truly trying to say. This sculpture also acted as a secondary source in regards to Mary Magdaline’s life, but acted as a primary source in regards to the opinions of the people and church during the 1500’s.
Another piece of art that interested me was the modern painting of Hitler, Stalin, and Eisenhower. I orginially thought that this painting would have been created immediately after the Holocaust, considering that a world event such as that had just ocurred. What surprised me was that it was fairly modern and was done in the 90’s. I realize that WWII was the last major world war, but I did not realize how much it still affects people, inspiring them to express their emotions from this event through art. It was also interesting to see that despite the advancements and differnet techniques now being used in modern art, the message was still the same. Overall, viewing the muesams, this idea was reocurring. There were various paintings created during different time periods, meaning that different techniques were being introduced or mastered throughout these pictures. Despite all of the changes/representation, the theme and true multiple messages being expressed in the artwork remained the same even if presented in a different form. This is why art is so important and coordinates with history, for despite the ever-changing ways of society, and the introduction of new ideas, the central message of art and history never is destroyed-things are just added on to them.
During our visit at the Yale Art Gallery I was drawn the the painting titled "The Unborn." To me, it just automatically struck me as something that wouuld be about the Holocaust based on the German writing, the numbers which were the ID numbers of the Jews, and just the coloring. The painting was grey with white and black specks all over it, and the background reminded me of cement. There was a tree in the center, and attached to branches were articles of clothing, so I interpreted it as a family tree and instead of writing names, the artist chose to use the ID numbers. The clothes looked as if they had belonged to children. It was only until after the tour guide told us the title that I could be certain that the artist had intentionally done this.
Generally I prefer things with lots of colors rather than shades (like browns, greys, blacks, and whites). So, it was to my surprise that I was drawn to such an image, because colors were not present. The image is actually quite depressing and sad since everything is grey and dreary looking. The white tree, which may be symbolic of innocence, looks lonely, because it is just floating in the middle of the painting. It's not attached to a ground or anything, because nothing is there. This image of a detached tree makes you feel lonesome but impowered all at once. I felt sad when looking at this painting, but it also radiated such a powerful image that I couldn't help but love it. While it represented horror, grief, and terror, it also made me realize that things like this can be prevented.
By studying the Holocaust one may recognize earlier that the numbers are ID numbers of the Jews and the impact the Holocaust not only had on the European and Jews but also on the rest of the world (other audiences viewing painting). By studying the art, we can learn more about the Holocaust. For example, the grey colors may have been used to be symbolic of depression, but they could also represent the smoke from the crematories that killed so many people. The white tree could mean innocence, or as our tour guide pointed out, there was a myth where a woman turned into a white tree. There are many different interpretations. That's probably what I liked best about this piece...while there was a specific subject matter that the painting was about, you could interpret all the little things the way you wanted to, and there was no right or wrong answer.
I did not go on the field trip, but by looking on the website I found the painting, "Solving Each Problem as it Arises" by John Baldessari. When I first saw this on the website, it only showed part of a sentence. I was wondering what it said so I selected the picture. My first impression was, wow that can't be art because it is just something written down. I thought anyone could have done that.
I chose the painting because once I read it, everything made sense. Baldessari gives a perfect explanation of what a painting really is. Even though he wrote a paragraph on a canvas instead of making a painting, it still is art. He brings up the point that a professional painter is really just finding the solution to a problem. He explains how paintings are made, and that is just as important as seeing the actual painting. This is controversial because he comes right out and tells you what nobody else does.
This painting has a lot to do with the historical period it came from. The painting is American and from 1967. The painting is about standing out and speaking your mind, which directly correlates to the feelings of the 60's and 70's. This was a time filled with rebellion and protest which is exactly what the painting is standing up for. Baldessari went against normal paintings and made something that was thought provoking because it was so different. It certainly has changed the way I look at art.
On our field trip we saw many different paintings and sculptures in both the British Museum and the Yale Art Gallery. I definitely liked the Yale Art Gallery much better, and I found the piece “Untitled” to be the most interesting. At first glance I thought “Untitled” was extremely absurd. My initial thought on the piece was that someone had randomly drawn on a chalkboard and called it a piece of art. After analyzing the piece and looking at it more closely I learned that it wasn’t a chalkboard at all; it was made of canvas, oil paints, and wax paints. After I realized that it wasn’t simply a chalkboard I thought that the piece was very impressive. It must have taken a lot of time and effort to recreate a chalkboard so precisely, the piece even included finger prints and eraser marks. Our group discussed this piece with the docent, so we learned a little bit about it and the painter. We also discussed it in class and found that about half of the class liked it and the other half didn’t. This made me realize that not everyone is going to like the same pieces of art. Therefore, this means that someone might not like Vincent Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” while others think it is one of the most impressive pieces of artwork. Through viewing “Untitled” I learned that we should be accepting of different kinds of art and we should always try to understand the meanings in pieces of art. “Untitled” is a modern piece of art so it doesn’t teach us much about history, although it does show us the evolution of art and how it is constantly changing. In the future people will most likely look back on pieces of art such as “Untitled” to understand life in the twenty-first century. They will most likely see confusion and disarray on the surface of our modern art, but if they look deeper they will definitely get a better understanding of our time period. Art is clearly a very important tool to learning the history of a culture or nation.
One of the images that we viewed on Tuesday was the painting titled “Hitler’s Bunker.” It was painted in 2006. This painting depicts a comical view on the ending of World War II. Hitler, Stalin, and Eisenhower can be seen in the painting. In the painting, Hitler is shooting himself in the head, while Eisenhower is punching him, and Stalin is taking money out of Hitler’s jacket. Also, in the corner of the painting there are three dogs getting shot in the head.
These dogs could represent a few people. Some believe that the dogs represent Hitler himself, his wife and his dog. Others, including myself, believe that the dogs represent Hitler’s followers and the fall of the Nazi Regime. The bullets in the painting look similar to nuclear bombs, so some people have interpreted that as the starting of the Cold War, and the nuclear scare throughout the world.
This painting is comical in a way because of the colors that the artist chose. Eisenhower was orange, Stalin was purple, and Hitler was green. The artist’s style was also quite cartoon-like. The features on Stalin, Hitler, and Eisenhower were un-proportional and unrealistic.
This painting can help yield a better understanding to the end of World War II because is shows the leaders of the three main countries during the war, and their reaction to the end of World War II. Because of the end of the war, Hitler chose to kill himself. Stalin wanted to take the money away from Germany, and Eisenhower wanted to make sure Germany was weak and could not gain control.
When we vistied the Yale Art Museum, I was very interested in the modern art section and the romanticism section. In the modern art section I thought everything was so unique and different. One of my favorites was the chalkboard painting. My initial impression was that it was stupid and who would think that scribbles on a chalkboard was art? But when I got a close look and found out that someone actually painted it I was shocked and thought it was so cool. I selected this image because of the hard work that must of gone into it. There were finger marks and eraser marks that must have taken forever to paint. Studying this type of painting can teach us about different techniques artists use to create things that are so original.
My nest favorite painting was in the section where most of the paintings were form the romanticism period. I liked all the paintings becuase they were very life like and colorful. I dont remember what the painting was called but it was of a portrait of a girl in a blue dress that was my favorite. The time and skill that must of gone into this painting showed becuase she looked so real. By studying this work we can undertsnad the time period more becuase so many people painted pictures like this. Artists were very into details and color. Their paintings were also very lifelike.
The first piece that I found intriguing was in the British Gallery in the New World exhibit. I know most of the people in our class didn’t enjoy this exhibit as much as I did, but I found the information that I learned on this tour to be really interesting. Our group stopped in front of one painting by John White that showed an Indian man and an Indian woman eating on the floor. Our tour guide explained that the Indians shown in the picture were portrayed as the more civilized and polite people of the New World and John White wanted to show this to the non believers back in England. White wanted to show Queen Elizabeth and the British that the Indians that were suspected to be a travesty were not as abrupt as everyone had thought before. I chose this piece because I thought White had a lot of thought behind it. This is not the only painting he had of the Algonquin Indians but he also sketched many drawings and other paintings that portrayed this kind of Indian life. This shows me that he wanted to make a good impression with the British and wanted to prove that this expedition to the New World was not a failure, but a major leap forward for the British.
Another image that I found interesting was the piece that looked like a chalkboard but was just paint that was strategically crafted into a chalkboard look alike. I forget who painted it but I just liked the way the painted situated the three rows of boxes that were all different shapes and sizes to make it seem that there were three distinct rows but there was something different in each row that made it that much more interesting. I also like the fact that there were different letters that were scattered everywhere on the canvas and I was wondering why the painter chose to do that. I was thinking that maybe they were conspicuously hiding a real word or phrase throughout the canvas and that if you situate them in a special order it might spell out something significant.
I chose this one because it confused me and I really had to think hard about what the painter was trying to convey, but I think they had an idea of non conformity and stepping outside the box, even though the painting was covered in boxes. The way they chose to use paint to show a chalkboard and the way they made different shaped boxes around the painting told me that they wanted to try something that no one else had ever done before. This reminds me of some of the paintings in the British gallery. John White and his fellow shipmates, directed by Sir Walter Raleigh, voyaged out on an expedition not knowing where it would take them. They decided to try something that was new for them and experiment with meeting new life and finding new foods and wildlife. The British men and women of that expedition made a brave and heroic journey and recorded it through their paintings and drawings to show Great Britain a new land that few had dared to discover.
response 1
One of the works of art that had a lasting impression upon me was the sculpture of Mary Magdalene. At first, it was clear that the sculpture was of a woman holding some type of container possibly for holding water, but otherwise the underlying meaning and person portrayed in the sculpture was initially obscure to me.
This sculpture was very interesting not because it was aesthetic (it looked pretty antiquated on the surface) but more so because of its ambiguity to its audience. I found it interesting how it was possible to interpret the sculpture in different ways. On the one hand Mary Magdalene could have been seen as born of nobility because her ornate clothing may be suggestive of it, yet she on the other hand could be seen somewhat as a prostitute or a bartender because she is prostrated in such a manner that would suggest such a title. It was also interesting to see how the proximity of the date that a work of art was created to the date of the occurrence of the event or life of the person being portrayed demonstrates the accuracy of the piece and qualifies it as more of a primary or a secondary source. The sculpture of Mary Magdalene was one created in the 1500s which is far removed from the actual life of Mary Magdalene, which thus qualifies the work of art to be more of a secondary rather than a primary source, because of its distance from the life of Mary Magdalene (beginning of 1st century A.D.).
Studying this work shows how over time novel views originate and old ones may be distorted to a certain extent on either an event or the life of someone in history. What the sculpture discloses about the time period is how there was truly a lack of certainty to the true character and role the Mary Magdalene may have played during her lifetime. Both claims of her nobility and being a prostitute fail to parallel the Bible which is the primary source that reputably and truthfully attests to her character as one who was once possessed by seven demonic spirits, yet after being freed from such bondage accompanied Jesus from Galilee ministering to Him according to Luke 8:2. It was also this Mary Magdalene who was one of the first to witness Jesus’ resurrection. If one were to know more about the time period that the nobility was a very influential group within society, one could deduce that she could have been depicted as nobility because why would an artist portray the lower class when the more wealthy and influential upper class could be depicted instead.
Two of the images that i viewed on friday were the painting of Hitler and the image depicting the Holocaust. Both of these images showed the horrors that the Nazi regime brought to the world. In one Hitler was being shot through the head along with three dogs that represented the ones who were controlled underneath him. In the other a tree structure was made from wooden piece and as it branched out it went to miniture shirts that represented the people who were killed in the holocaust. Beneath the shirts were numbers, the numbers given to the jews in the concentration camps.
These two particular images were very interesting because they are about something that has happened in more recent times than most of the other paintings which were from the Victorian era and the age of exploration. I was able to connect more to these because i am more familiar with the subject and i was able to reflect upon it more. I thought that the one about the victims of the holocaust was very interesting because i thought that the way it was set up was accurate to what happened. The way that the shirts and the numbers branched off the main tree shows the views that the tree is the horror that was the concentration camps and persecution that was endured and the shirts and numbers were the helpless people that were taken.
I also liked these two images because we did talk about the topic in class and it was good to see how other people look at the time and what they think about it. They way that the artists portrayed Hitler and the holocaust really went along with what i thought. Its nice to see that the things that we are learning about from the past are still being painted and interpreted.
The piece that captured my attention most was the bust of Caligula, the Roman Emperor. At first glance, the sculpture looked to be nothing special, but much is revealed when one understands the time period in which the sculpture was created. Caligula was a cruel ruler, so much so that after his death, all works bearing his image or name were to be destroyed. The fact that this piece was not supposed to be existence made it very interesting for me. Caligula was also described as a rather ugly and balding man, yet he of course would not approve of being sculpted as such. However, the artist did make his hair appear to be rather thin, almost suggesting an ancient equivalent of a comb-over: a subtle hint towards the feelings of the sculptor perhaps. This sculpture would not have been very significant on it's own- just another stone face in a museum. But when one understands the context of the piece, many dimensions are added to the work of art.
Two pieces that are interesting to compare are the two paintings that we focused on in the British Museum by J.M.W. Turner. There is a clash in style between the one detailed image and the other impressionistic illustration. The evident versatility of the artist surprised and impressed me.
As soon as I walked into the room and laid eyes on the large, detailed Turner painting, I recognized it as a magnificent work of art. I believe the title of the picture is 'Dort, or Dordrecht, the Dort Packet-boat from Rotterdam Becalmed.' The remarkable detail particularly in the sky and water is what drew me to the painting. The golden hue of the sky centers on the glorious Dutch ship, the focus of the scene. The water is placid and contains faint reflections. Surprisingly, under dimmer light and on closer view, the reflections are more visible and detailed. The collection of people in the rowboat on its way to the ship also makes for interesting viewing. The ship, depicted in three-quarters profile, has a romantic and impressive appearance. The sturdily shaped wooden vessel is draped in gold sails and a bold, red flag waves atop the mast. In a broad sense, I think this picture is a testament to the power and importance of trading in the time period. Since the scene is apparently in Rotterdam, perhaps the artist is paying particular respect to the Dutch traders (even though Turner existed a while after the Dutch Golden Age).
Besides this painting was a smaller and much less detailed piece. From what I can interpret and remember, this painting was of a mountain over a lake with the sun overhead. Obviously, this picture was more impressionist—the basic shapes and colors are painted roughly as if the scene is a first glance. The blend of colors was interesting but I liked the detailed painting of the ship much more. However, I realized a connection between this piece and something we studied in class. In our primary source investigation of the Industrial Revolution, we analyzed an impressionist painting of a locomotive that was also made by J.M.W. Turner. Apparently, Turner was skilled as both a romantic, detail artist and an impressionist painter. I have come to appreciate him for the historical insight that we gain from his pictures as well as the overall quality of his work.
The images that I enjoyed most during the field trip came from the Yale Art Gallery. I liked the art there the best because it had a variety of pieces from different time periods. I really enjoyed the piece "Untitled" by Cy Twombly. My first impression of this piece was that it was a chalkboard that someone drew on or something that visitors to the gallery could draw on. I was really suprised when our tour guide explained to us how it was made out of wax and other things. It looked like it would take a long time and effort to make. I also appricated this art piece because of how our guide explained it by showing how creative you have to be to do something like that and how long it could take.
This piece of art is considered to be modern so it could not really give us and understanding about the past. This work does show us how different pieces of art can be very interesting.
The painting "Bildnis Holger Friedrich" by Gerhard Richter struck me as nothing special. It appeared to me to just be a blurry photograph that was taken of a person who wasn't expecting a picture to be taken of him. I selected this painting because it was one of those paintings that you look at and think "Why is this art?" I ended up finding out why it was art. It was not a photograph, it was, in fact, a painting. Richter took a photograph, then he projected it onto the canvas and traced it's outline. He then painted it in, and then "blurred" it to give it a unique touch.
You can use this image to view the period in which Richter lived. This was painted in postwar Germany, a country that was divided into East and West. At that time, there was clearly a blurred line of what it meant to be German. Once a proud country, they were disgraced in their defeat in the War. They were overrun by the US and Russia and forced into unconditional surrender. This must have been a very confusing time to be a German, and therefore is reflected in Richter's art. This painting was commissioned by the subject's business partner because of the subject's untimely death.
Yale Art
By William Si
Tuesday Came and went but instead of school, it was one of the best field trips I had been on in a while. Although all we did for the field trip was to go to two museums, the while day was fun. However, as I look back, it is interesting to reflect on the pieces of art that I have seen. One I remember clearly, although the name slips my mind, was the one where people were drowning in a cove area while the sky above the opened up.
To start off, my initial impressions were that it was a piece of art just like the rest. We were in a museum and it was full of art. But as we sat down on the portable chair things, we discussed the painting in greater detail. The while reason why I selected this work of art is because now only I remember it the clearest but we derived a meaning of what is going on inside the scene that was depicted. Instead of just art, it showed the struggles of two people who were in forbidden love. The only way they were to see each other was to swim across the water but as the painting depicted, one day as the man was swimming across, the sea opened up as a storm passed.
Thus, this painting only shows us the painting style of the time and what they liked to paint. Not showing any scene about the time itself, it only offers what the painter likes and how they painted back then. But with a deeper understanding of the time period, it is possible to seek out what is going on in the story that it is depicting.
Overall art gives us a portal into the past. For us, it is important to see what happened and how they though about things back then. Even if it is a random things on a canvas or a detailed piece of art, we see what it was like and how they did things back then
During our visit to the Yale Art Gallery, two of the pieces we saw were Virgin and Child Enthroned with Saints Leonard and Peter, by Master of the Magdalen, and Hero and Leander, by Peter Paul Rubens. These paintings are very different in terms of style and subject, and they are interesting because they reveal so much about the time periods during which they were painted.
Virgin and Child, created during the High or Late Middle Ages, depicts the legend of Saint Peter. Because of its religious subject, this painting shows how important religion was during the Middle Ages and how big a role the Church played. Also, the fact that this is an altarpiece, which was on the back of the altar, shows how decorative and ornamental the Catholic Church was, which Protestantism later reacted against, during the Reformation.
Hero and Leander, painted during the Baroque period, after the Renaissance, depicts an ancient Greek story. This painting demonstrates the rediscovery and revival of the classics during the Renaissance and the somewhat decreased influence of the Church (laicization!) Also, in the painting, the light shining down from the clouds can be interpreted as God, and thus, this painting show the effort during the Renaissance to integrate pagan and Christian beliefs.
In addition, these two paintings show the change in style and medium from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance and Baroque. Virgin and Child is painted with egg tempera and gold leaf on wood panel, whereas Hero and Leander is oil on canvas. The invention of the new medium allowed for much deeper and richer colours, more contrast of light and shade, more blending of the paints, and more transition between light and dark values; and the varnish used to coat it makes the painting shinier. Thus, Hero and Leander appears much more three-dimensional and the figures are beautifully rendered, while Virgin and Child, appears very dull and flat. Also, the Renaissance emphasized the imitation of nature, the use of perspective, and the study of human anatomy. Renaissance and Baroque artists mastered the techniques of realism. Therefore, the figures in Hero and Leander are more proportional, and again, this makes it look much more realistic.
These two pieces represent the changes in both artistic technique and values of Europeans over the centuries between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Artists’ skills in rendering very realistic images greatly improved. The Roman Catholic Church’s influence was beginning to decline, leading to secularism and the challenge to the Church during the Reformation.
Topic One
One piece of artwork that I found very interesting was the America's Darkest Moments Piece. In this piece there were a handful of different scenes that were being depicted. The scenes included: The bombing of Hiroshima, The assassination of JFK, a Vietnam scene, and a few other scenes that were unfamiliar to me.
My first impressions of the piece were uncertain at first. I was unsure what was the message of this piece of artwork or what some of the scenes were until I saw the title of it. It was then that I understood what this artist was trying to show through his artwork. It appeared that he was trying to show the side of America that we never really speak of that much, the side of America that is much darker. We tend to forget that as a country we have made some “mistakes” (this is all an opinion based observation) and also, that our country is by far not perfect in anyway. I selected this image, because I like the message that this artist I believe is trying to portray. Our country has had many great moments through out the 300 years or so of its existence. It is easy to forget some of the “darker” and less glorious moments of our past. This piece of art is a reminder to remember the bad with the good moments too. That is why I find this piece so interesting. Also, the fact that each scene is not explained. I found it fun to try and guess and interpret the scenes that were being depicted.
I think this piece has a valuable lesson that can be used when examining historical evidence. History does not just include the glorious moments of the past. History includes everything including some of the more tragic moments that some people do not want to be reminded of. It’s very important to be reminded of both though. That way, from the tragedies we can learn from the past mistakes. We can learn from what happened at the bombing of Hiroshima, in which the use of nuclear weapons have not been used since. It just helps society grow and understand from what has been done in the past. As George Orwell once said, “Who controls the past controls the present” that is an important statement that one should keep in mind, because if you know the past you are more likely not to make the same mistakes.
Question 1
This past Tuesday our class visited the Yale Art Museum. I was at first skeptical of the trip because I know that I have a differing view on what is art and what isn’t then many other people. The painting that stuck out to me most is called “Untitled.” There were many pieces of art without titles but this one stuck out most. The painting was of a giant chalkboard with chalk lines painted all over it. That is all it was. Nothing special; no colors other than the customary ones of a chalkboard, white and black and no specific designs.
At first, this piece of artwork frustrated me. It was of a giant chalkboard, anybody can do that. My original opinion was anything called art that can be easily made by anybody isn’t actually art. Upon further thinking though, I realized that this piece was not created for beauty or appreciation of the author’s hard work. It was painted to make the viewer think. By not having a title, the author is not telling the viewer to have any perspective on it. You can make whatever you want of the painting because there is nothing that would force the artist’s views on you. Even the guide did not know what to make of the art. She just told us how she viewed it. This really got on my nerves but after further thought, I realized that this painting did exactly what it was intended to do. It made the viewer think and was able to cause wonder.
This art can provide a greater understanding of our time period for future ones because it shows what we call art, how it was made, and why it was so artistic. I cannot really remember how it was made, but it obviously would provide an insight into the technology of our time period. It also shows our opinion on why it is artistic: because it can be interpreted any way by the viewer. Clearly this piece caused much drama based on our class discussion the next day, and I apologize for my misunderstanding of the piece. Upon further thought I realized it’s probably the most thought-provoking piece of art in the entire museum which is what makes it so great.
One particular piece of art that caught my attention was the modern art consisting of Hitler, Stalin and Eisenhower. I must be frank in saying that I saw the picture to be quite ludicrous and pathetic; in that I thought it was just trying to get attention and did not require much artistic or intellectual thinking in creating the piece. This may be due to the deep bias and prejudice I have against all modern art, as I just don’t really think Modern Art is really art due to the sporadic and random range of Modern Art. The painting, at first looked like computer programmed, so that added to my disliking of the picture. I mean anyone can create an image on the computer screen. The reason I have chosen this image, to discuss, is, however, solely based on the controversy of Modern Art in general. We have entered a time period, where basically anything and everything is art. From strokes of brushes to just random allocations of paint is now considered masterpieces by many. There are basically two sides on this new explosive art movement. One, in which I belong, refuses to acknowledge the wild rancorous pieces of nuisance that are being called art. The other considers this another stage of self expression, in which abstract painting has reached an epitome. Obviously the basic understandings and components of Modern art, if understood, would clearly help me objectify my opinion on this matter, but as of now I m purely disgusted by such new method of art making. I just can’t accept anything other than the conventional paintings of people or places, or even abstract pieces by Piccasso or Van Gough, whose art at least seemed to make sense.fxffjif
One particular piece of art that caught my attention was the modern art consisting of Hitler, Stalin and Eisenhower. I must be frank in saying that I saw the picture to be quite ludicrous and pathetic; in that I thought it was just trying to get attention and did not require much artistic or intellectual thinking in creating the piece. This may be due to the deep bias and prejudice I have against all modern art, as I just don’t really think Modern Art is really art due to the sporadic and random range of Modern Art. The painting, at first looked like computer programmed, so that added to my disliking of the picture. I mean anyone can create an image on the computer screen. The reason I have chosen this image, to discuss, is, however, solely based on the controversy of Modern Art in general. We have entered a time period, where basically anything and everything is art. From strokes of brushes to just random allocations of paint is now considered masterpieces by many. There are basically two sides on this new explosive art movement. One, in which I belong, refuses to acknowledge the wild rancorous pieces of nuisance that are being called art. The other considers this another stage of self expression, in which abstract painting has reached an epitome. Obviously the basic understandings and components of Modern art, if understood, would clearly help me objectify my opinion on this matter, but as of now I m purely disgusted by such new method of art making. I just can’t accept anything other than the conventional paintings of people or places, or even abstract pieces by Piccasso or Van Gough, whose art at least seemed to make sense.
After looking at many works of art at Yale last Friday, the painting that left the largest impression on me was “Untitled”, by Cy Twombly. When I first saw this work of art, I was sure that it was only a chalk board with lines and rectangles scattered about the board. I thought it was another pointless artwork that a four year-old child can draw. However I wanted to take a closer look before I moved on to another-more exiting- painting. After close examination I was surprised to find that it was an actual painting on canvas. The artist must have spent a long time making sure “Untitled” looked just like a chalkboard. Twombly even made it look like there were erase marks on it. I then started showing a greater admiration for the painting. The reason why I chose “Untitled” to write about is because my views changed so much from my first impression. I feel that much can be learned from Twombly’s unique painting. First, this painting teaches us how inaccurate first impressions may be. Almost everyone who saw “Untitled”, felt very negatively about it at first, but soon changed. It took people a while to understand the painting and enjoy it. Everyone interprets the painting in a different way, but almost everyone’s interpretations are different from their initial response to the painting. I thought that Twombly was attempting to send a message to artists through this painting. I believe that Twombly is tired of seeing the typical paintings that have been painted for centuries. He is most likely tired of painting people and landscapes, so instead he tried something different. This painting brings out a sense of nonconformist beliefs. The reason why his painting is worth a lot of money is because it is unique. Through this painting, he is stressing the importance of creating unique styles of painting. We live in a very diverse country, and it is imperative that we are diverse in are art forms.
This painting also led me to appreciate the simple things in life. Beauty can be found in the most unusual places. One simply must live with an open mind, and enjoy her surroundings.
`The Art that shocked me the most and the one that I remember the most was the painting done by Turner in the British Art Gallery. At first glance you could tell the picture was very well painted. It was beautiful how everything contrasted in the picture. I also was very attracted by this red blob on the left of the painting. This red ball shape just caught my eye and I stared into it. The boats in the painting were all so magnificent and everything looked beautiful. The color of the painting was pretty light. Then the Art person told us that under the light it has different shades. She said if the shades closed then the picture would look differently. When the shades closed the yellow in the picture became way more profound and you could see the shadows and the outlines of the boats more clearly. This was really surprising to me because I didn’t know that pictures can look differently under different lightings. This was probably the most eventful thing at the art gallery.
Looking at Art really gives you an idea of what the history is like and what is happening during the time the picture was painted. From the beginning of the tour we saw the renaissance pictures which mostly consisted of paintings of Jesus or other religious figures. As the time progresses we see more mythological paintings. Turners painting were of a sailboat. During his time period it was the time of mercantilism and imperialism so his painting represents his time period well.
Despite my absence throughout the duration of the trip to New Haven regarding the analysis of European art, I managed to view the works of Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, and various other European artists ranging from the 16th to the 20th century during the Spanish field trip to Hartford. Among the various paintings that I had the opportunity to view was Salvador Dali’s Apparition of Face and Fruit Dish on a Beach. My initial impression upon viewing such a work of art was certainly unlike my final impression regarding Dali’s masterpiece. At first I didn’t comprehend the image depicted before me however after viewing to attain some clarity I began to understand the depth within the piece. The reason why I chose this piece was due to its uniqueness and how it defied the norm for art during the era. The piece itself was certainly an illusion and the closer one looked into the depth placed within the piece one could vividly see the various things displayed in one painting ranging from a dog to a beach to a beaver to Dali’s own self portrait. I certainly felt it was the greatest work I have ever seen in person myself. I certainly feel as though Dali’s masterpiece contributes to providing a better understanding of art during the twentieth century. Dali’s works defied the norm for art during the era and displayed uniqueness unlike others who stuck to conformity.
1.) The image I chose was the one depicting Hitler shooting himself while being held down by Stalin and punched by Eisenhower. My first impressions of this painting were amazement and interest. This painting really stood out compared to some of the other paintings due to its vibrant colors and striking features. There were, though, many things to be discovered upon closer inspection of the painting. For example after looking at the painting you also discover what seem to be Hitler’s three “lap-dogs” being shot through the head by Stalin. This was also an interesting painting because it was painted after the Cold War, a time during which the Soviet Union and United States did not have good relations, and yet the artist painted the “countries” and their representative leader as teammates or partners in the fight against a greater evil. We can learn a lot from a greater study of this painting; we lean most of all that eventually even the greatest tragedies can be made comical. This is not because the events were themselves funny but merely because it allows these things to be easier to accept when they are seen comically. This is also a very simple way to express something extremely complicated; the artist takes a complicated struggle years long, and simplifies it into a single drawing of the end, showing Stalin taking out Hitler’s henchmen, and Hitler killing himself before Eisenhower got the chance.
Question 1
During my trip to the Yale Art Museum and the British Art Museum this past Tuesday, I felt that we viewed many interesting pieces of art that helped to us to better understand different aspects of European History. One piece of art that really interested me was the sculpture of Mary Magdalene from the 1500’s. At first glance, this piece seemed to be of an ordinary citizen from the High Middle Ages, possibly a peasant or a person of nobility. However, as the tour guide took us through different discussions about her clothing and position we began to get a clearer picture of who this person really was. At first our group interpreted her shabby clothing and her bent over position as someone who was begging for money and thus felt that she was a peasant. Then we figured that the long dress symbolized nobility and that the dress only looked shabby because the figure had chipped away over the years. The cup that she was holding and the reach of her other hand seemed to symbolize the give and take of Mary Magdalene’s position in society. The sculptor wanted to show that while Mary Magdalene was looked down upon as a prostitute, she really was a well respected woman who didn’t do anything wrong. I selected this image because I like the fact that it could be interpreted in many different ways and that it had a lot to offer about European society in the High Middle Ages. By studying this sculpture the viewer has much information to gain about the Roman Catholic Church’s influence in society during that time period. The art was based primarily around their teachings and this sculpture of Mary Magdalene provides us with more insight into the opinions of the people and the church during the 16th century. This theory can go both ways as studying history can teach us a lot about art as well. By studying all facets of European history we can determine the styles of art and the subject matter of the elite artists of that time. It is a two way street and that is what I liked about the Mary Magdalene sculpture. Overall, I felt that the trip was very beneficial to our understanding of various time periods in European history.
My favorite painting was at the Yale Art Gallery and it was the one depicting a characterized view of President Eisenhower and Stalin defeating Adolf Hitler. Eisenhower was punching Hitler in the head while Stalin was shooting his three “lapdogs” and Hitler was shooting himself in the head. My initial impression of this picture was, quite honestly, how awesome it looked. I have never seen such a take on World War Two are this one, mainly because the picture had a light and humorous feel to it. Using a characterized image of each individual made this painting seem less intense than most WWII material I've come across. I selected it because of the way in which it was rendered, not just the feeling it invoked when I first saw it. It was painted with acrylic paints and looked as though it had come out of an ink-jet printer. The brush strokes were noticeable, but only when it was viewed under close speculation. The work was done in 2006, so it's not as though it is a first-hand source of the end of WWII. However, it shows part of history that most people glaze-over or forget in its entirety, and that is that Russia and the United States of America were allied against Hitler's Germany and the Axis. It didn't necessarily help me to see history in any new perspective or teach me anything I was unaware of, but it was refreshing to see a piece of artwork that is based as much on reality as it is fantasy.
On our trip to New Haven on Tuesday, I really enjoyed the Yale University Art Gallery and the British Art Gallery. The piece that I found most interesting was probably the oil painting by Peter Paul Rubens. Physically, the painting was beautiful, and in addition, the story behind the painting is a classic tale.
I liked how Rubens took from the ancient Greek myth about Leander and Hero, another form of the tragic “star-crossed lovers” tale also told in “Romeo and Juliet” and “Tristan and Isolde.” The story was that Leander and Hero were forbidden lovers, and Hero pretended to become a priestess to Aphrodite so that she wouldn’t have to marry. At night, she would light a lantern for Leander to follow and swim across Hellenspont, where they could be reunited. There was a storm and the lantern fell down and Leander lost his way and drowned, and upon seeing his body, Hero throws herself into the water and drowns as well.
This piece of work shows how the Baroque art movement was reflected in works of the time period. Because Ruben was in Italy studying the works of masters such as Michelangelo and Titian, the Roman Catholic ideas were impressed upon him. This painting alone shows how Baroque art was meant to evoke emotion and passion, as opposed to the rationality and calmness in art that was prized during the previous years of the Renaissance.
The painting I would choose is from the Yale Gallery and is called "Untitled". I found this painting to be extremely interesting. It was intriguing how real it looked and how it had “fingerprints” on it. Before reading the description of the painting it appeared that it was just a chalkboard with shapes and fingerprints all over it. When I finally read it I was shocked and had to stop and consider who would think that this was art. However after thinking about this painting I realized that art sometimes does not have to be what people would think of as contemporary or traditional. If you look at history it has always been changing from what it was. This painting is simply what art has evolved into, and I can’t really pass judgment on that. These paintings will give the future of are world a look into how we were culturally, as past paintings have done for us. This painting represents how diverse the world can be and how some “random” shapes can seem to be nothing to some and have a significant meaning to others.
Of the many pieces of art that we viewed at both galleries, one in particular stands out in my mind as a favorite. It is Jean Baptiste Camille Corot’s The Harbor of La Rochelle. The piece’s realistic depiction of the French harbor was what first caught my eye, and dominated any first impression I had. The detail of the sunlight depicted in the piece is stunning to me. The shadows and reflections of the buildings surrounding the harbor, as well as the boats in the water, are placed perfectly and portrayed extremely accurately. The realism of Corot’s painting makes it stand out among most other paintings in both galleries.
The Harbor of La Rochelle gives any viewers a unique view at what everyday life was like in the era in which it was painted: 1851. The painting depicts average people going about an ordinary day; people are fishing, having a conversation, and preparing goods for transportation. The painting also shows the technology of the time period including sailboats and horse-drawn carts. Studying the mid 19th century would produce a greater understanding of the piece. The dominant ideologies of the time, which were characterized by a sense of realism, are shown in the piece. Further research into the political, economic, and social status of France at this time would further enhance one’s understanding of the piece.
Response # 1:
The piece in the Yale Art Gallery that I enjoyed studying the most was the photo realistic painting of the man sitting in the car. At first this painting had gone completely unnoticed, for I was distracted by the painting of Hiter killing himself on the opposite wall. But when I had turned and faced this painting, it jumped out at me and startled me. I was almost certain that this painting was in fact, a photo that had been somehow printed on canvas, and that since it was an old photo, blowing it up had made it blurrier.
But when the tour guide told us it was a painting, I realized its genius. The painter had made it blurry so it would appear as though it was a photograph. The image itself was startling to look at at first, a close-up on the face of a seemingly average white man. It serves as a extraordinary painting of an ordinary man, a paradox in itself.
Although this painting does not present any further education into the era in which it was painted, it proves to be an insight into the author's skill and the photo realistic genre.
The first drawing that I found interesting was the one of the man and woman eating on the floor from a bowl full of nuts or berries by John White. To any ordinary person it would seem like this was a normal drawing done by an ordinary person. But when you consider why it was done and the time period that it was done in, you must think that it was something much more special. When the curator asked us what we thought of the two Indians in the picture, most of us said that they didn’t look civilized and that they looked like regular Indians. Obviously that was the wrong answer because she went on to tell us that they did look civilized because they were eating together and sharing the food that they had. They seemed to be peaceful, and that was what John White was trying to convey in the drawing. He wanted the people back in England to think that the Indians who were living here were not going to hurt them and that in fact they were nice people. I selected this picture because it probably was one of the most important pictures that he drew because it enticed people to come over to America and start a new life. This drawing gives insight into how people at the time might have viewed native Americans. To everyone at the time they thought of the Indians as peaceful people, unfortunately later on in history we have come to realize that they were not the most civilized of human beings.
The second piece of art that I found interesting was the modern one of WWII depicting Eisenhower, Stalin, Hitler and the three dogs. I liked the refreshing bright colors and how it had somewhat of a graffiti effect to it. It was a welcome change from seeing all the older pieces of art that had most of the same colors. What I also liked about this painting was that the message it was sending was pretty clear and I was able to tell who was in the painting with the exception of the dogs. I think there is still some debate as to what those dogs represent. Overall I just thought that it was a great piece and it somewhat stepped outside what some would call a painting. It was different and it depicted something that not many people draw.
Response 1
The part of the museum that interested me the most was the part on John White’s watercolor paintings of the New World. I liked these paintings the most because they really gave one a picture of what John White thought when he was there. These are the colonists’ first impressions of the natives and are a key to understanding the original thought of the natives. The specific work that I liked the most was the painting of the Indian Chief. The Chief’s stance gives a great importance to what John White thought about him. With the slightly spread legs one in front of the other, and the hand on the hip, the Chief looks like the famous statue of David. This shows how much White really thought of the Chief.
When looking at this painting for the first time, I found the Chief to be a friendly man. His smile and nonchalance made me feel comfortable. He seemed very amiable and seemed like someone I would like to meet. His bow was ready as if he was a fearsome warrior who would defend his people to the death, but he did not seem dangerous to a friend.
With a greater background into the period one could know more about the colonists early relations with the natives. This could give us a better knowledge of the thinking that White had while drawing these pictures. Historical knowledge into this period could also give one a look into other peoples original thoughts of the New World and whether they were similar or different than White’s.
Response Number 1
The picture I choose to discuss is by one of my personal favorite artists, Vincent Van Gogh. The painting, "The Night Cafe" is full of absolutely dreadful and sickening colors, yet the piece draws audiences in. The picture has no straight lines, looks loppy, yet has great attention to detail. Van Gogh, I suppose was trying to get across the drudginess of the time period he was painting about. Although nothing is really happening in the picture, it just looks sad. The "throw up" colors as we were calling them move across a feeling of desperation. Everyone is standing alone showing lonliness and facial expressions are bland. I really really do like the painting though and think Van Gogh did an excellent job.
I chose the work “Untitled” by Mark Rothko from the Yale Museum. This work stuck out to me when reviewing the art that was seen in class, since I could not attend the field trip, because it did not seem like something that would be considered art. It did not seem like it would be that difficult to make because it consists of only three colors and contains only a purple box with red outlines on a sheet painted orange. This is something that I felt could be made easily by someone that had little knowledge about art, and I saw many other works that appeared to be simple and easy to make. We discussed in class that art can be almost anything as long as someone viewing it thinks of it as artistic. Someone must have felt that this painting was interesting and artistic so that it would be placed in a museum among other paintings made by talented artists. However, after reviewing information on the image, I found out that the artist intended the painting to be simple but for it to be viewed in dim lighting to give the effect of immersing the viewer in color. Therefore, it can be seen that the artist did give thought into what he was making, although someone viewing the work might not realize this.
This work reflects the kind of art that was being made during the time period. It’s painted using the ideas of Abstract Expressionism, which intends to reflect the artist’s inner feelings through metaphors. During this period emotions of the viewer were taken into consideration while making the painting. This differs from the world’s previous art which had a larger focus on the thoughts and feelings of the artist. This means that modern art, like that of Mark Rothko, has little political meaning behind it. The artist does not reflect as much of his feelings in the work as much as he attempts to provoke a feeling from the person viewing the painting. This could possibly reflect that there was not as much political or social problem at the time that artists felt strongly about to interpret their feelings in a picture. This piece was painted in 1954, and although this was not a time of complete peace, there were few wars and the world was emerging from the Second World War and beginning to grow socially and economically again. This could reflect the reasons behind artists’ focus on the emotions of the viewer rather than reflecting their own emotions and feelings in their works.
Question 1: Response
After viewing the art in both the Yale Center of British Art and the Yale Art Gallery, I found the more modern art pieces in the Yale Art Gallery to be the most interesting. My favorite piece was title ‘The Unborn’, which I found to be the most intriguing. My first impression and reason that the piece caught my eye how big the piece of art was. It took up the majority of the wall it was hanging up on and it really wasn’t that small of a wall at all. All the action that was going on in the piece immediately caught my attention. My initial thought was that this piece might have something to do with the Holocaust or WWI or some other type of human genocide was the focus of this painting. It wasn’t that it was an actual picture depicting a Holocaust scene but the colors title and overall feel of the piece made me thing that that was what it was about. As I studied the piece further, it appeared to be an empty family tree with little pieces of ragged clothing with numbers on them on it. The tree was withered and some pieces of clothing were attached to the tree while others were attached to broken branches off to the side or even just standing alone. The ragged pieces of clothing the brokenness of the branches and the numbers confirmed my suspicions that this was indeed about the Holocaust. I must admit that I normally avoid depressing topics such as the Holocaust in world history, but I found myself drawn to this piece and wanting to find out more information about it and the story it was trying to portray. However, I would never count on this piece to gather a lot of information or really any factual information about the topic. It serves a better purpose in helping someone to gather the emotions of the Holocaust and a different viewpoint as it was painted by a German artist. Adding another person’s opinion to a situation such as the Holocaust can help you think more deeply and objectively about an event and makes you more receptive to new information. Knowing previous knowledge about the Holocaust prior to viewing this piece of artwork would aid any viewer, as it did me; in realizing what the artist intended to show. The information that I previously had about the Holocaust really helped me to figure out what the painting was about.
The picture that I found most fascinating was the one depicting King Henry VIII and his many wives. My initial impressions of the picture were not really anything special. The artwork was very elaborate and detailed, and it was enormously large, but it never struck me as anything extraordinary. However, after discussing the picture with the curator there and after finally seeing and understanding all of the details to it, I seemed to definitely appreciate it more. I selected this image because it was one that, by looking at it in close detail, you appreciate it more. By studying this piece of artwork, one can better understand how people thought of the wives of Henry VIII. Everyone knows the story of Henry VIII and his wives, and everyone knows it is a fairly lengthy story. Yet this artist seemed to capture the beauty and mystery of it, and state his opinion on it, all in one painting.
The two pieces of art that were very unique were the one depicting the wives of Henry VIII and the one that looked like a political cartoon that showed Hitler and Stalin and many other cartooney images. I chose these works of art because they just stood out to me. The cartooney image had very vibrant colors and you can automatically see the familiar faces of Hitler and Stalin. Also, there were interesting images of things that looked like missiles. This picture, very similarly to the Henry VIII picture, both show political figures in their own way. The Henry VIII picture showed how some of his wives were good and the others were unsuccessful, and the Hitler picture showed Hitler and Stalin in a negative light. These pictures relate to our discussions throughout the year because, in the beginning of the year, we discussed the problem of Henry VIII. Also, we discussed Hitler and Stalin very much during World War 2 and post World War 2 Europe. All of the figures were controversial in many ways, and these paintings show that controversy.
My favorite image at either museum was the modern painting of Hitler, Stalin, and Eisenhower. My initial reaction was one of bemusement and interest with a dash of uncertain glee. The painting was a very strange piece of art. I did not seem to fit snugly into any specific genre of art; encompassing parts of modernism, surrealism, and abstract art. It caught my attention not only because of the color used, but also the almost caricature-way the figures were drawn. There was an almost cartoon like feel to the whole picture. Hitler’s eyes were popping out of his head as a giant bullet pierced through his skull. There were also three dogs sitting next to Hitler. It can be inferred that a singular bullet, similar to the bullet that is in Hitler’s head, went through all three dog’s head and it came from the gun of then General Eisenhower. This image can help the understand of the period because of the way each figure is depicted in the scene. The two “heroes,” Stalin and Eisenhower, look valiant and epic while the “villain,” Hitler, has a bullet in his head and looks destitute and defeated. It shows that at the time of WWII how two enemies, USA and the Soviet Union, banded together to defeat a common enemy. It is a pre-cursor to the Cold-War tensions that would engulf and dominate global politics for the next five decades.
Michael Merrigan
One interesting piece that appealed to me was the one that showed Hitler, Eisenhower and I believe Stalin. This piece is located in the Yale Art Museum. The first thing that I noticed was how bright the colors were. There was a lot of blues, yellows and purples. I also liked how the artist used different size proportions for different body parts. For example Eisenhower fist was made extremely large as it was about to punch Hitler's head. I also enjoyed the fact that every time I looked at the piece I learned some thing different. The paintings showed a theme of team work between the United States and Russia against Germany. This was accomplished by Eisenhower and Stalin beating up Hitler. It also showed the fact that Hitler killed him self. The artist drew Hitler shooting him self. The eyes of Hitler in this painting really impressed me because they were uniquely drawn. They were popping way out of his head. Three dog were also present in the painting. I interpreted this as Hitler closest S.S. officers that were obedient to him like dogs and stayed by his side until the end such as Himmlier. Overall I think this was the best painting and it made the biggest impression on me.
One painting that I noticed was the Cypresses and the The Starry Night. It was very colorful and bright and dark at the same time. It has a cool array of yellows and blues, and the swirls add interest to it. I think that this is an interesting piece to study because painters at that time wrote about life and the things they knew. Understanding the meanings behind the paintings could help understand life during this time period.
Post a Comment