I found the field trip to the two art museums at Yale to be very enjoyable. At first, I didn’t think I would enjoy the British art museum very much. Upon walking in to walls full of portraits and old pictures of famous historical figures, it seemed like they would be boring to look at and appear all the same. However, some of them proved to be a lot more interesting than I expected, probably due partly to the tour guide leading a discussion about specific paintings as well as background information that my class knew about the context of the pictures. For example, the picture of King Henry at first glance just looked like an image of a king and queen with other royalty surrounding them in at their throne. However, our class made many observations about the painting, such as the split between the Protestants and Catholics, the contrast from dark and light on either side, and the two different cities on either side of the room in which the subjects were sitting. Combined with our knowledge of the time period and historical events that the painting revolved around, it was interesting to notice how many careful details there were conveying themes and historical facts from the time. While the pictures in the British art gallery museum definitely weren’t my favorite, they turned out to be much more interesting than I expected. At the second art museum, I found the earlier works similar to those in the British art gallery. Some of the paintings had a very dull style, with many pictures of events of people in history, often portraits painted in two dimensions with little depth and detail. It seemed like the more recent the time in which the picture was painted, the more I liked and appreciated the art. For example, the works of Vincent Van Gough and George Sirot had much more interesting styles, with use of vivid colors and dotted or shorter brush strokes. The subjects of the pictures weren’t as clear as the earlier works, showing a transition to more abstract art. In the modern art, the pieces were very abstract, and often very simple, showing vivid colors, geometric shapes, or sometimes just random scribbles. I especially enjoyed this style of art the most because each piece makes you think about what you are seeing and what it means more so than just seeing the details in a portrait of a person. Each picture could be interpreted in many different ways, which allows you to question the artists’ intention for the work and also what art really is. To me, it seems like the definition of art has been stretched greatly over the years. In the earlier works, art appeared to be limited to pieces like sculptures and portraits and paintings of the subjects. It required a great deal of skill and training to accomplish “good” art. Over time, art became more general, as images didn’t resemble their subjects as closely, and the paintings tended to be more expressive than realistic. Eventually, things like a shovel hanging from a ceiling, scribbles on a canvas, or two yellow rectangles, were being considered art, even though it might not have taken much talent to create such pieces. Now, encompassing all the modern art, art seems to be anything that is created by someone and can then be seen and appreciated by others. It usually has a deeper meaning than what is initially seen. I think pieces like the shovel or the colorful rectangles can certainly be considered art, even though many people would disagree, because it causes people to think about it and see things differently than as normal every day objects. Overall I really enjoyed looking at many of the paintings, especially in the Yale Art Gallery, and getting to observe and discuss the older art that was unexpectedly interesting.
Going into the gallery visits I was interested in what we would focus on since there are so many works in a museum. The British museum was both very interesting and rather disappointing. While we did learn a lot and discuss in depth certain painting to get a better understanding of the works, we only got to see about 5 paintings. It was rather disappointing because there were a lot of beautiful pieces and we only got to see a very small portion of the gallery. It was good thought because we did learn a lot about the pieces. In the first one we saw of King Henry it was interesting to realize that one side was representing Catholicism while the other was showing Protestantism. It was also shown in the contrast of dark and light, and of the cities in the background. At first glance you do not realize that or realize that the people in the work would not have been alive at the same time. Nevertheless we did spend about half and hour at the work with people repeating the same points over and over again because they had not been paying attention, which made it frustrating. If everyone had listened and only added new remarks to the discussion we would have been able to see more works. In the Yale Art Gallery I really enjoyed the Picasso pieces. Picasso is a really interesting artist and I like viewing all of his different works. The 3rd floor also had some really interesting pieces. There was one piece that was an orange rectangle with a lighter orange rectangle inside of it. I do not see that as art and I did not like the work. I feel like I could draw two rectangles inside of each other and call it art if that is hanging in an art gallery. However the electric chair piece was really interesting to me. It was an Andy Warhol piece and I found it very interesting to look at. Also the very real looking man taking drugs on the floor was very creepy. I still am not sure if I liked it or not because it was so realistic but at the same time freaked me out. In seeing all of these works and looking at such different “art” made me think some things that are considered art I do not consider art. When someone says art to me I think of elaborate works that take a lot of time, and something I would never be able to do. Seeing two rectangles, or a shovel hanging from the ceiling does not seem like art to me. I do not see how you can interpret that to mean something. The paintings you can look at and take for a picture, or you can analyze them to see if there are deeper meanings. I think art you have to be able to interpret and find meaning in otherwise its just there. The paintings like the Lion Attacking A Horse to me are art. You can look at it and take it for what it is or you can think about when it was painted and see what it could possibly represent. I think when you are able to do that you can call something art. Overall I really enjoyed the visit to the art galleries. I felt like I learned a lot and it was fun to see all of the different works.
Although I personally did not attend the Yale art gallery, I was able to go on-line and find pieces of art that I like and disliked. I have never been very interested in art, and I have liked very few masterpieces that I’ve seen. However, although I may not like certain pieces of art, I still consider some works as true art. In my opinion, art can be considered something that the painter put a lot of effort into. Portraits of ordinary people would go into this category, such as A Hanseatic Merchant by Hans Holbein, or Mevrouw Bodolphe by Frans Hals. I would also consider painting of religious figures from the 1300s to be considered true art because the artists must have put a lot of work in order to please the Catholic Church. Paintings of this type would include St. Peter by Nardo di Cione and St. John the Baptist by Andrea di Cione. There were some works in the Yale art museum that I thought shouldn’t have been there. People kept mentioning in class that there was a shovel hanging from the ceiling that was considered art. This seems ridiculous to me, for the “artist” could not have put a lot of effort or thought in hanging a cheap piece of equipment from a ceiling. Another work that didn’t seem to have taken a lot of effort was Piet Mondrian’s COMPOSITION NO. III/FOX-TROT B, with Black, Red, Blue, and Yellow. This “artwork” was simply composed of squares and rectangles of red, black and blue, something that you would expect a first grader to do. This piece of “art” was from the modern era, as well as Josef Albers’s Homage to the Square: Dense-Soft (which I also thought shouldn’t be considered art. As mentioned before, I did not like most of the works even though I considered some of them art. The reason for this lies in the fact that the works failed to touch me, and failed to make me connect them to my life. The religious paintings didn’t interest me, for I have never been a man of faith. The portraits of regular people like A Hanseatic Merchant didn’t arose my interest, because I didn’t know how honest the artist’s depiction of the person was. For example, in A Hanseatic Merchant, we see a man who is dressed in what appears to be a dark cloak. We know very little about this man’s personality and other attributes, meaning that the painting failed to capture the entire picture of this merchant’s life. Ultimately, I dislike looking at paintings because they fail to give me a lot of information. The story the author wishes to tell is usually short and simplistic, and fails to tell the complete truth about the lives of Europeans.
Although I was unable to attend the Yale Art Gallery field trip I was able to look at many of the pieces online. I have never been a big fan of art nor do I know much about it but I am pleased to say that many pieces caught my eye as being exceptional. For instance, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and the Lady Anne painted by Edwin Austin Abbey astounded me with its incredible detail and power. The strong colors of black and red made the painting almost frightening just as the vast amount of people make it seem so real. I felt that this painting was a true piece of art. Some of the more modern paintings frustrated me with their simplicity though. I felt that many of the pieces were so simple that honestly anyone could have done them. One example is Homage to the Square: Dense-Soft by Josef Albers which is legitimately only two yellow squares, one a darker shade and one a lighter shade. Also, the painting Number 13A: Arabesque by Jackson Pollock consists entirely of splatters of paint. There is no pattern, no shapes, nor anything that sticks out to a viewer. It’s hard for me to accept art that I feel a five year old could do. Many of the paintings that I viewed were very religious, and though they may have been excellent paintings, it was difficult for me to understand because I am not a religious person. One example is Annunciation by Fra Angelico. To me I believe that for art to be worthy of praise it should be able to tell a story without any prior explanation. It should be able to convey a message depending on the colors used and the different techniques. It should be deeper than what is shown, but that deepness should also be easily deciphered. After looking through the various collections online I felt that many of the pieces of artwork fit into my personal guidelines of what art should be but the pieces also opened my eyes to various styles of art and how art really can be whatever you make it be. Reading the explanations of the various artworks helped me to look at the paintings from different perspectives and understand that what I may think is something so simple could have a much deeper meaning.
Overall, I enjoyed our fieldtrip to the two art galleries in New Haven. I have always enjoyed examining paintings and photographs, so naturally a visit to a location containing large amounts of such would be a fine experience for me. I will admit I enjoyed our experience at the Yale Art Gallery much more than I did our visit to the British Art Museum. I have never been one for group analysis on paintings and other symbolic works; I feel that things of this manner should be left for individual interpretation as everyone will have their own viewpoints and focuses. However, I found that if I blocked out the discussion going on around me I was able to interpret and look over the paintings we stopped at as I saw fit. The paintings our tour guide brought us to were interesting regardless and I enjoyed viewing them. I found our experience at the Yale Art Gallery to be more enjoyable due to the fact that we were allowed to move about and look at what we pleased. I was able to look over quite a few more paintings than we were able to at the British Art Gallery, a fact which I was quite pleased about. It really is quite fascinating how much detail the artists who created these works were able to re-create with just a pen and colored dye. I especially enjoyed the paintings with a vivid natural scene, such as a sunset or forest scene, though I found myself spending the most time at the Jackson Pollock painting on the third floor. At first, I could not imagine how someone could throw a bunch of paint onto a canvas and receive such recognition, but as I continued to look it over, I found that it was actually incredibly interesting. Was there any meaning behind the different paint splotches, I think not, but regardless it was still interesting to the eye. There was one work of art in particular that I was not at all fond of, that being a roughly one minute movie of a man throwing a metal brick between his hands. I watched it through completely and I could even begin to comprehend how anyone thought such a work was art. All the man did was throw a block from hand to hand on screen, slightly altering the tempo of his movements from time to time. I’d imagine some fancy art critic would go to explain how the differences in motion reflect some sort of world controversy or the complexity of human emotion, but in all honesty I think there’s no real artistry behind it.
I feel that art is anything, be it literary or visual, that has some sort of symbolic meaning and requires true talent to create. The work may not even need to have any true symbolic meaning if it is pleasing to view upon. Art is something that any person can look upon and either understand why it is good to look at or can look through the painting’s scene and develop some sort of interpretation on the work itself. Art may be as complex as DaVinci’s Last Supper or a macaroni sculpture a kindergartener made in art class, as long as it has meaning and is pleasing to look at. I do not view some of the more modern pieces of art today to be true art. For example, I do not care what the artist says a shovel hung upon a wall is not art. I have four of those sitting in my garage right now and I have never seen them to be artistic in any fashion.
Of the various field trips I’ve been on this past year, our tour of the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum of Art stands out as one of my favorites. Unlike other trips that required either an extensive amount of work or no work at all, the worksheet that we were required to complete kept us on task while not being over burdensome. The actual tours of the museum were great. As an art student, I’ve spent many classes throughout this past year analyzing art work. How well was the composition balanced? Where is the focal point on the piece? How does repetition and overlapping contribute to the effect of the composition? What story does the piece tell? Many, if not all, of the analyses I’ve done occurred in a group setting, similar to the discussion we had with our tour guide in the British Museum of Art. I felt as though our close look at a selected number of pieces were a great way to start our trip. It not only focused our attention but made us think. This guided tour prevented us from simply glancing over the pieces in the Yale Art Gallery. We were challenged to analyze the piece and formulate ideas as to the meanings behind them. Starting with the guided tour and later moving onto an individual stroll of the Yale Art Gallery was a great idea. The pieces themselves are always fun to look at. The pieces were incredibly interesting to look at, especially because of the historical background we had to work off of. The Renaissance pieces and Baroque portraits suddenly meant so much more. The modern art is always a favorite of mine. Just when you think that you’ve seen the most bizarre piece of art, you come upon another piece that simply makes your head spin. The only complaint I have about the gallery visit is the limited amount of time we had to look around. We ran through the British Museum of Art without having looked at ninety percent of the paintings. At the Yale Art Gallery, I never had the opportunity to make my way up to the Picasso exhibit. If only there were more hours in the day. Art can be anything, as clearly seen in the types of works displayed in the gallery. The Mona Lisa and the urinal are both, in their own right, art. Art is anyway in which a person expresses him or herself. For a child, it can be a sidewalk chalk drawing or a finger painted piece of paper. For an adult, it can be a detailed portrait or well… a urinal.
I personally enjoyed the experience of going to the art galleries. Besides the fact that it was a day outside of school, it is actually interesting to see works of art from centuries ago, and to see how much has changed in art since then. My only negative comment is I wish that we could have had more time to more closely examine each painting, and really determine what they were about and take note of the details and colors etc. One painting that was particularly intriguing was the presenting of the ashes of Germanicus to the emperor. It was one of the few works that really caught my attention, and was a bit easier to really take in the concept of the painting. The emotions of the people was clearly captured, and the contrast between light and dark was very evident. I much preferred the second museum, the Yale Gallery, over the first because we were allowed to see what we wanted to see, and really experience the change in art over time in Europe, as opposed to just viewing and closely examining a few pieces to find the overall message. Some paintings were definitely easier understood than others, but being able to view art as a whole is an enjoyable experience to me. Art is capturing a moment, and bringing to the viewer what should be seen, and not just what is seen. Artists can show the contrast between people's emotions, and can tell the viewer what happened without actually speaking. Art is a talent beyond description, because it involves being able to see so much deeper than what one sees at a glance. Artists can see the true meaning in a scene, and illustrate it in a way that can move the viewer to a point beyond words. When people can learn from art, it is simply an amazing experience.
I thought our field trip to the galleries was very interesting. It helped me learn more about European art then I had previously known, while still being a fun, entertaining experience. I liked the fact that we could see pictures from all over the world from hundreds of years ago to the present. I found the progression of art the museum had to offer a great way to see how art as evolved over time. This helped me see how techniques have changed, how colors differ, and how artists have become more skilled with the passing of time. One of my favorite aspects of the trip was our walking tour within the British Museum. Although we only saw four paintings, being able to analyze them thoroughly helped me understand the meaning behind each painting to a greater extent then I probably could if I had seen the paintings alone. Being in a group really brought the painting to life, and helped me understand more so what the artist was trying to accomplish. The only part of the trip that I disliked was that we did not have very much time in either museum. I felt as if I had barely scratched the surface of what each building had to offer by the time we had to leave. It was really disappointing that I wasn't able to see all the paintings each building had to offer, as I thought the selection both galleries had were very interesting. Other than that I felt as if the trip was a great experience. To me, art is something that is skillful, imaginative, emotional, and/or evokes thought. This is why the controversial "shovel" piece is art to me, as it evoked thought in almost everyone who saw it. A day after the trip it was still imprinted in our minds, and therefore its purpose was completed. This is why I can understand how the Byzantine pieces could be in the same building and even on the same floor as such pieces as a 'urinal' or a drug addict- since they are both conveying different types of art. While the pictures of a more traditional sense seem to be considered "real" art, if you think of the non-conventional pieces as something that might evoke feelings of confusion or anger (perhaps in question as to why a urinal is in an accredited art museum) then isn't it creating the same response as Picasso's piece "Guernica" for those affected my the Spanish civil war?
I really enjoyed the trip that we took to the Yale Gallery and the British Museum. I felt that I learned a little something about each of the pieces that I saw, whether it was with a guide or by myself looking at the pieces in the Gallery. The piece that I really liked in the British Museum was the Allegory of the Tudor Succession. It was really interesting how the artist portrayed past and future Tudor Monarchs along with the success of the monarch. The artist clearly showed flavor on the Protestant Monarchs because of the symbols and the colors that were used on that side of the painting. However, the opposite side included the God of War and alluded to the unsuccessful reign of Mary Tudor, or “Bloody Mary”. The subsequent reigns of Henry and Elizabeth are highlighted as being prosperous and successful. It amazed me that I could understand all of this information just by looking at the painting. It made me appreciate art a little bit more. The only thing that I didn’t like about our tour of the British Museum was the fact that we had so little time to view the paintings. My group saw about 4 pieces of artwork and I would have liked to see a little bit more of it. I enjoyed that Yale Gallery more than the British museum because I saw more pieces of art and I was able to interpret them by myself, instead of having a guide tell me about each piece that I was looking at. The pieces that I enjoyed the most were the more modern art. I really enjoyed looking at the Picasso exhibit. His artwork is so unique and interesting; there is nothing else quite like it. In my opinion Picasso is one of the greatest artists of our time for coming up with such an ingenious artistic style. Some people believe that anyone would be able to do that, that may be correct but he was the first one to do so, which makes a difference. I really enjoyed all of the art that was in the Yale Gallery and I hope that I will be able to go back there at some point. I believe art is anything that you want it to be. Most of the artists that were exhibited became famous because they dared to try something that someone else had never done before. To me and you it may not seem like art, but to the artist it could have opened up a whole new aspect of his work. Just like beauty, I believe that art is in the eyes of the beholder. One person can look at a piece of artwork and think that a five year old could have drawn that, and someone else might think that it was a wonderful masterpiece. It all depends on how you look at things. I believe that that is the most important aspect of art.
Since I did not go on the trip itself, I cannot tell whether or not it was a good experience. From the art posted on the Yale site, it seems that the trip should have been a fun and interesting one to say the least. The stories I heard, especially of the modern art, serve to strengthen the hypothesis. I think that my favorite part of all these paintings was their relationship to what we read in Spielvogel. For instance, looking at all the religious work of the Renaissance reminded me of all the events and struggles of the era. The depictions in the work of religious life and symbolism repainted a picture of the lives of worship and artistic workmanship. I would have to say that my favorite pieces were in the modern art. All the different styles and designs display a strong talent among the artists that created them. However, I do not like the “works” that require no talent or time, such as the shovel in the ceiling. As far as I am concerned, art is a work that requires skill from the artist as he or she presents an expression of inner emotion. A shovel hanging from a ceiling, no matter how much explanation goes into it, is still a shovel hanging from a ceiling. There is no are in that. A person should be able to look or listen at/to the art and feel the emotions that went into the creation of that art. If that is not the case, the work is not art.
Personally, I feel that any type of expression through a visual representation is art. Whenever I go into a museum of art, I have a great time. From the artist’s first thought to his finished product, the artistic method is something that interests me very much and I love to just stare in wonder as I gain insight to great artistic minds from every part of the world. Everything from to Byzantine sculptures to the hanging shovel is art to me. Whether the specific piece may be good art, or horrible art, is entirely in the eye of the beholder, just like any other subjective discipline of study. However, certain types of art interest me more than others and certainly, some don‘t very much. And of course, many of them were rightfully displayed in the Yale galleries.
The first piece I would like to discuss is Van Gogh’s Night Café. Night Café I think might be one of the favorite pieces of art in this gallery (and personally, I like it much more than his famous Starry Night). Several notable feature in this piece are Van Gogh’s usage of contrasting colors to convey emotion and his beautiful representation of images. Van Gogh uses very bright and vivid colors to fill it the wine glasses and drinks as well as the billiard table and the light. This is very well contrasted with the dull and despair colors used to fill in the people with their heads turned down. None of which show any type of real happiness. Van Gogh’s somewhat abstract style creates the reverse effect of a portraiture: animate objects, and inanimate human beings. Likewise, his representation of said wine glasses and drinks, the billiards table, and the lights are magnificent and very creative. This painting is beautiful to look at from afar as well as upon close inspection to details. I very much enjoyed this painting and Van Gogh’s genius.
One particularly piece I did not enjoy (or have yet to understand) is Vuillard’s The Thread. Of course I can acknowledge the merit of this painting such as the contrast of complimentary colors, tense spatial separation of the piece, and useful technique of the medium. But I feel like this painting is beyond overworked. The negative space in this painting exists only in the top left corner, and is by no means eye catching. This picture lacks a great deal of balance and seems very “foggy” to me. Obviously, the artist purposely meant to do all of this, but purposely trying to do too much can be bad. There are just way too many unnecessary in this piece that makes it too stressful. First off ,there is absolutely no need to crop the third woman out of the painting. I do not see why this was done, and it seems useless. The picture at the odd angle draws bad emphasis on the painting and the subject matter of this very tight wealthy household its quite boring. I feel that the artist is surely skillful, but did not express himself properly. His purposeful defiance of basic art principals makes this painting repulsive.
I wish I had the time to discuss more art pieces but I only noted down few of them. Overall, I had a great time viewing different types of art through the ages, eating good pizza, and enjoying the nice day. It was a wonderful trip and my only wish was that we had more time to roam around the British gallery.
I love art and I loved the trip to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Art Museum. I’m not an art student, and I’m not adept at drawing, but I don’t think you need to be in order to appreciate art. The most important thing I learned from this trip is that art can be defined in many different ways and different pieces will mean different things to different people. While I would consider myself open-minded and a creative thinker, it is still hard to appreciate a shovel hanging from the ceiling as much as an intricate oil painting. I would define art as any type of media that is both aesthetically pleasing/interesting and open to interpretation/thought-provoking. At least under my definition, the shovel does not qualify as art. It has no aesthetic value (it’s just a household object), and you don’t learn anything about the artist by looking at it, except maybe that s/he tried to get you to think what they were thinking about.
One part of this trip that I particularly enjoyed was the Picasso exhibit. Picasso is the most well-known artist of our time, but this exhibit allowed viewers to experience him in a different way- through his less famous works. The gallery had his notebook on display, which is almost like seeing the homework of s student before the final essay. Getting to see his notebook got me to think about Picasso, the man and artist, not just the works he is famous for. Although it may have just looked like finger painting and scribbles in spanish, I thought seeing Picasso’s notebooks helped me get a better idea of his creative process.
I did learn from the tour guide and notice things that I might not have otherwise, but I felt she had a set interpretation to each painting and was not open to the new ideas our class had about them. Also, going into in-depth discussions about a few paintings limited us from experiencing the other pieces the guide had to offer. Overall, I think I benefited from this trip and experiencing the contrast of art from different time periods between the Yale Art Gallery and the British Art Museum. Seeing these pieces was very relevant to our course, because it helped me to view the pieces within a broader historical context and see how they reflected the conflicts of the era.
Although I was unable to attend the field trip to the Yale Gallery, I viewed many pieces of artwork online. I thought the collection as a whole was pretty impressive and filled with a good variety of works. Through the website I was able to easily see pieces from different periods and contrast how art has differed throughout many time periods, as well as how artistic styles have changed and evolved. For example, I was able to easily see advances between art from the 1300’s and art from the 1700’s. The piece “St. Peter”, painted around 1355, used bland colors and little dimensional skills or perspective. Pieces painted a few centuries later showed much better perspective, making use of a foreground and background, and also used more variety of colors. One example of this was a painting titled “Mr. and Mrs. John Gravenor and their Daughters”, which was painted in 1747. These pieces show how artistic skills advanced over a few centuries. They also show differing themes from these two periods; while the older paintings are mostly oriented around religion or religious ideas, the later paintings are more secular and use realism. Another interesting category was the modern and contemporary art. One piece I looked at in this category was titled “Fox Trot B”. It was basically composed of different colored rectangles arranged on a page. A lot of these pieces are similar to one another in that they use abstract ideas, bright colors, and geometric shapes. While I personally did not think these pictures showed much meaning or artistic ability, I still thought they were interesting to look at. To me, the most valuable aspect of modern or abstract art is that the interpretation is left up to the viewer, and that it provides a strong example of the diversity found in art today.
Although I was unfortunately unable to go on the field trip to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum, I was able to see many paintings from the Yale exhibits online and I can say that I was very impressed with the immense spectrum of paintings that they did have. I found the early European works from the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries such as A Hanseatic Merchant (1533), to be quite dull and boring. This was mostly due to the fact that most of these paintings were of people such as the merchant, or of some religious figure, and contained little color or detail. One non-contemporary painting that I really did enjoy however was Starry Night (1851) by Jean-Francois Millet which depicted a dark nocturnal landscape that appear very dull at first, but upon close inspection a sky of beautiful shooting stars is revealed with the shadow of a mysterious figure underneath. I also found it interesting that it had the same title as Van Goh’s most famous painting, and the website even said that Van Goh may have possibly been influenced by Millet’s work. Now of course I must talk about “modern” art. There are many things I can say about modern art, and sometimes I get it, sometimes I do not. Of the Yale collection I found most of the works to be very similar, colorful pictures of geometric shapes and some random scribbles. One painting that I found laughable was Josef Albers Homage to the Square, which is simply a painting of a dark yellow square encompassed by a lighter yellow square with a white background. Once in a while I can see the awe in a painting such as this, but like most of the time it made me just think to myself “wow, I did this same painting in fourth grade.” But then again, art really has no definition to me. If you make or create something that at least one person out of the billions of people on this world can call “art” than it is in fact art. To me personally however, I consider art to be a painting or sculpture that I know I could never recreate, or something that makes me think, feel, or admire.
I found the field trip to the Yale art gallery and British museum reasonably interesting. I liked certain works of art, such as the painting of the blurry face. This one surprised me, because it looked so much like a photograph. I also liked some of the paintings, such as the painting of the Roman arena and some of the Van Gogh paintings. I found them to be very well painted and interesting to look at. I also found the paintings in the British museum to be quite interesting. I learned a lot from the guide that I would never have imagined from just looking at the paintings. For example, the painting of King Henry VIII had a lot of symbolism in it that wouldn't have been immediately obvious to me. I thought all of these works of art were definitely art because they required much effort and creativity to make and they were extremely well-made. I did not, however, like the shovel. It was one of the few things I disliked, for the reason that it was such a copout. I have several similar shovels in my garage, and it would take me about 5 min to hang it from the ceiling. That is not art. It's a quick way to take advantage of the enthusiasm of museums for modern art to make a quick buck. The guy probably got paid a decent sum of money for that shovel creation. I am all for creativity, which this certainly has, I'll give it that. However, art should take some effort to make and should be the result of hard work. I think it would have meant more and been more like real art if the artist had perhaps made the shovel out of papier mache (sp?) or something, or decorated it with something like modern art sculpture or a Jackson Pollack style painting. That would have reflected more effort and made it a legitimate piece of artwork. I'm not knocking the guy's creativity, I just think he could have done more, because I was thinking, that's it? Other than that, I found all the artwork very interesting and I thought it was a worthwhile trip.
Unfortunately, I was unable to take the field trip to the Yale Gallery though I did view the various works of highly intelligent and capable artists online. The paintings are not only magnificent they make you think and wonder as well. I was greatly impressed and actually surprised at the same time. From the website I was able to notice the different styles that were prominent in particular time periods. It was evident how artists’ views and perspective changed due to the circumstances they were surrounded with. There were drastic differences especially from the 1300s to the early 1700s. The earlier paintings did not contain a lot of dimensions, colors or perspective. They were simple and straight to the point. They used plain color and the usual techniques. The painting in the later years focused more on the background, the foreground of the painting and using more brighter colors and better techniques. One of my favorite types of art was the “modern contemporary”, this kind of art uses abstract thoughts and ideas with bright vibrant colors along with different sizes and shapes. I thought this was really interesting because the person viewing these kinds of paintings can make up their own conclusions and is not being told how to think or interpret certain paintings. In my opinion art is a way of expressing one’s inner thoughts, feelings and emotions. Not everyone can paint or create their feelings on to a canvas, those who can are rightfully called artists because they have made the viewers dream and think outside of the box. They make people wonder and go in a different place with each of their paintings. Art to me is a way of expression and only expression.
I enjoyed going on the field trip to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum. I found that the group discussions we had as a class in the British Museum were interesting and I liked how we were able to talk about the historical figures and the prospective that each brought to the painting. It made the painting more enjoyable to look at and it brought a new and interesting way for me personally when looking at art. Usually I would just look to see if the piece looked good and then move on but the discussion we were able to have as a group based on the material that we learned in the past allowed me to analyze art in a new way. Out of the two art galleries I liked the British Museum better because we looked more in depth into the paintings we viewed and I got to hear everyone’s different opinions of the paintings we looked at. I also liked it because the paintings we looked at were based off of the time periods in European history that we had discussed and learned about in class. In the Yale Art Gallery I liked viewing the modern art and comparing the art from the Gallery to the British Museum. The Yale Gallery had a floor dedicated to Picasso and exhibited his art. I found that Picasso’s work was not as good as I had hoped for and that I found it hard to understand. I liked viewing his other works besides just seeing his paintings but overall I felt that he was not as impressive as people perceive him to be. Also, in the modern art section of the Gallery I was not impressed with some of the work. For instance, the shovel hanging from the ceiling, it just didn’t make sense to me how that was art. However, some of the pieces were interesting to look at. The painting named the Knife Grinder was a painting made of many different shapes and structures and I liked looking at this painting. Overall art to me is a form of creativity and imagination and is a great display of artistic ability through paintings, drawings, sculptures, or any other ways displaying an individual’s work. I feel and learned that art can truly be anything and is really seen in the eye of an individual. Everyone has a different outlook on art and I feel that art is based on how you interpret it.
I found the Yale Art Gallery and the British Art Museum to be very interesting. Normally, I do not really study art nor am I artistic, so it is significant that I enjoyed myself. I thought it was cool to look at a painting and realize that they were made centuries before our time and consider the history behind them. I particularly enjoyed the more modern paintings in the Yale Art Gallery. These paintings caught my eye because the painter had used such vivid colors and abstract themes. I liked how in the British Museum of Art, I could make references to things I have learned in class. Also, I found that talking about the paintings as a group caused me to notice things that I probably would not have noticed had I been going around on my own. I only had a few negative thoughts about the trip. I found myself disappointed after the Picasso gallery. I guess I had high expectations for it, but found the exhibit to be dissatisfying and the art to be confusing. I like much of the other abstract art though, such as the painting “The Knife Grinder”. The colors really drew me into the painting and I found myself critiquing it, which I normally don’t do. On the trip, some people sow some things that they wouldn’t consider art. Personally, I think that art is something that a person uses to express their feelings. It could be paintings, sketches, sculptures, or anything really. While I do believe that there is a point where hanging random things from the ceiling is not art, I also realize that what might not be art to me might be art to someone else.
verall, I found the field trip to be highly satisfying and intriguing. As my aesthetic tastes are very traditional (I mostly enjoy the Renaissance, Baroque, Romantic, and Realist styles), I deeply enjoyed the art presented in the British Museum, as well as a number of pieces at the Yale gallery. As I have no experience or skill whatsoever with actual fabricating pieces of art, the only criteria upon which my enjoyment of art tends to be based is how vividly realized and realistic the relevant piece is- the moreso, the better. Therefore, paintings such as the depiction of Peter the Great's visit to Great Britain's Shipyards or the Victorian Poor and the Victorian Train station, alongside the numerous Renaissance and Baroque works (such as the Dutch Baroque potraiture) were very satisfying and interesting. Objectively, I judge the quality of a piece of art by the degree of technical sophistication and creative effort that appears to have been invested into it. Therefore, while I personally dislike virtually all art in the surreal modern styles, I could still appreciate some of the works of Piccasso (such as Guernica) present while at the same time repudiating such things as the shovel attached to the ceiling, which I found to have no creative merits whatsoever. While I personally abhor surrealism, cubism, etc., I can still acknowledge the degree of technical skill and ingenuity required to draw and paint something like Guernica, and I can also perceive the degree of technical ability require to create a perfect, planed colour as witnessed on the flat orange pane. However, something that could very readily have been scrawled by an inebriated toddler or accidentally produced by an homeowner infuriated with his snow shovel clearly do not require much in the way of creative thought or effort, and thus are worthless. However, ultimately, given my personal aesthetic tastes, I didn't truly enjoy or spend much time in any of the modern exhibits. I was interested in the Byzantine and medieval works present. While they do not show much use of perspective or other signs of technical sophistication, I find their era as well as their sheer age to be quite fascinating, enough to override many of the flaws that might otherwise have repulsed me. Additionally, many of those hoary works still possessed significant attention to detail and various aesthetic quirks that were appealing to me, and thus I still found them considerably more compelling than the modern works. It is for this reason that the British gallery was especially appealing, as it was filled with very detailed and sophisticated pieces of Western art, with all of what I witnessed having been old and traditional in the aesthetic style which I enjoy so greatly.
I very much enjoyed the gallery visit (and not just because of the two Chuck Palahniuk books I acquired and possible ruining Dave's life in the Yale Bookstore). I enjoyed the gallery in which we were allowed to freely walk around and look at the paintings as opposed to the gallery in which we had a guided tour. I enjoyed being able to focus on paintings that I personally found interesting as opposed to painting that some lady who couldn't understand my statements (which I still claim were not complicated) enjoyed looking at. I refined my sense of what I like in art at the gallery visit. Art in this case meaning paintings, as opposed to sculptures, theatre, etc. I like sharp and vivid colors, and contrasting colors are also nice. I do not like messes on canvas that someone points to and goes, "THAT REPRESENTS MY ANGST!!!!!!!" Due to the fact that I much prefer critique to "that looks pretty" I will focus on what actual art is, as opposed to ANGST!!!! Art is a message delivered in a manner not typical of everyday conversation meant for some kind of audience (i.e. conversations are not art, speechmaking and oratory is). Using this as a base, it grows in complexity. When an artist just throws paint at a canvas and yells "ANGST" they are not painting, they are being a two year old. This is vastly different from artists like Pollock, whose painting were simply meant to be pretty. There is a message there, it is a simple message, it says, "look, I'm pretty" which is a very nice message. It is what makes a pop song art, and what makes children's theatre wonderful, it is simple, elegent, and obvious. On the other hands, saying that it represents great works is wrong because it does not deserve to represent great ideas. It requires no skill, it is no longer original, and it doesn't make me question "is this art" it just makes me say, "starve on the street Mr. Angsty!" Art requires some unique thought from the mind of the creator. Wheather this thought is complex or simple is not the problem, it is the amount of thought. Throwing paint on a canvas and yelling "ANGST" is not thought, it is the reason way some artists SHOULD starve on the street.
I thought the trip to the Yale Museum was amazing. As a person who respects creativity and its messages, I felt that the trip was worthwhile and allowed me to open my eyes a bit more. My family is not the type to indulge in creativity; it seems like I’m the only one who loves to write and draw. So, I’m really grateful that I had the opportunity to view many art pieces by some of the most artistic geniuses in history.
I did not enjoy the first gallery tour as much as I enjoyed the second. This was mainly because the guide had a snarky attitude. The first question that she asked was, “What is England? Do you know what England is?” What? And before she asked the question, we told her that we were all enrolled in A.P European History. How can we not know what England is? Despite this, I admit that she had pointed out many features of different paintings that I would have never considered. For example, she discussed the perspective of the pieces and forced us to analyze why the artist would use a certain technique. She talked about the lower, middle, and higher ground, and how we could differentiate through focus. But I would have really liked it if I could have toured the gallery at my own pace. I think that art does not communicate with everyone on the same level.
The second gallery appeared much nicer, and I enjoyed the liberty of showing myself around. One painting that particularly liked was about Danae and Perseus. I didn’t even have to know about Greek mythology to understand or appreciate the painting. Just the colors and techniques made me stare in awe. I also came across certain works that completely stumped me. Some I didn’t even think would be considered art (i.e. shovel).
And that brings me to the question: What is art?
Art. Three letters put together to create a larger than life meaning. Art is the visible representation of a person's thoughts and feelings. They're made for different purposes. One piece, like Guernica by Picasso, can show an artist's reaction to an event. Others can be used to persuade. Some are merely for entertainment. In the end, there are many artists who have the talent to create pure masterpieces and they're the ones who deserve the highest respect.
Overall I thought that the visit to the art galleries were interesting and fun. Some of the works were truly extraordinary, not only in there painting difficulty and visual, but also the political, social and economical meanings of the paintings as they were painted at a certain time in European History. I thought it was interesting to look at the differences in the painting styles based on the artistic era that we had talked about in class. Going through the gallery was like going through a time capsule of Europe, in the sense that you could see the progression of art in Europe. In one floor, you could notice that the painting was Mid Evil due to its lack of depth and religious meanings and figures depicted as humans, and the date of the painting would correspond with this. A couple steps further you could see a painting that was in the Renaissance period due to its depth and detail. Then you could see a little later in history, as the next painting would be painted in the Romantic era and have great emotion displayed in the painting, with references to classics. This part really visualized what we had been learning in class, and I enjoyed these paintings. Some paintings I did not enjoy were the abstract painting. It’s a personal preference, but I just don’t like these paintings. I believe it is pointless to display the image or message you want to portray in the painting in such a round-of-about way. I like a piece of art that I know exactly what it is right away, and not have to go through layers of deception. Also, some of these paintings were even too abstract to even be considered art in my mind. My definition of art is a visual that is created by the artist that expresses emotions or feelings. Some of the works that we saw pushed, and even shied away from that definition. There were several works that just shouldn’t be considered art. For example, a shovel hanging from a ceiling is in no way art. I’m sure there is some abstract meaning behind it, but you can manipulate anything to have meaning behind it. This to me is an example of an established artist getting away with this as art because people think that whatever he puts forth must be art. This along with other paintings or drawings that were as simple as a couple lines, are not art in my mind. These types of works frustrated me and I didn’t like them.
Overall, I really enjoyed the filed trip to the two art galleries at Yale. I have been on a few field trips during my three years at high school and I have to say that this was definitely much more enjoyable then most. I really enjoyed both of the galleries that we attended. I did, however, prefer the guided tour at the British museum. Felt that our tour guide was very knowledgeable and directed our attention towards the more important parts of the artwork. I enjoyed the artwork in the British museum, I felt that it was interesting to look at and very traditional, unlike the Yale Art gallery. The Yale art gallery appealed less to my artistic taste. I felt that the Yale Art gallery was much more contemporary with a focus on the more unusual and perhaps odd art. This is not my type of art. I believe that if I can create the piece of art it should NEVER be displayed in an art museum, no matter how “original” or “modern” the piece is. I think that these “original” pieces of art should be thrown in the trash. I mean, honestly, what kind of art is a shovel hanging from the ceiling? It isn’t art! Oh yeah, and Picasso is quite overrated in my personal opinion. What did he do that was so special? I’m not sure, maybe somebody can explain it to me, but until then I dislike his work entirely. But nevertheless, the trip was still interesting. I really did enjoy the fact that we were able to explore New Haven around the Yale campus. And I really enjoyed our lunch; the pizza was extremely good.
And what is art?
I would have to say that one of the most beautiful pieces of art was the dismantlement of Manchester United by Barcelona this afternoon. Perhaps one of the best displays of team fútbol in recent memory, overall the performance by the Catalan giants this afternoon was a stunning work of art to me; better than anything Picasso could ever do! But I think that art should have a deeper meaning in it, anybody can paint something on a piece of paper and call it art. However, it takes a true artist to create something that has a deeper meaning. This deeper meaning can be anything; it just has to be there. Close enough that it is not impossible to discover but not nearly close enough that it is visible after 5 seconds.
******* I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE KNOWN THAT I POSTED AT 5:44 THIS MORNING AND TECHNOLOGY FAILED ME SO I HAVE TO REPOST NOW. THANK YOU*******
I really enjoyed the visit to the galleries. I love museums of any kind because they allow me to better understand the thoughts of people when the art was created and see how life/thoughts have changed since then. I thought that the British Museum was better than the Yale Art Gallery, possibly because we had a tour guide who was able to explain the art we saw to us. Here, I especially liked the artwork entitled “Allegory of the Tudor Succession” because it allowed us to apply what we learned in class and see that what we learned had value. The painting was of eight Tudor monarchs with Henry VIII in the center and his Protestant successors to his left and his Catholic successors to his right. The painting tied in a lot of British history that we learned early in the year and I enjoyed applying it.
I did not really enjoy the modern art section of the Yale Art Gallery. Many of the works placed in it, to me, did not seem like they should be in there. For example, the running movie of the man on the phone talking did not make sense nor seem appropriate to be called “art”. Another work that did not make sense was the one that had an orange rectangular box with a lighter, smaller orange rectangle on top of it. I felt that just about anyone could have created it and that the “artist” was simply smart enough to sell it to Yale. I did enjoy the more classical, Western European paintings though. They made more sense because they represented the ideals of Western Europeans when the art was created. I also liked them because, again, I could relate them to what we have learned in class. For example, the one entitled “Virgin and Child” I understood a little better because we had discussed many “Virgin and Child” pieces during class. Overall, I would probably not go back to the Yale Gallery unless I had a tour guide or anything to help me understand what I was seeing.
Art is anything that represents a time period (i.e. its movements, ideals, people, events, etc) in a way that makes its viewer think. It is important for the viewer to have to think to understand art because it would be unfair for artists who spend a lot of their time creating the piece for someone to just quickly glance at the work and move on. Art should represent a time period because I also think that art is a form of time capsule that people can use as a “gateway” to the past. Also, art can not be art until a significant amount of time has passed so that it may be put into perspective. All of these factors constitute art.
I really enjoyed the visit to the art gallery. Usually I am not a big fan of art. I think that it is nice to look at put after a while I get bored with looking at it. To me a portrait of someone is nothing really that special. Sure the artist might use a different technique than a previous artist but for the most part to me it all looks the same. While we were at the museum with all of the British paintings I thought it was a little boring. While the paintings were nice, and they told a lot about the time period they did not really catch my interest. I tried really hard to observe them closely and try to see what made them so special compared to the other paintings at the museum but to me they all looked slightly similar. When we got to the art gallery and I started to look at the Mondana paintings I thought that it was going to be just like the other gallery. When I started looking at the more modern pictures however, I soon realized that I was wrong about art. This was my favorite part of the field trip. I really enjoyed looking at the abstract paints that when you first looked at them you initially thought that this was no way art, and that you could do it yourself. While I found myself thinking the same thing, the more I looked at the paints the more I realized how unique they were and indeed they were art. To me art is something that really makes you stop and think. It is something that is able to make you look at something in a completely different light then you do on a day to day occurrence. For example in one of Picasso’s pictures it was half of his face and half of his lover’s face. This is what gave the picture a distorted look. While some people might find this to be weird, I thought it was an interesting concept and one that I would not have thought of myself. I also feel that art is something that is supposed to raise a question to people and have them discuss it. I feel that great art is something that people are able to debate about whether or not it really is art. This is because it is able to capture its audience attention and causes them to really think about what it is that they are seeing. I feel that modern art does exactly this. It is for this reason that I like modern art the best and this was my favorite part of the trip.
I found the trip to the Yale art galleries quite enjoyable, and i thought that they were educational experiances too. The British art museum gave us a look at what art around the time of the american revolution through the early 1900s in england and much of the rest of western europe, and an idea of the culture of the times is portrayed through the painting style. The evolution into this style from the early style of Henry VIII and Elizabeth is evident, with a focus on people representing more importance of people versus religious and national images. In the Yale Art Gallery, the evolution of art was even more pronounced, as it progressed from the very early stages with painting from the 1200s depicting early Christian traditions to the modern art that spanned an enormous diversity from an orange block to a drug-user statue. The images shift from icons of the leading powers-that-be to individuals and eventually to abstract concepts that were never even considered potential subjects for art until recent years. This evolution of art provides insight into how the culture of Europe changed over the centuries. Due to the ability to provide this view, this trip was certainly worth going on and should be repeated in subsequent years.
Overall, I enjoyed the gallery visit very much. However, I think I enjoyed our visit to the Yale Art Gallery more than the British Art Gallery. At the British Art Gallery, I found that though the paintings we looked at were interesting, the guide kept us from seeing as much as I would have liked. We only were able to see a few paintings, and there were several exhibits I would have liked to look at but was not able too because the guide took us in another direction. However, the discussions we had about the paintings we did see were valuable - often, someone pointed out a detail that I otherwise would have missed. It was also neat to hear different people’s takes on the same paintings. On the other hand, I immensely enjoyed the visit to the Yale Art gallery. I liked being able to see more art, and being able to explore those areas that interested me. I think the worksheet was just right as far as an assignment - it kept us on track, but allowed us to focus on those pieces of artwork which interested us (I especially enjoyed the Picasso exhibit and the more modern art.) Also, it forced students to sit down and actually look at a few paintings for an extended period of time, something which most people would not have done otherwise. I also enjoyed the discussions that developed from the visit to the Yale gallery - a debate regarding modern art was particularly memorable. To me, art is a piece of creative work that conveys an emotion or idea. I know this is a broad definition, but I truly believe that art cannot be categorized by a more limiting set of constraints. Art is something unique for each artist, and can take a myriad of forms. The detail, realism, or medium of the piece does not matter - what matters is the thought the artist put into his or her work. It annoys me when people look at a piece and arbitrarily declare “My five-year-old could do this - this isn’t art!” If the artist intentionally used his or her medium to express an idea or make a point, then yes, it is art. From the emotions expressed by the composition, lines, and color to the deliberate intention to cause people to question and debate the merit of the piece, it is a rare piece that does not express the artist’s ideas. This thinking and creativity cannot be replicated, despite what some critics might say.
Although I did not go on the field trip to the gallery I believe that I would have very much enjoyed being exposed to these various pieces of artwork. It would have been extremely interesting to examine each painting or sculpture and notice the various techniques that the author implemented into his or her works. It would have also been interesting to learn about the significance of each of these pieces and how the author's experiences and beliefs were reflected within their artwork. Since I could not attend this field trip I decided to locate the website of the Yale University Art Gallery and to browse through the extensive collection that was included on the website. One collection of artwork that I found particulary interesting was that of the asian artwork. I have previously researched artwork from hispanic cultures as well as that of the europeans and it is interesting to me how different the three cultures truly are. This asian artwork includes very neutral tones with no harsh landscapes and very little creative symbols.
To me art is incredibly subjective. The beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. It is amazing to me how one piece of art can be interpreted in thousands of ways and can be both liked and disliked. However, it is evident that art has greatly evolved over the centuries. In earlier times it was used in portrait making and sculpting and the quality of the art was based upon the accuracy in the portrayal of the subject. As art continued to evolve it has begun to be used as a form of expression and most art now focuses less on the portrayal of a subject and more in the symbolism and significance of the painting. Various shapes, techniques, subjects, and landscapes are frequently used in order to provide an interesting piece for their audience to digest. Therefore, I believe that art can best be described as any form of expression by an individual that can be either created or performed.
This museum visit to the Yale Art Gallery and The British Art Museum made me realize what I like in art. I do not enjoy paintings such as those of blocks of color painted on a canvas, such as Josef Albers’ Homage to the Square. When I looked at these types of paintings I didn’t really consider them to be ‘art’ but rather something that anyone could paint and make up some obscure explanation for it. Overall I didn’t like a majority of the modern paintings, sculptures, movie things, etc. I walked through the modern/contemporary art section of the museum for a total of about three minutes, while being utterly confused throughout my time there. What I did enjoy in the modern section was the paintings that at first glance looked just like photographs but as you moved closer you realized that they were just extremely detailed paintings. The paintings that I did like in the Yale Art Museum can not be given a specific time period or style, for I like paintings and sculptures ranging from the early renaissance to Monet’s impressionist paintings. Contrasting the paintings I liked and those that I did not illuminated to me what makes the difference. The simplest explanation as to what I consider to be ‘good art’ and that which is enjoyable to me is artwork that looks like you actually put effort into, and that you can actually depict a concrete meaning from it. Artwork from artist such as Edward Hopper or Claude Monet are clearly paintings that require skill to create and have meanings that can be derived from looking at them, and thus in my mind considered good pieces of art. This brings me to the shovel piece, I won’t say that anyone could of created that because I’m not sure many people would hang a shovel from a ceiling and call it art, which is baffling because while it may have been created with some ingenious purpose, how is anyone supposed to get that just by looking at a hanging shovel. Between the two art galleries I definitely enjoyed the British Art Museum more. Not only because this museum was more acquired to my taste in art, but because the guided tour really helped my classmates and me to go deeper into the meaning of paintings rather than just giving the painting a passing glance. When asked what is art, there is no definite answer. It is basically a rhetorical question because no one can give a concrete answer, these museum visits definitely proved that. For while I may not consider the shovel to be art, someone may think it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. So what is art? I guess its just all relative.
For me, the Yale museums were fun and educational. At the British museum, I liked how we were able to focus and have a detailed discussion of some of the paintings. However, what I did not like was how limited our view of the paintings were. Also, I do not think the curator of the museum was a little too excessive in her discussions, which should have been shorter in order to accommodate more paintings to see. I think it would be better if we do not have a curator next time we go to the museum. Another reason I did not really prefer the British art museum was because how limited the paintings were. Compared to the Yale art gallery, the British art gallery was a lot less diverse in paintings, painters, subject matters, and styles. Also, there was not a lot of contemporary art, or at least in the wing we were able to visit. However, I very much liked the many classical paintings, which make the British art gallery a lot more “focused” than the Yale Art Gallery, which was a bit too varied in its paintings. But the main reason I did not like the British museum was because the tour was so limited, and because we spent too much time on so few of the paintings.
The Yale art gallery, I thought, was interesting because of the diverse art pieces there. I especially liked how the paintings were all in chronological order so that there can be an evolution of art seen from the start of the tour to the end of the tour. What I found particularly interesting were the paintings from the Picasso exhibit. I personally have always been extremely skeptical of modern, interpretive painting, and have never been a big fan of Picasso. I tried very hard to find substantial artistic content to the paintings, but it was extremely hard to view it as art. Though I cannot deny his genius or his sense of creativity as well as his unique mode of artistic expression, I just cannot understand how it requires any real technical skill in order to paint the things he painted.
This is also the same problem I find with the modern art shown there. There are those there that were undoubtedly “artistic” in the classical sense, where great technical skills were needed in order to paint the paintings there. However, there are art pieces there that were just bizarre. I cannot understand how an orange stripe can be seen as artistic or even innovative. For the things like the shovel, I just cannot call it art. To me, I believe those are just pushing the definitions of art too far.
I thought that both museums were very interesting and made for a good field trip. From what we learned in AP throughout this year made understanding the historical aspects of each painting easier and the paintings/ photographs made history come to life. What I liked the most about the art was the fact that the Yale exhibit had a wide range of paintings; which differed in subject matter, style, and taste. This variety of art was what I loved the most, but also how different artists believe that their work is art. I enjoyed the modern art section because I felt that I had to concentrate more to understand the work of art, compared to the older prints, where the subject matter was apparent. The most shocking piece of art would be the video about the most important day in this artist’s life. It was so dark, depressing, and relatable in some aspects. It was a creative idea, yet it really made no sense. Some of the art in the gallery had no place in the museum, which was the only downside to the trip. Someone painting an orange square on paper, hanging a shovel (which was a reproduction), or videotaping yourself doing daily routines. I feel that this is not art because it doesn’t take a lot of thought, although some of it does stimulate the mind, but most doesn’t. It can also be the feeling of jealousy and stupidity that this guy painted an orange square on a piece of yellow paper and is now a millionaire while I could have thought of it and am now missing out on mad money. I can’t really say what is or isn’t art, but some of this “art” in this gallery was ridiculous due to the fact that it was so simple that any person could do it, which gave me the feeling that it is out of place being in the same building as a Picasso. I guess that can be considered as art, anything that conjures up emotions and intense debates.
Although I am not a huge fan of visiting art museums, I actually enjoyed looking at a lot of the artwork in the galleries. There were some very interesting paintings in the British Art Gallery; I would have liked to walk around and view more artwork myself rather than only discussing a few. I very much enjoyed the Yale Gallery and I got to see a wide variety of artwork. My least favorite of the artwork in the Yale Gallery was that of Picasso. I am definitely not qualified to critique an artist as successful as Picasso, but I did not find that any of his pieces were able to attain and keep my attention for more than a few seconds. I enjoyed both the classic European and modern American art on the 3rd floor of the gallery. The classic European art was very beautiful and it was interesting to see both the historical and mythological content of the paintings. I was split on the content of the modern American art. Some of it I found absolutely ridiculous, such as the shovel hanging on the ceiling that could be found at any local hardware store, and the giant orange circle on canvas. Some people would argue that these things were art because I still remember them, but I desired to spend no more than about two seconds looking at them. There were a lot of pieces of modern art that held my attention for a longer time. Obviously, the drug addict in the corner kept my attention for a few minutes, as I was too afraid to approach it at first. The artwork that I found most intriguing were the chaotic ones that made me think about what the artist could have possibly been thinking when they were making it. Art to me is exactly that; something that makes me contemplate more than the subject matter of the art itself.
The two gallery visits were very interesting to go to and were also an enjoyable experience as well. I enjoyed being able to go to the galleries especially since I find art a very fascinating subject of study with many facets. The visit to the galleries was also nice because it is not often one is presented with the opportunity to visit an art gallery. A visit to a gallery is not a thing many people would instantly think of doing but this trip reminded me of how appealing it could be and just how much is in store even in a short visit. Of the two galleries I would have to say I like the Yale Art Museum better than the British Art Museum. While I did find the British Art Museum an enjoyable experience I was dissatisfied with the fact that we really only had time to concentrate on only five pieces of art. The pieces we did view were very interesting, like the piece about Peter the Great and the King at the shipyards. The painting had a lot of historical background to talk about but it was also possible to talk about the artistic qualities of the piece as well like the methods used by the artists to bring focus on certain important figures. The guided tour did fill us in on a bit we didn’t happen to know about the historical background but I felt more might have been gained if we were to have viewed the pieces on our own. The guide did help us focus on a few specific paintings but there were many other paintings I happened to pass as we were walking by that I would have loved to take a closer look at. This is not to say that I found the paintings the guide happened to show us uninteresting but the opportunity to find a piece that really enthralled us was not given. This is one of the major reasons I liked the Yale Art Museum a bit better, we were given the freedom to explore and balance our own time with the paintings. The worksheet actually helped to do this in a way because you looked for a painting you found interesting and then took an even closer look at it, trying to understand what historical and emotional implications you could get from the piece. This forced you to do everything from examine the way the piece was painted to see if the piece was an example of a realist or a post-impressionist to simply reading the placard and seeing if it matches with the trends of that specific era. This made viewing and interpreting the art fun and you weren’t specifically forced to look at any one piece. I liked the idea of traveling either in a small group or individually through the art museum examining the pieces in your own little self-made journey rather than having a guided tour. The wide range of art types was exciting to see as well since the Yale Art Museum had such a wide range of pieces and I’m sure the British Art Museum did too but we simply just didn’t get a chance to see the possible range. Speaking of the range of art types though the Yale Art Museum had many types of art from ancient to modern and so the question of what is art was sparked. To me art is what you make of it but personally when I look at a piece of art I want to see hard work and thought put into a piece. I do not like most forms of modern art because they really don’t seem like people worked on them. I could take a 20 by 20 foot white canvas, paint three black dots on it and call it “Giant Polar Bear in an Antarctic Blizzard” and yes some people might consider it art. Admittedly in that example there was some actual work done but there was no quality to the piece. Still what I might think is silly someone might find deep and incredible meaning out of and think that it is worth the huge amount they paid. All in all while I have my own set standards for what I think is art these standards differ from person to person depending on preference so if someone wants to stick a shovel in a wall and call it art, I won’t disagree with their vision but I can’t say I’ll be paying them a million dollars for a shovel that is now lodged in my wall.
I enjoyed the trip to the Yale art galleries overall. I wasn't really sure of what to expect from the British gallery, but I was pleasantly surprised by the beautiful paintings contained within it. We got to see a couple paintings which were full of detail, and were true works of art. However, we only got to see about two or three paintings in the British galleries. I found that to be quite disappointing, because we didn't really get to look at any of the more interesting looking pieces which were right nearby. I would have liked to have had some more time to look through on our own, without the guide to see some other pieces. Also, the guide seemed to be, either incompetent, kind of, or at least, unprepared for most of our questions. She was trying to explain simple things to us that, to be honest, we clearly already knew, such as perspective, and the fact that England is an island. That was probably one of the most ridiculous things, the fact that she actually asked whether or not we realized that England, was an island. The other gallery on the other hand I enjoyed slightly more because we got to see the various paintings and works of art at our leisure. I got to look at the ones I wanted to in more detail, and kind of brush over the ones I wasn't interested in, while still being exposed to them simply by getting to examine them for a short time. I especially liked the painting of the scene of the collisseum portraying the gladiators and Ceasar, even though the latin translation of the title was incorrectly posted. I will say that the sculpture of the heroin guy was pretty amazing, and was so realistic that I swear if you look at it for long enough trying to see if its real, it seems to move ever so slightly just like a real person would. However "art" if you can even call it that, like the two orange rectangles, one slightly lighter in color than the other, is total bullshit. Quite honestly that is so ridiculous that someone would even begin to consider that art. True, it may have been the first thing like that, the first time anyone has thought of doing that, but come on its two colored rectangles. I believe that art is something that takes talent to do, it should require at least some sort of skill to create. The heroin guy for instance, took immense amount of talent and skill to create something so realistic. On the other hand the two orange rectangles, or the shovel hanging, sorry, rather the reproduction of a shovel, is not art. Those things take no skill or talent to hang on a wall, it takes no ability to do that. Anyone could take a shovel and hang it on a string, and say here is a reproduction of a shovel, or even craft a crude shovel out of wood, but even that would take more talent and skill than those "art" pieces did. Would it be fair then to say that I could take a urinal, mount it to the ceiling and say, look at that it's a brilliant piece of art, now give me money. Or perhaps would it be more beneficial for me to take a piece of paper, staple it to a wall, and draw a line across it, or make a simple black circle somewhere on the page, and say here this represents birth, death, and infinity, or here this shows, man's inhumanity to man. It is so ridiculous to say that two rectangles of slightly different hues one on top of the other is art. To say that a realistic portrait of a person, or perhaps a sculpture made in marble is art, would be accurate because they take talent and skill to create.
One aspect of the field trip that I particularly enjoyed was seeing the paintings from the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. I enjoyed seeing the historical aspects and information learned in class reflected in the art. Not only were the paintings expertly painted and amazing to see, but due to the social, political, and economic history of Europe that we are in a way forced to attain in class, I was able to appreciate the paintings in the museum at a much deeper level than I would have had I gone without any European history background. I was therefore able to pick out certain aspects of the paintings, recognize symbols throughout the painting and their significance, and imply the artists purpose or frame of mind (likely influenced by social ideals or events of his time) while creating the painting. One aspect of the field trip that I did not enjoy was the section of modern American art. Aspects of this section rather than impressing upon me the amount of work and care the artist gave to his work, it seemed to me to impose the ideal that a new idea (no matter how outlandishly simple or how little skill it could require) could be considered art. I understand that art needs to be innovative and I accept the fact that art will change and slowly become more modern as society changes. However I believe there is a fine line between being artistically innovative and taking advantage of the art world’s hunger for new and unusual pieces. One painting that particularly frustrated me was a long rectangular one that was hanging on the wall and could be seen almost immediately as a person wanders into the exhibit. This painting was of two rectangles each painted in a different shade of orange. This frustrated me because there can be no definite symbolism to the work. The artist merely painted two rectangles. People may argue that the artist leaves the work open to the interpretation by many who see it by giving no definite symbols, however it frustrates me that the artist could claim just about any purpose without a single item in the painting to contradict him (in other words, he could essentially make up a new purpose for each person who asks him what it is). I feel that art is a painting, sculpture, drawing, video, or innovative idea that has an expressed purpose by the artist and depicts images in a manner pleasing to viewers (be it cubism, surrealism, realism; they are all forms of art requiring large amounts of skill). This painting mentioned above in my opinion does not fit my definition of art.
Honestly, at first I thought that the field trip to the Yale art museums would be extremely boring and not very enjoyable, but in all actuality, the art museums were quite interesting and I had a great time. The British art museum was surprisingly more fascinating than I thought it would be. I was intrigued by the intricate details and amazingly beautiful colors. All the pictures we saw in the British art museum had so much details and each detail had a certain story in it that connects altogether that it was like connecting puzzle pieces together. For example, the painting of a train terminal with a busy atmosphere had so much going on in the painting, that it was so difficult to focus on one object or idea that instead of trying to go through the whole painting, it kind of forces the viewer to try to connect all the elements together, which makes the whole painting more interesting. The other Yale art gallery was by far the best of the two. I think this was so becuase this art gallery has various artwork ranging from the early Renaissance period to modern contemporary. Unlike the British Art museum, the art gallery had more variety for different types of viewers who hold different interests in art. But honestly, there were some "artwork" in the art gallery that I would never ever consider to be art but an accident. Maybe it was just me, but The Shovel and the orange painting... I couldn't see the relevance or any artistic ability in them. That was kind of disappointing.The artwork that I absolutely loved and will never forget is The Drug Addict. I think that one was the most popular amongst all of us because it was so realistic looking to the point that I thought it was real homeless person who passed out in the middle of the gallery. Art to me, means imagination, creativity and just letting loose to express yourself as you want it to. Art can be whatever you want it to be and doesn't have to have a concrete correct meaning to it, and should be open to various interpretations. For example, I previously mentioned that The Shovel had absolutely no artistic meaning to it, but to the artist himself and other people, they might have seen a beautiful and completely different meaning and feeling from mine, and I think that's art for me right there. Overall, the field trip was very very fun and I enjoyed it a lot.
I thought the trip to the Yale art gallery was surprisingly interesting. I have to say I enjoyed the self guided tour much more than the guided tour at the British art museum. I felt like when we got the guided tour, we were treated as if we had no idea what ANYTHING was. Epitomized by the question “Do you all know what an isle is”, I felt like the guided tour was destined for failure. The entire time she was showing us paintings as if we had no idea of the history of the countries that gave us the art. I felt much more in my element when we went across the street and we were able to look at the art from our own perspective and give our own interpretation of what art was. We were able to see the progression of religious art from the medieval times to the renaissance. We were able to walk around the corner to the exhibit of modern art, and find a junkie laying against the wall with a needle hanging out of his arm (with Mr. Kirby silently in the background watching). The self guided tour was a really cool experience because, rather than look at renderings of the paintings in books; we could see them up close and distinguish what made each work unique. I never have really had an interest in art, but the field trip was really interesting, and I really did enjoy it. After going to the museum, I discovered that art is a depiction of events as they are indicative of a time period. As I sailed through history on the walls of the museum, I noticed each time period had styles that were indicative of the era, and I discovered that art is the depiction of that. Yale really opened up my eyes to of the ages, but I still have that faint glimmering hope that Banksy will soon make his mark.
I thoroughly enjoyed both the British Art Museum and the Yale Art Gallery much more than I anticipated. The British museum was just what I expected, filled with old dark paintings depicting the struggles of Britain through history. At first I was a bit apprehensive to this kind of art because I felt it would be very boring and not appealing at all. But on the contrary, I had a great time. I thought the tour guide was very informative and helpful while analyzing the paintings and I found myself wishing we had more than the scheduled time given on this tour. Like the British museum, I also enjoyed the Yale gallery a lot. I didn’t like the older European art as much but I was fascinated by the modern art. One particular exhibit that I surprisingly did not like at all was the works by Picasso. I found them to be not interesting at all and I felt that any five year old with a paint brush could create works at a similar talent level. As for what I think art is; I feel that it’s in the eye of the beholder and art can be anything. It is in my opinion that anything that is creative or original will always be seen as some as art. The hanging shovel for instance, I’m sure most of us thought that was a poor excuse for art and has no place being in the same museum as some of Van Gogh or Picasso’s works but I’m sure someone must have thought of it as art for it to be there. I find that no matter what something is it could be considered art. My blog response, although yes, it is late and it may not be as well written as some of the other responses, even this can be considered art by someone.
I enjoyed the visit to the art galleries. It was a great experience and trip for our class to take. Part of the reason being from learning about the art of that time, and also of important events that did occur in European history, it made the history come alive to me. Looking around at all of the portraits of people, and also the paintings of scenes at the British art museum made me reflect on the history of the times the paintings were taken. I guess I just never really appreciated the history of those times, until thinking about how real people painted these works, and what was happening when they were painted. One particular thing about this trip that was great was having the freedom to explore the second museum, and look at the paintings that I wanted to as I saw fit. I think that made it more interesting for me, because if I wasn’t thrilled by a certain work of art, I could just move on to the next one and find something more entertaining. The guided tour of the first museum was alright, but I felt that we weren’t able to see as much of the art that we wanted to as we could in the second museum. I think the worst part of the visit was definitely the pace that the guided tour took us at. I feel like we spent a bit too much time on some of the art the guide showed us. It probably would have been for me at least a much better use of time to just peruse the entire gallery and take in everything, rather than absorbing everything about a particular painting, and not being able to find something that interested me. I think that is why the second gallery went by much faster for me. Art can have a very broad definition, and very many at that, but when I think of art, I think of something that is fascinating whether by what it is, what it represents, or how it was conceived . Even if it is something as silly as a urinal glued to a wall, or a shovel, or even ‘a replication of a spoon’ it can still be art if was original. I guess the thought process of taking the urinal and putting it up on a fake wall, and just how unique it is that someone would think of an every day object and declare it as art is fascinating.
Overall, this is always one of my favorite blogs to read. The range of opinion is so vast. As I said in class, my favorite was watching your reactions to "The Addict??." You guys managed to write 46 pages of responses!
40 comments:
I found the field trip to the two art museums at Yale to be very enjoyable. At first, I didn’t think I would enjoy the British art museum very much. Upon walking in to walls full of portraits and old pictures of famous historical figures, it seemed like they would be boring to look at and appear all the same. However, some of them proved to be a lot more interesting than I expected, probably due partly to the tour guide leading a discussion about specific paintings as well as background information that my class knew about the context of the pictures. For example, the picture of King Henry at first glance just looked like an image of a king and queen with other royalty surrounding them in at their throne. However, our class made many observations about the painting, such as the split between the Protestants and Catholics, the contrast from dark and light on either side, and the two different cities on either side of the room in which the subjects were sitting. Combined with our knowledge of the time period and historical events that the painting revolved around, it was interesting to notice how many careful details there were conveying themes and historical facts from the time. While the pictures in the British art gallery museum definitely weren’t my favorite, they turned out to be much more interesting than I expected. At the second art museum, I found the earlier works similar to those in the British art gallery. Some of the paintings had a very dull style, with many pictures of events of people in history, often portraits painted in two dimensions with little depth and detail. It seemed like the more recent the time in which the picture was painted, the more I liked and appreciated the art. For example, the works of Vincent Van Gough and George Sirot had much more interesting styles, with use of vivid colors and dotted or shorter brush strokes. The subjects of the pictures weren’t as clear as the earlier works, showing a transition to more abstract art. In the modern art, the pieces were very abstract, and often very simple, showing vivid colors, geometric shapes, or sometimes just random scribbles. I especially enjoyed this style of art the most because each piece makes you think about what you are seeing and what it means more so than just seeing the details in a portrait of a person. Each picture could be interpreted in many different ways, which allows you to question the artists’ intention for the work and also what art really is. To me, it seems like the definition of art has been stretched greatly over the years. In the earlier works, art appeared to be limited to pieces like sculptures and portraits and paintings of the subjects. It required a great deal of skill and training to accomplish “good” art. Over time, art became more general, as images didn’t resemble their subjects as closely, and the paintings tended to be more expressive than realistic. Eventually, things like a shovel hanging from a ceiling, scribbles on a canvas, or two yellow rectangles, were being considered art, even though it might not have taken much talent to create such pieces. Now, encompassing all the modern art, art seems to be anything that is created by someone and can then be seen and appreciated by others. It usually has a deeper meaning than what is initially seen. I think pieces like the shovel or the colorful rectangles can certainly be considered art, even though many people would disagree, because it causes people to think about it and see things differently than as normal every day objects. Overall I really enjoyed looking at many of the paintings, especially in the Yale Art Gallery, and getting to observe and discuss the older art that was unexpectedly interesting.
Going into the gallery visits I was interested in what we would focus on since there are so many works in a museum. The British museum was both very interesting and rather disappointing. While we did learn a lot and discuss in depth certain painting to get a better understanding of the works, we only got to see about 5 paintings. It was rather disappointing because there were a lot of beautiful pieces and we only got to see a very small portion of the gallery. It was good thought because we did learn a lot about the pieces. In the first one we saw of King Henry it was interesting to realize that one side was representing Catholicism while the other was showing Protestantism. It was also shown in the contrast of dark and light, and of the cities in the background. At first glance you do not realize that or realize that the people in the work would not have been alive at the same time. Nevertheless we did spend about half and hour at the work with people repeating the same points over and over again because they had not been paying attention, which made it frustrating. If everyone had listened and only added new remarks to the discussion we would have been able to see more works. In the Yale Art Gallery I really enjoyed the Picasso pieces. Picasso is a really interesting artist and I like viewing all of his different works. The 3rd floor also had some really interesting pieces. There was one piece that was an orange rectangle with a lighter orange rectangle inside of it. I do not see that as art and I did not like the work. I feel like I could draw two rectangles inside of each other and call it art if that is hanging in an art gallery. However the electric chair piece was really interesting to me. It was an Andy Warhol piece and I found it very interesting to look at. Also the very real looking man taking drugs on the floor was very creepy. I still am not sure if I liked it or not because it was so realistic but at the same time freaked me out. In seeing all of these works and looking at such different “art” made me think some things that are considered art I do not consider art. When someone says art to me I think of elaborate works that take a lot of time, and something I would never be able to do. Seeing two rectangles, or a shovel hanging from the ceiling does not seem like art to me. I do not see how you can interpret that to mean something. The paintings you can look at and take for a picture, or you can analyze them to see if there are deeper meanings. I think art you have to be able to interpret and find meaning in otherwise its just there. The paintings like the Lion Attacking A Horse to me are art. You can look at it and take it for what it is or you can think about when it was painted and see what it could possibly represent. I think when you are able to do that you can call something art. Overall I really enjoyed the visit to the art galleries. I felt like I learned a lot and it was fun to see all of the different works.
Although I personally did not attend the Yale art gallery, I was able to go on-line and find pieces of art that I like and disliked. I have never been very interested in art, and I have liked very few masterpieces that I’ve seen. However, although I may not like certain pieces of art, I still consider some works as true art. In my opinion, art can be considered something that the painter put a lot of effort into. Portraits of ordinary people would go into this category, such as A Hanseatic Merchant by Hans Holbein, or Mevrouw Bodolphe by Frans Hals. I would also consider painting of religious figures from the 1300s to be considered true art because the artists must have put a lot of work in order to please the Catholic Church. Paintings of this type would include St. Peter by Nardo di Cione and St. John the Baptist by Andrea di Cione. There were some works in the Yale art museum that I thought shouldn’t have been there. People kept mentioning in class that there was a shovel hanging from the ceiling that was considered art. This seems ridiculous to me, for the “artist” could not have put a lot of effort or thought in hanging a cheap piece of equipment from a ceiling. Another work that didn’t seem to have taken a lot of effort was Piet Mondrian’s COMPOSITION NO. III/FOX-TROT B, with Black, Red, Blue, and Yellow. This “artwork” was simply composed of squares and rectangles of red, black and blue, something that you would expect a first grader to do. This piece of “art” was from the modern era, as well as Josef Albers’s Homage to the Square: Dense-Soft (which I also thought shouldn’t be considered art.
As mentioned before, I did not like most of the works even though I considered some of them art. The reason for this lies in the fact that the works failed to touch me, and failed to make me connect them to my life. The religious paintings didn’t interest me, for I have never been a man of faith. The portraits of regular people like A Hanseatic Merchant didn’t arose my interest, because I didn’t know how honest the artist’s depiction of the person was. For example, in A Hanseatic Merchant, we see a man who is dressed in what appears to be a dark cloak. We know very little about this man’s personality and other attributes, meaning that the painting failed to capture the entire picture of this merchant’s life. Ultimately, I dislike looking at paintings because they fail to give me a lot of information. The story the author wishes to tell is usually short and simplistic, and fails to tell the complete truth about the lives of Europeans.
Although I was unable to attend the Yale Art Gallery field trip I was able to look at many of the pieces online. I have never been a big fan of art nor do I know much about it but I am pleased to say that many pieces caught my eye as being exceptional. For instance, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and the Lady Anne painted by Edwin Austin Abbey astounded me with its incredible detail and power. The strong colors of black and red made the painting almost frightening just as the vast amount of people make it seem so real. I felt that this painting was a true piece of art. Some of the more modern paintings frustrated me with their simplicity though. I felt that many of the pieces were so simple that honestly anyone could have done them. One example is Homage to the Square: Dense-Soft by Josef Albers which is legitimately only two yellow squares, one a darker shade and one a lighter shade. Also, the painting Number 13A: Arabesque by Jackson Pollock consists entirely of splatters of paint. There is no pattern, no shapes, nor anything that sticks out to a viewer. It’s hard for me to accept art that I feel a five year old could do. Many of the paintings that I viewed were very religious, and though they may have been excellent paintings, it was difficult for me to understand because I am not a religious person. One example is Annunciation by Fra Angelico. To me I believe that for art to be worthy of praise it should be able to tell a story without any prior explanation. It should be able to convey a message depending on the colors used and the different techniques. It should be deeper than what is shown, but that deepness should also be easily deciphered. After looking through the various collections online I felt that many of the pieces of artwork fit into my personal guidelines of what art should be but the pieces also opened my eyes to various styles of art and how art really can be whatever you make it be. Reading the explanations of the various artworks helped me to look at the paintings from different perspectives and understand that what I may think is something so simple could have a much deeper meaning.
Overall, I enjoyed our fieldtrip to the two art galleries in New Haven. I have always enjoyed examining paintings and photographs, so naturally a visit to a location containing large amounts of such would be a fine experience for me. I will admit I enjoyed our experience at the Yale Art Gallery much more than I did our visit to the British Art Museum. I have never been one for group analysis on paintings and other symbolic works; I feel that things of this manner should be left for individual interpretation as everyone will have their own viewpoints and focuses. However, I found that if I blocked out the discussion going on around me I was able to interpret and look over the paintings we stopped at as I saw fit. The paintings our tour guide brought us to were interesting regardless and I enjoyed viewing them. I found our experience at the Yale Art Gallery to be more enjoyable due to the fact that we were allowed to move about and look at what we pleased. I was able to look over quite a few more paintings than we were able to at the British Art Gallery, a fact which I was quite pleased about. It really is quite fascinating how much detail the artists who created these works were able to re-create with just a pen and colored dye. I especially enjoyed the paintings with a vivid natural scene, such as a sunset or forest scene, though I found myself spending the most time at the Jackson Pollock painting on the third floor. At first, I could not imagine how someone could throw a bunch of paint onto a canvas and receive such recognition, but as I continued to look it over, I found that it was actually incredibly interesting. Was there any meaning behind the different paint splotches, I think not, but regardless it was still interesting to the eye. There was one work of art in particular that I was not at all fond of, that being a roughly one minute movie of a man throwing a metal brick between his hands. I watched it through completely and I could even begin to comprehend how anyone thought such a work was art. All the man did was throw a block from hand to hand on screen, slightly altering the tempo of his movements from time to time. I’d imagine some fancy art critic would go to explain how the differences in motion reflect some sort of world controversy or the complexity of human emotion, but in all honesty I think there’s no real artistry behind it.
I feel that art is anything, be it literary or visual, that has some sort of symbolic meaning and requires true talent to create. The work may not even need to have any true symbolic meaning if it is pleasing to view upon. Art is something that any person can look upon and either understand why it is good to look at or can look through the painting’s scene and develop some sort of interpretation on the work itself. Art may be as complex as DaVinci’s Last Supper or a macaroni sculpture a kindergartener made in art class, as long as it has meaning and is pleasing to look at. I do not view some of the more modern pieces of art today to be true art. For example, I do not care what the artist says a shovel hung upon a wall is not art. I have four of those sitting in my garage right now and I have never seen them to be artistic in any fashion.
Of the various field trips I’ve been on this past year, our tour of the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum of Art stands out as one of my favorites. Unlike other trips that required either an extensive amount of work or no work at all, the worksheet that we were required to complete kept us on task while not being over burdensome. The actual tours of the museum were great. As an art student, I’ve spent many classes throughout this past year analyzing art work. How well was the composition balanced? Where is the focal point on the piece? How does repetition and overlapping contribute to the effect of the composition? What story does the piece tell? Many, if not all, of the analyses I’ve done occurred in a group setting, similar to the discussion we had with our tour guide in the British Museum of Art. I felt as though our close look at a selected number of pieces were a great way to start our trip. It not only focused our attention but made us think. This guided tour prevented us from simply glancing over the pieces in the Yale Art Gallery. We were challenged to analyze the piece and formulate ideas as to the meanings behind them. Starting with the guided tour and later moving onto an individual stroll of the Yale Art Gallery was a great idea.
The pieces themselves are always fun to look at. The pieces were incredibly interesting to look at, especially because of the historical background we had to work off of. The Renaissance pieces and Baroque portraits suddenly meant so much more. The modern art is always a favorite of mine. Just when you think that you’ve seen the most bizarre piece of art, you come upon another piece that simply makes your head spin.
The only complaint I have about the gallery visit is the limited amount of time we had to look around. We ran through the British Museum of Art without having looked at ninety percent of the paintings. At the Yale Art Gallery, I never had the opportunity to make my way up to the Picasso exhibit. If only there were more hours in the day.
Art can be anything, as clearly seen in the types of works displayed in the gallery. The Mona Lisa and the urinal are both, in their own right, art. Art is anyway in which a person expresses him or herself. For a child, it can be a sidewalk chalk drawing or a finger painted piece of paper. For an adult, it can be a detailed portrait or well… a urinal.
I personally enjoyed the experience of going to the art galleries. Besides the fact that it was a day outside of school, it is actually interesting to see works of art from centuries ago, and to see how much has changed in art since then. My only negative comment is I wish that we could have had more time to more closely examine each painting, and really determine what they were about and take note of the details and colors etc. One painting that was particularly intriguing was the presenting of the ashes of Germanicus to the emperor. It was one of the few works that really caught my attention, and was a bit easier to really take in the concept of the painting. The emotions of the people was clearly captured, and the contrast between light and dark was very evident. I much preferred the second museum, the Yale Gallery, over the first because we were allowed to see what we wanted to see, and really experience the change in art over time in Europe, as opposed to just viewing and closely examining a few pieces to find the overall message. Some paintings were definitely easier understood than others, but being able to view art as a whole is an enjoyable experience to me. Art is capturing a moment, and bringing to the viewer what should be seen, and not just what is seen. Artists can show the contrast between people's emotions, and can tell the viewer what happened without actually speaking. Art is a talent beyond description, because it involves being able to see so much deeper than what one sees at a glance. Artists can see the true meaning in a scene, and illustrate it in a way that can move the viewer to a point beyond words. When people can learn from art, it is simply an amazing experience.
I thought our field trip to the galleries was very interesting. It helped me learn more about European art then I had previously known, while still being a fun, entertaining experience. I liked the fact that we could see pictures from all over the world from hundreds of years ago to the present. I found the progression of art the museum had to offer a great way to see how art as evolved over time. This helped me see how techniques have changed, how colors differ, and how artists have become more skilled with the passing of time. One of my favorite aspects of the trip was our walking tour within the British Museum. Although we only saw four paintings, being able to analyze them thoroughly helped me understand the meaning behind each painting to a greater extent then I probably could if I had seen the paintings alone. Being in a group really brought the painting to life, and helped me understand more so what the artist was trying to accomplish.
The only part of the trip that I disliked was that we did not have very much time in either museum. I felt as if I had barely scratched the surface of what each building had to offer by the time we had to leave. It was really disappointing that I wasn't able to see all the paintings each building had to offer, as I thought the selection both galleries had were very interesting. Other than that I felt as if the trip was a great experience.
To me, art is something that is skillful, imaginative, emotional, and/or evokes thought. This is why the controversial "shovel" piece is art to me, as it evoked thought in almost everyone who saw it. A day after the trip it was still imprinted in our minds, and therefore its purpose was completed. This is why I can understand how the Byzantine pieces could be in the same building and even on the same floor as such pieces as a 'urinal' or a drug addict- since they are both conveying different types of art. While the pictures of a more traditional sense seem to be considered "real" art, if you think of the non-conventional pieces as something that might evoke feelings of confusion or anger (perhaps in question as to why a urinal is in an accredited art museum) then isn't it creating the same response as Picasso's piece "Guernica" for those affected my the Spanish civil war?
I really enjoyed the trip that we took to the Yale Gallery and the British Museum. I felt that I learned a little something about each of the pieces that I saw, whether it was with a guide or by myself looking at the pieces in the Gallery. The piece that I really liked in the British Museum was the Allegory of the Tudor Succession. It was really interesting how the artist portrayed past and future Tudor Monarchs along with the success of the monarch. The artist clearly showed flavor on the Protestant Monarchs because of the symbols and the colors that were used on that side of the painting. However, the opposite side included the God of War and alluded to the unsuccessful reign of Mary Tudor, or “Bloody Mary”. The subsequent reigns of Henry and Elizabeth are highlighted as being prosperous and successful. It amazed me that I could understand all of this information just by looking at the painting. It made me appreciate art a little bit more. The only thing that I didn’t like about our tour of the British Museum was the fact that we had so little time to view the paintings. My group saw about 4 pieces of artwork and I would have liked to see a little bit more of it.
I enjoyed that Yale Gallery more than the British museum because I saw more pieces of art and I was able to interpret them by myself, instead of having a guide tell me about each piece that I was looking at. The pieces that I enjoyed the most were the more modern art. I really enjoyed looking at the Picasso exhibit. His artwork is so unique and interesting; there is nothing else quite like it. In my opinion Picasso is one of the greatest artists of our time for coming up with such an ingenious artistic style. Some people believe that anyone would be able to do that, that may be correct but he was the first one to do so, which makes a difference. I really enjoyed all of the art that was in the Yale Gallery and I hope that I will be able to go back there at some point.
I believe art is anything that you want it to be. Most of the artists that were exhibited became famous because they dared to try something that someone else had never done before. To me and you it may not seem like art, but to the artist it could have opened up a whole new aspect of his work. Just like beauty, I believe that art is in the eyes of the beholder. One person can look at a piece of artwork and think that a five year old could have drawn that, and someone else might think that it was a wonderful masterpiece. It all depends on how you look at things. I believe that that is the most important aspect of art.
Since I did not go on the trip itself, I cannot tell whether or not it was a good experience. From the art posted on the Yale site, it seems that the trip should have been a fun and interesting one to say the least. The stories I heard, especially of the modern art, serve to strengthen the hypothesis.
I think that my favorite part of all these paintings was their relationship to what we read in Spielvogel. For instance, looking at all the religious work of the Renaissance reminded me of all the events and struggles of the era. The depictions in the work of religious life and symbolism repainted a picture of the lives of worship and artistic workmanship.
I would have to say that my favorite pieces were in the modern art. All the different styles and designs display a strong talent among the artists that created them. However, I do not like the “works” that require no talent or time, such as the shovel in the ceiling.
As far as I am concerned, art is a work that requires skill from the artist as he or she presents an expression of inner emotion. A shovel hanging from a ceiling, no matter how much explanation goes into it, is still a shovel hanging from a ceiling. There is no are in that. A person should be able to look or listen at/to the art and feel the emotions that went into the creation of that art. If that is not the case, the work is not art.
Personally, I feel that any type of expression through a visual representation is art. Whenever I go into a museum of art, I have a great time. From the artist’s first thought to his finished product, the artistic method is something that interests me very much and I love to just stare in wonder as I gain insight to great artistic minds from every part of the world. Everything from to Byzantine sculptures to the hanging shovel is art to me. Whether the specific piece may be good art, or horrible art, is entirely in the eye of the beholder, just like any other subjective discipline of study. However, certain types of art interest me more than others and certainly, some don‘t very much. And of course, many of them were rightfully displayed in the Yale galleries.
The first piece I would like to discuss is Van Gogh’s Night Café. Night Café I think might be one of the favorite pieces of art in this gallery (and personally, I like it much more than his famous Starry Night). Several notable feature in this piece are Van Gogh’s usage of contrasting colors to convey emotion and his beautiful representation of images. Van Gogh uses very bright and vivid colors to fill it the wine glasses and drinks as well as the billiard table and the light. This is very well contrasted with the dull and despair colors used to fill in the people with their heads turned down. None of which show any type of real happiness. Van Gogh’s somewhat abstract style creates the reverse effect of a portraiture: animate objects, and inanimate human beings. Likewise, his representation of said wine glasses and drinks, the billiards table, and the lights are magnificent and very creative. This painting is beautiful to look at from afar as well as upon close inspection to details. I very much enjoyed this painting and Van Gogh’s genius.
One particularly piece I did not enjoy (or have yet to understand) is Vuillard’s The Thread. Of course I can acknowledge the merit of this painting such as the contrast of complimentary colors, tense spatial separation of the piece, and useful technique of the medium. But I feel like this painting is beyond overworked. The negative space in this painting exists only in the top left corner, and is by no means eye catching. This picture lacks a great deal of balance and seems very “foggy” to me. Obviously, the artist purposely meant to do all of this, but purposely trying to do too much can be bad. There are just way too many unnecessary in this piece that makes it too stressful. First off ,there is absolutely no need to crop the third woman out of the painting. I do not see why this was done, and it seems useless. The picture at the odd angle draws bad emphasis on the painting and the subject matter of this very tight wealthy household its quite boring. I feel that the artist is surely skillful, but did not express himself properly. His purposeful defiance of basic art principals makes this painting repulsive.
I wish I had the time to discuss more art pieces but I only noted down few of them. Overall, I had a great time viewing different types of art through the ages, eating good pizza, and enjoying the nice day. It was a wonderful trip and my only wish was that we had more time to roam around the British gallery.
I love art and I loved the trip to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Art Museum. I’m not an art student, and I’m not adept at drawing, but I don’t think you need to be in order to appreciate art. The most important thing I learned from this trip is that art can be defined in many different ways and different pieces will mean different things to different people. While I would consider myself open-minded and a creative thinker, it is still hard to appreciate a shovel hanging from the ceiling as much as an intricate oil painting. I would define art as any type of media that is both aesthetically pleasing/interesting and open to interpretation/thought-provoking. At least under my definition, the shovel does not qualify as art. It has no aesthetic value (it’s just a household object), and you don’t learn anything about the artist by looking at it, except maybe that s/he tried to get you to think what they were thinking about.
One part of this trip that I particularly enjoyed was the Picasso exhibit. Picasso is the most well-known artist of our time, but this exhibit allowed viewers to experience him in a different way- through his less famous works. The gallery had his notebook on display, which is almost like seeing the homework of s student before the final essay. Getting to see his notebook got me to think about Picasso, the man and artist, not just the works he is famous for. Although it may have just looked like finger painting and scribbles in spanish, I thought seeing Picasso’s notebooks helped me get a better idea of his creative process.
I did learn from the tour guide and notice things that I might not have otherwise, but I felt she had a set interpretation to each painting and was not open to the new ideas our class had about them. Also, going into in-depth discussions about a few paintings limited us from experiencing the other pieces the guide had to offer. Overall, I think I benefited from this trip and experiencing the contrast of art from different time periods between the Yale Art Gallery and the British Art Museum. Seeing these pieces was very relevant to our course, because it helped me to view the pieces within a broader historical context and see how they reflected the conflicts of the era.
Although I was unable to attend the field trip to the Yale Gallery, I viewed many pieces of artwork online. I thought the collection as a whole was pretty impressive and filled with a good variety of works. Through the website I was able to easily see pieces from different periods and contrast how art has differed throughout many time periods, as well as how artistic styles have changed and evolved. For example, I was able to easily see advances between art from the 1300’s and art from the 1700’s. The piece “St. Peter”, painted around 1355, used bland colors and little dimensional skills or perspective. Pieces painted a few centuries later showed much better perspective, making use of a foreground and background, and also used more variety of colors. One example of this was a painting titled “Mr. and Mrs. John Gravenor and their Daughters”, which was painted in 1747. These pieces show how artistic skills advanced over a few centuries. They also show differing themes from these two periods; while the older paintings are mostly oriented around religion or religious ideas, the later paintings are more secular and use realism. Another interesting category was the modern and contemporary art. One piece I looked at in this category was titled “Fox Trot B”. It was basically composed of different colored rectangles arranged on a page. A lot of these pieces are similar to one another in that they use abstract ideas, bright colors, and geometric shapes. While I personally did not think these pictures showed much meaning or artistic ability, I still thought they were interesting to look at. To me, the most valuable aspect of modern or abstract art is that the interpretation is left up to the viewer, and that it provides a strong example of the diversity found in art today.
Although I was unfortunately unable to go on the field trip to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum, I was able to see many paintings from the Yale exhibits online and I can say that I was very impressed with the immense spectrum of paintings that they did have. I found the early European works from the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries such as A Hanseatic Merchant (1533), to be quite dull and boring. This was mostly due to the fact that most of these paintings were of people such as the merchant, or of some religious figure, and contained little color or detail. One non-contemporary painting that I really did enjoy however was Starry Night (1851) by Jean-Francois Millet which depicted a dark nocturnal landscape that appear very dull at first, but upon close inspection a sky of beautiful shooting stars is revealed with the shadow of a mysterious figure underneath. I also found it interesting that it had the same title as Van Goh’s most famous painting, and the website even said that Van Goh may have possibly been influenced by Millet’s work. Now of course I must talk about “modern” art. There are many things I can say about modern art, and sometimes I get it, sometimes I do not. Of the Yale collection I found most of the works to be very similar, colorful pictures of geometric shapes and some random scribbles. One painting that I found laughable was Josef Albers Homage to the Square, which is simply a painting of a dark yellow square encompassed by a lighter yellow square with a white background. Once in a while I can see the awe in a painting such as this, but like most of the time it made me just think to myself “wow, I did this same painting in fourth grade.” But then again, art really has no definition to me. If you make or create something that at least one person out of the billions of people on this world can call “art” than it is in fact art. To me personally however, I consider art to be a painting or sculpture that I know I could never recreate, or something that makes me think, feel, or admire.
I found the field trip to the Yale art gallery and British museum reasonably interesting. I liked certain works of art, such as the painting of the blurry face. This one surprised me, because it looked so much like a photograph. I also liked some of the paintings, such as the painting of the Roman arena and some of the Van Gogh paintings. I found them to be very well painted and interesting to look at. I also found the paintings in the British museum to be quite interesting. I learned a lot from the guide that I would never have imagined from just looking at the paintings. For example, the painting of King Henry VIII had a lot of symbolism in it that wouldn't have been immediately obvious to me. I thought all of these works of art were definitely art because they required much effort and creativity to make and they were extremely well-made. I did not, however, like the shovel. It was one of the few things I disliked, for the reason that it was such a copout. I have several similar shovels in my garage, and it would take me about 5 min to hang it from the ceiling. That is not art. It's a quick way to take advantage of the enthusiasm of museums for modern art to make a quick buck. The guy probably got paid a decent sum of money for that shovel creation. I am all for creativity, which this certainly has, I'll give it that. However, art should take some effort to make and should be the result of hard work. I think it would have meant more and been more like real art if the artist had perhaps made the shovel out of papier mache (sp?) or something, or decorated it with something like modern art sculpture or a Jackson Pollack style painting. That would have reflected more effort and made it a legitimate piece of artwork. I'm not knocking the guy's creativity, I just think he could have done more, because I was thinking, that's it? Other than that, I found all the artwork very interesting and I thought it was a worthwhile trip.
Unfortunately, I was unable to take the field trip to the Yale Gallery though I did view the various works of highly intelligent and capable artists online. The paintings are not only magnificent they make you think and wonder as well. I was greatly impressed and actually surprised at the same time. From the website I was able to notice the different styles that were prominent in particular time periods. It was evident how artists’ views and perspective changed due to the circumstances they were surrounded with. There were drastic differences especially from the 1300s to the early 1700s. The earlier paintings did not contain a lot of dimensions, colors or perspective. They were simple and straight to the point. They used plain color and the usual techniques. The painting in the later years focused more on the background, the foreground of the painting and using more brighter colors and better techniques. One of my favorite types of art was the “modern contemporary”, this kind of art uses abstract thoughts and ideas with bright vibrant colors along with different sizes and shapes. I thought this was really interesting because the person viewing these kinds of paintings can make up their own conclusions and is not being told how to think or interpret certain paintings. In my opinion art is a way of expressing one’s inner thoughts, feelings and emotions. Not everyone can paint or create their feelings on to a canvas, those who can are rightfully called artists because they have made the viewers dream and think outside of the box. They make people wonder and go in a different place with each of their paintings. Art to me is a way of expression and only expression.
I enjoyed going on the field trip to the Yale Art Gallery and the British Museum. I found that the group discussions we had as a class in the British Museum were interesting and I liked how we were able to talk about the historical figures and the prospective that each brought to the painting. It made the painting more enjoyable to look at and it brought a new and interesting way for me personally when looking at art. Usually I would just look to see if the piece looked good and then move on but the discussion we were able to have as a group based on the material that we learned in the past allowed me to analyze art in a new way. Out of the two art galleries I liked the British Museum better because we looked more in depth into the paintings we viewed and I got to hear everyone’s different opinions of the paintings we looked at. I also liked it because the paintings we looked at were based off of the time periods in European history that we had discussed and learned about in class.
In the Yale Art Gallery I liked viewing the modern art and comparing the art from the Gallery to the British Museum. The Yale Gallery had a floor dedicated to Picasso and exhibited his art. I found that Picasso’s work was not as good as I had hoped for and that I found it hard to understand. I liked viewing his other works besides just seeing his paintings but overall I felt that he was not as impressive as people perceive him to be. Also, in the modern art section of the Gallery I was not impressed with some of the work. For instance, the shovel hanging from the ceiling, it just didn’t make sense to me how that was art. However, some of the pieces were interesting to look at. The painting named the Knife Grinder was a painting made of many different shapes and structures and I liked looking at this painting.
Overall art to me is a form of creativity and imagination and is a great display of artistic ability through paintings, drawings, sculptures, or any other ways displaying an individual’s work. I feel and learned that art can truly be anything and is really seen in the eye of an individual. Everyone has a different outlook on art and I feel that art is based on how you interpret it.
I found the Yale Art Gallery and the British Art Museum to be very interesting. Normally, I do not really study art nor am I artistic, so it is significant that I enjoyed myself. I thought it was cool to look at a painting and realize that they were made centuries before our time and consider the history behind them. I particularly enjoyed the more modern paintings in the Yale Art Gallery. These paintings caught my eye because the painter had used such vivid colors and abstract themes. I liked how in the British Museum of Art, I could make references to things I have learned in class. Also, I found that talking about the paintings as a group caused me to notice things that I probably would not have noticed had I been going around on my own.
I only had a few negative thoughts about the trip. I found myself disappointed after the Picasso gallery. I guess I had high expectations for it, but found the exhibit to be dissatisfying and the art to be confusing. I like much of the other abstract art though, such as the painting “The Knife Grinder”. The colors really drew me into the painting and I found myself critiquing it, which I normally don’t do.
On the trip, some people sow some things that they wouldn’t consider art. Personally, I think that art is something that a person uses to express their feelings. It could be paintings, sketches, sculptures, or anything really. While I do believe that there is a point where hanging random things from the ceiling is not art, I also realize that what might not be art to me might be art to someone else.
Andras
verall, I found the field trip to be highly satisfying and intriguing. As my aesthetic tastes are very traditional (I mostly enjoy the Renaissance, Baroque, Romantic, and Realist styles), I deeply enjoyed the art presented in the British Museum, as well as a number of pieces at the Yale gallery. As I have no experience or skill whatsoever with actual fabricating pieces of art, the only criteria upon which my enjoyment of art tends to be based is how vividly realized and realistic the relevant piece is- the moreso, the better. Therefore, paintings such as the depiction of Peter the Great's visit to Great Britain's Shipyards or the Victorian Poor and the Victorian Train station, alongside the numerous Renaissance and Baroque works (such as the Dutch Baroque potraiture) were very satisfying and interesting. Objectively, I judge the quality of a piece of art by the degree of technical sophistication and creative effort that appears to have been invested into it. Therefore, while I personally dislike virtually all art in the surreal modern styles, I could still appreciate some of the works of Piccasso (such as Guernica) present while at the same time repudiating such things as the shovel attached to the ceiling, which I found to have no creative merits whatsoever. While I personally abhor surrealism, cubism, etc., I can still acknowledge the degree of technical skill and ingenuity required to draw and paint something like Guernica, and I can also perceive the degree of technical ability require to create a perfect, planed colour as witnessed on the flat orange pane. However, something that could very readily have been scrawled by an inebriated toddler or accidentally produced by an homeowner infuriated with his snow shovel clearly do not require much in the way of creative thought or effort, and thus are worthless. However, ultimately, given my personal aesthetic tastes, I didn't truly enjoy or spend much time in any of the modern exhibits. I was interested in the Byzantine and medieval works present. While they do not show much use of perspective or other signs of technical sophistication, I find their era as well as their sheer age to be quite fascinating, enough to override many of the flaws that might otherwise have repulsed me. Additionally, many of those hoary works still possessed significant attention to detail and various aesthetic quirks that were appealing to me, and thus I still found them considerably more compelling than the modern works. It is for this reason that the British gallery was especially appealing, as it was filled with very detailed and sophisticated pieces of Western art, with all of what I witnessed having been old and traditional in the aesthetic style which I enjoy so greatly.
I very much enjoyed the gallery visit (and not just because of the two Chuck Palahniuk books I acquired and possible ruining Dave's life in the Yale Bookstore). I enjoyed the gallery in which we were allowed to freely walk around and look at the paintings as opposed to the gallery in which we had a guided tour. I enjoyed being able to focus on paintings that I personally found interesting as opposed to painting that some lady who couldn't understand my statements (which I still claim were not complicated) enjoyed looking at.
I refined my sense of what I like in art at the gallery visit. Art in this case meaning paintings, as opposed to sculptures, theatre, etc. I like sharp and vivid colors, and contrasting colors are also nice. I do not like messes on canvas that someone points to and goes, "THAT REPRESENTS MY ANGST!!!!!!!"
Due to the fact that I much prefer critique to "that looks pretty" I will focus on what actual art is, as opposed to ANGST!!!! Art is a message delivered in a manner not typical of everyday conversation meant for some kind of audience (i.e. conversations are not art, speechmaking and oratory is). Using this as a base, it grows in complexity. When an artist just throws paint at a canvas and yells "ANGST" they are not painting, they are being a two year old. This is vastly different from artists like Pollock, whose painting were simply meant to be pretty. There is a message there, it is a simple message, it says, "look, I'm pretty" which is a very nice message. It is what makes a pop song art, and what makes children's theatre wonderful, it is simple, elegent, and obvious. On the other hands, saying that it represents great works is wrong because it does not deserve to represent great ideas. It requires no skill, it is no longer original, and it doesn't make me question "is this art" it just makes me say, "starve on the street Mr. Angsty!"
Art requires some unique thought from the mind of the creator. Wheather this thought is complex or simple is not the problem, it is the amount of thought. Throwing paint on a canvas and yelling "ANGST" is not thought, it is the reason way some artists SHOULD starve on the street.
I enjoy art.
I thought the trip to the Yale Museum was amazing. As a person who respects creativity and its messages, I felt that the trip was worthwhile and allowed me to open my eyes a bit more. My family is not the type to indulge in creativity; it seems like I’m the only one who loves to write and draw. So, I’m really grateful that I had the opportunity to view many art pieces by some of the most artistic geniuses in history.
I did not enjoy the first gallery tour as much as I enjoyed the second. This was mainly because the guide had a snarky attitude. The first question that she asked was, “What is England? Do you know what England is?” What? And before she asked the question, we told her that we were all enrolled in A.P European History. How can we not know what England is? Despite this, I admit that she had pointed out many features of different paintings that I would have never considered. For example, she discussed the perspective of the pieces and forced us to analyze why the artist would use a certain technique. She talked about the lower, middle, and higher ground, and how we could differentiate through focus. But I would have really liked it if I could have toured the gallery at my own pace. I think that art does not communicate with everyone on the same level.
The second gallery appeared much nicer, and I enjoyed the liberty of showing myself around. One painting that particularly liked was about Danae and Perseus. I didn’t even have to know about Greek mythology to understand or appreciate the painting. Just the colors and techniques made me stare in awe. I also came across certain works that completely stumped me. Some I didn’t even think would be considered art (i.e. shovel).
And that brings me to the question: What is art?
Art. Three letters put together to create a larger than life meaning. Art is the visible representation of a person's thoughts and feelings. They're made for different purposes. One piece, like Guernica by Picasso, can show an artist's reaction to an event. Others can be used to persuade. Some are merely for entertainment. In the end, there are many artists who have the talent to create pure masterpieces and they're the ones who deserve the highest respect.
Overall I thought that the visit to the art galleries were interesting and fun. Some of the works were truly extraordinary, not only in there painting difficulty and visual, but also the political, social and economical meanings of the paintings as they were painted at a certain time in European History. I thought it was interesting to look at the differences in the painting styles based on the artistic era that we had talked about in class. Going through the gallery was like going through a time capsule of Europe, in the sense that you could see the progression of art in Europe. In one floor, you could notice that the painting was Mid Evil due to its lack of depth and religious meanings and figures depicted as humans, and the date of the painting would correspond with this. A couple steps further you could see a painting that was in the Renaissance period due to its depth and detail. Then you could see a little later in history, as the next painting would be painted in the Romantic era and have great emotion displayed in the painting, with references to classics. This part really visualized what we had been learning in class, and I enjoyed these paintings.
Some paintings I did not enjoy were the abstract painting. It’s a personal preference, but I just don’t like these paintings. I believe it is pointless to display the image or message you want to portray in the painting in such a round-of-about way. I like a piece of art that I know exactly what it is right away, and not have to go through layers of deception. Also, some of these paintings were even too abstract to even be considered art in my mind. My definition of art is a visual that is created by the artist that expresses emotions or feelings. Some of the works that we saw pushed, and even shied away from that definition. There were several works that just shouldn’t be considered art. For example, a shovel hanging from a ceiling is in no way art. I’m sure there is some abstract meaning behind it, but you can manipulate anything to have meaning behind it. This to me is an example of an established artist getting away with this as art because people think that whatever he puts forth must be art. This along with other paintings or drawings that were as simple as a couple lines, are not art in my mind. These types of works frustrated me and I didn’t like them.
Overall, I really enjoyed the filed trip to the two art galleries at Yale. I have been on a few field trips during my three years at high school and I have to say that this was definitely much more enjoyable then most. I really enjoyed both of the galleries that we attended. I did, however, prefer the guided tour at the British museum. Felt that our tour guide was very knowledgeable and directed our attention towards the more important parts of the artwork. I enjoyed the artwork in the British museum, I felt that it was interesting to look at and very traditional, unlike the Yale Art gallery. The Yale art gallery appealed less to my artistic taste. I felt that the Yale Art gallery was much more contemporary with a focus on the more unusual and perhaps odd art. This is not my type of art. I believe that if I can create the piece of art it should NEVER be displayed in an art museum, no matter how “original” or “modern” the piece is. I think that these “original” pieces of art should be thrown in the trash. I mean, honestly, what kind of art is a shovel hanging from the ceiling? It isn’t art! Oh yeah, and Picasso is quite overrated in my personal opinion. What did he do that was so special? I’m not sure, maybe somebody can explain it to me, but until then I dislike his work entirely. But nevertheless, the trip was still interesting. I really did enjoy the fact that we were able to explore New Haven around the Yale campus. And I really enjoyed our lunch; the pizza was extremely good.
And what is art?
I would have to say that one of the most beautiful pieces of art was the dismantlement of Manchester United by Barcelona this afternoon. Perhaps one of the best displays of team fútbol in recent memory, overall the performance by the Catalan giants this afternoon was a stunning work of art to me; better than anything Picasso could ever do!
But I think that art should have a deeper meaning in it, anybody can paint something on a piece of paper and call it art. However, it takes a true artist to create something that has a deeper meaning. This deeper meaning can be anything; it just has to be there. Close enough that it is not impossible to discover but not nearly close enough that it is visible after 5 seconds.
******* I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE KNOWN THAT I POSTED AT 5:44 THIS MORNING AND TECHNOLOGY FAILED ME SO I HAVE TO REPOST NOW. THANK YOU*******
I really enjoyed the visit to the galleries. I love museums of any kind because they allow me to better understand the thoughts of people when the art was created and see how life/thoughts have changed since then. I thought that the British Museum was better than the Yale Art Gallery, possibly because we had a tour guide who was able to explain the art we saw to us. Here, I especially liked the artwork entitled “Allegory of the Tudor Succession” because it allowed us to apply what we learned in class and see that what we learned had value. The painting was of eight Tudor monarchs with Henry VIII in the center and his Protestant successors to his left and his Catholic successors to his right. The painting tied in a lot of British history that we learned early in the year and I enjoyed applying it.
I did not really enjoy the modern art section of the Yale Art Gallery. Many of the works placed in it, to me, did not seem like they should be in there. For example, the running movie of the man on the phone talking did not make sense nor seem appropriate to be called “art”. Another work that did not make sense was the one that had an orange rectangular box with a lighter, smaller orange rectangle on top of it. I felt that just about anyone could have created it and that the “artist” was simply smart enough to sell it to Yale. I did enjoy the more classical, Western European paintings though. They made more sense because they represented the ideals of Western Europeans when the art was created. I also liked them because, again, I could relate them to what we have learned in class. For example, the one entitled “Virgin and Child” I understood a little better because we had discussed many “Virgin and Child” pieces during class. Overall, I would probably not go back to the Yale Gallery unless I had a tour guide or anything to help me understand what I was seeing.
Art is anything that represents a time period (i.e. its movements, ideals, people, events, etc) in a way that makes its viewer think. It is important for the viewer to have to think to understand art because it would be unfair for artists who spend a lot of their time creating the piece for someone to just quickly glance at the work and move on. Art should represent a time period because I also think that art is a form of time capsule that people can use as a “gateway” to the past. Also, art can not be art until a significant amount of time has passed so that it may be put into perspective. All of these factors constitute art.
I really enjoyed the visit to the art gallery. Usually I am not a big fan of art. I think that it is nice to look at put after a while I get bored with looking at it. To me a portrait of someone is nothing really that special. Sure the artist might use a different technique than a previous artist but for the most part to me it all looks the same. While we were at the museum with all of the British paintings I thought it was a little boring. While the paintings were nice, and they told a lot about the time period they did not really catch my interest. I tried really hard to observe them closely and try to see what made them so special compared to the other paintings at the museum but to me they all looked slightly similar. When we got to the art gallery and I started to look at the Mondana paintings I thought that it was going to be just like the other gallery. When I started looking at the more modern pictures however, I soon realized that I was wrong about art. This was my favorite part of the field trip. I really enjoyed looking at the abstract paints that when you first looked at them you initially thought that this was no way art, and that you could do it yourself. While I found myself thinking the same thing, the more I looked at the paints the more I realized how unique they were and indeed they were art. To me art is something that really makes you stop and think. It is something that is able to make you look at something in a completely different light then you do on a day to day occurrence. For example in one of Picasso’s pictures it was half of his face and half of his lover’s face. This is what gave the picture a distorted look. While some people might find this to be weird, I thought it was an interesting concept and one that I would not have thought of myself. I also feel that art is something that is supposed to raise a question to people and have them discuss it. I feel that great art is something that people are able to debate about whether or not it really is art. This is because it is able to capture its audience attention and causes them to really think about what it is that they are seeing. I feel that modern art does exactly this. It is for this reason that I like modern art the best and this was my favorite part of the trip.
I found the trip to the Yale art galleries quite enjoyable, and i thought that they were educational experiances too. The British art museum gave us a look at what art around the time of the american revolution through the early 1900s in england and much of the rest of western europe, and an idea of the culture of the times is portrayed through the painting style. The evolution into this style from the early style of Henry VIII and Elizabeth is evident, with a focus on people representing more importance of people versus religious and national images.
In the Yale Art Gallery, the evolution of art was even more pronounced, as it progressed from the very early stages with painting from the 1200s depicting early Christian traditions to the modern art that spanned an enormous diversity from an orange block to a drug-user statue. The images shift from icons of the leading powers-that-be to individuals and eventually to abstract concepts that were never even considered potential subjects for art until recent years. This evolution of art provides insight into how the culture of Europe changed over the centuries. Due to the ability to provide this view, this trip was certainly worth going on and should be repeated in subsequent years.
Overall, I enjoyed the gallery visit very much. However, I think I enjoyed our visit to the Yale Art Gallery more than the British Art Gallery. At the British Art Gallery, I found that though the paintings we looked at were interesting, the guide kept us from seeing as much as I would have liked. We only were able to see a few paintings, and there were several exhibits I would have liked to look at but was not able too because the guide took us in another direction. However, the discussions we had about the paintings we did see were valuable - often, someone pointed out a detail that I otherwise would have missed. It was also neat to hear different people’s takes on the same paintings.
On the other hand, I immensely enjoyed the visit to the Yale Art gallery. I liked being able to see more art, and being able to explore those areas that interested me. I think the worksheet was just right as far as an assignment - it kept us on track, but allowed us to focus on those pieces of artwork which interested us (I especially enjoyed the Picasso exhibit and the more modern art.) Also, it forced students to sit down and actually look at a few paintings for an extended period of time, something which most people would not have done otherwise. I also enjoyed the discussions that developed from the visit to the Yale gallery - a debate regarding modern art was particularly memorable.
To me, art is a piece of creative work that conveys an emotion or idea. I know this is a broad definition, but I truly believe that art cannot be categorized by a more limiting set of constraints. Art is something unique for each artist, and can take a myriad of forms. The detail, realism, or medium of the piece does not matter - what matters is the thought the artist put into his or her work. It annoys me when people look at a piece and arbitrarily declare “My five-year-old could do this - this isn’t art!” If the artist intentionally used his or her medium to express an idea or make a point, then yes, it is art. From the emotions expressed by the composition, lines, and color to the deliberate intention to cause people to question and debate the merit of the piece, it is a rare piece that does not express the artist’s ideas. This thinking and creativity cannot be replicated, despite what some critics might say.
Although I did not go on the field trip to the gallery I believe that I would have very much enjoyed being exposed to these various pieces of artwork. It would have been extremely interesting to examine each painting or sculpture and notice the various techniques that the author implemented into his or her works. It would have also been interesting to learn about the significance of each of these pieces and how the author's experiences and beliefs were reflected within their artwork. Since I could not attend this field trip I decided to locate the website of the Yale University Art Gallery and to browse through the extensive collection that was included on the website. One collection of artwork that I found particulary interesting was that of the asian artwork. I have previously researched artwork from hispanic cultures as well as that of the europeans and it is interesting to me how different the three cultures truly are. This asian artwork includes very neutral tones with no harsh landscapes and very little creative symbols.
To me art is incredibly subjective. The beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. It is amazing to me how one piece of art can be interpreted in thousands of ways and can be both liked and disliked. However, it is evident that art has greatly evolved over the centuries. In earlier times it was used in portrait making and sculpting and the quality of the art was based upon the accuracy in the portrayal of the subject. As art continued to evolve it has begun to be used as a form of expression and most art now focuses less on the portrayal of a subject and more in the symbolism and significance of the painting. Various shapes, techniques, subjects, and landscapes are frequently used in order to provide an interesting piece for their audience to digest. Therefore, I believe that art can best be described as any form of expression by an individual that can be either created or performed.
This museum visit to the Yale Art Gallery and The British Art Museum made me realize what I like in art. I do not enjoy paintings such as those of blocks of color painted on a canvas, such as Josef Albers’ Homage to the Square. When I looked at these types of paintings I didn’t really consider them to be ‘art’ but rather something that anyone could paint and make up some obscure explanation for it. Overall I didn’t like a majority of the modern paintings, sculptures, movie things, etc. I walked through the modern/contemporary art section of the museum for a total of about three minutes, while being utterly confused throughout my time there. What I did enjoy in the modern section was the paintings that at first glance looked just like photographs but as you moved closer you realized that they were just extremely detailed paintings. The paintings that I did like in the Yale Art Museum can not be given a specific time period or style, for I like paintings and sculptures ranging from the early renaissance to Monet’s impressionist paintings. Contrasting the paintings I liked and those that I did not illuminated to me what makes the difference. The simplest explanation as to what I consider to be ‘good art’ and that which is enjoyable to me is artwork that looks like you actually put effort into, and that you can actually depict a concrete meaning from it. Artwork from artist such as Edward Hopper or Claude Monet are clearly paintings that require skill to create and have meanings that can be derived from looking at them, and thus in my mind considered good pieces of art. This brings me to the shovel piece, I won’t say that anyone could of created that because I’m not sure many people would hang a shovel from a ceiling and call it art, which is baffling because while it may have been created with some ingenious purpose, how is anyone supposed to get that just by looking at a hanging shovel.
Between the two art galleries I definitely enjoyed the British Art Museum more. Not only because this museum was more acquired to my taste in art, but because the guided tour really helped my classmates and me to go deeper into the meaning of paintings rather than just giving the painting a passing glance. When asked what is art, there is no definite answer. It is basically a rhetorical question because no one can give a concrete answer, these museum visits definitely proved that. For while I may not consider the shovel to be art, someone may think it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. So what is art? I guess its just all relative.
For me, the Yale museums were fun and educational. At the British museum, I liked how we were able to focus and have a detailed discussion of some of the paintings. However, what I did not like was how limited our view of the paintings were. Also, I do not think the curator of the museum was a little too excessive in her discussions, which should have been shorter in order to accommodate more paintings to see. I think it would be better if we do not have a curator next time we go to the museum. Another reason I did not really prefer the British art museum was because how limited the paintings were. Compared to the Yale art gallery, the British art gallery was a lot less diverse in paintings, painters, subject matters, and styles. Also, there was not a lot of contemporary art, or at least in the wing we were able to visit. However, I very much liked the many classical paintings, which make the British art gallery a lot more “focused” than the Yale Art Gallery, which was a bit too varied in its paintings. But the main reason I did not like the British museum was because the tour was so limited, and because we spent too much time on so few of the paintings.
The Yale art gallery, I thought, was interesting because of the diverse art pieces there. I especially liked how the paintings were all in chronological order so that there can be an evolution of art seen from the start of the tour to the end of the tour. What I found particularly interesting were the paintings from the Picasso exhibit. I personally have always been extremely skeptical of modern, interpretive painting, and have never been a big fan of Picasso. I tried very hard to find substantial artistic content to the paintings, but it was extremely hard to view it as art. Though I cannot deny his genius or his sense of creativity as well as his unique mode of artistic expression, I just cannot understand how it requires any real technical skill in order to paint the things he painted.
This is also the same problem I find with the modern art shown there. There are those there that were undoubtedly “artistic” in the classical sense, where great technical skills were needed in order to paint the paintings there. However, there are art pieces there that were just bizarre. I cannot understand how an orange stripe can be seen as artistic or even innovative. For the things like the shovel, I just cannot call it art. To me, I believe those are just pushing the definitions of art too far.
I thought that both museums were very interesting and made for a good field trip. From what we learned in AP throughout this year made understanding the historical aspects of each painting easier and the paintings/ photographs made history come to life. What I liked the most about the art was the fact that the Yale exhibit had a wide range of paintings; which differed in subject matter, style, and taste. This variety of art was what I loved the most, but also how different artists believe that their work is art. I enjoyed the modern art section because I felt that I had to concentrate more to understand the work of art, compared to the older prints, where the subject matter was apparent. The most shocking piece of art would be the video about the most important day in this artist’s life. It was so dark, depressing, and relatable in some aspects. It was a creative idea, yet it really made no sense. Some of the art in the gallery had no place in the museum, which was the only downside to the trip. Someone painting an orange square on paper, hanging a shovel (which was a reproduction), or videotaping yourself doing daily routines. I feel that this is not art because it doesn’t take a lot of thought, although some of it does stimulate the mind, but most doesn’t. It can also be the feeling of jealousy and stupidity that this guy painted an orange square on a piece of yellow paper and is now a millionaire while I could have thought of it and am now missing out on mad money. I can’t really say what is or isn’t art, but some of this “art” in this gallery was ridiculous due to the fact that it was so simple that any person could do it, which gave me the feeling that it is out of place being in the same building as a Picasso. I guess that can be considered as art, anything that conjures up emotions and intense debates.
Although I am not a huge fan of visiting art museums, I actually enjoyed looking at a lot of the artwork in the galleries. There were some very interesting paintings in the British Art Gallery; I would have liked to walk around and view more artwork myself rather than only discussing a few. I very much enjoyed the Yale Gallery and I got to see a wide variety of artwork. My least favorite of the artwork in the Yale Gallery was that of Picasso. I am definitely not qualified to critique an artist as successful as Picasso, but I did not find that any of his pieces were able to attain and keep my attention for more than a few seconds. I enjoyed both the classic European and modern American art on the 3rd floor of the gallery. The classic European art was very beautiful and it was interesting to see both the historical and mythological content of the paintings. I was split on the content of the modern American art. Some of it I found absolutely ridiculous, such as the shovel hanging on the ceiling that could be found at any local hardware store, and the giant orange circle on canvas. Some people would argue that these things were art because I still remember them, but I desired to spend no more than about two seconds looking at them. There were a lot of pieces of modern art that held my attention for a longer time. Obviously, the drug addict in the corner kept my attention for a few minutes, as I was too afraid to approach it at first. The artwork that I found most intriguing were the chaotic ones that made me think about what the artist could have possibly been thinking when they were making it. Art to me is exactly that; something that makes me contemplate more than the subject matter of the art itself.
The two gallery visits were very interesting to go to and were also an enjoyable experience as well. I enjoyed being able to go to the galleries especially since I find art a very fascinating subject of study with many facets. The visit to the galleries was also nice because it is not often one is presented with the opportunity to visit an art gallery. A visit to a gallery is not a thing many people would instantly think of doing but this trip reminded me of how appealing it could be and just how much is in store even in a short visit. Of the two galleries I would have to say I like the Yale Art Museum better than the British Art Museum. While I did find the British Art Museum an enjoyable experience I was dissatisfied with the fact that we really only had time to concentrate on only five pieces of art. The pieces we did view were very interesting, like the piece about Peter the Great and the King at the shipyards. The painting had a lot of historical background to talk about but it was also possible to talk about the artistic qualities of the piece as well like the methods used by the artists to bring focus on certain important figures. The guided tour did fill us in on a bit we didn’t happen to know about the historical background but I felt more might have been gained if we were to have viewed the pieces on our own. The guide did help us focus on a few specific paintings but there were many other paintings I happened to pass as we were walking by that I would have loved to take a closer look at. This is not to say that I found the paintings the guide happened to show us uninteresting but the opportunity to find a piece that really enthralled us was not given. This is one of the major reasons I liked the Yale Art Museum a bit better, we were given the freedom to explore and balance our own time with the paintings. The worksheet actually helped to do this in a way because you looked for a painting you found interesting and then took an even closer look at it, trying to understand what historical and emotional implications you could get from the piece. This forced you to do everything from examine the way the piece was painted to see if the piece was an example of a realist or a post-impressionist to simply reading the placard and seeing if it matches with the trends of that specific era. This made viewing and interpreting the art fun and you weren’t specifically forced to look at any one piece. I liked the idea of traveling either in a small group or individually through the art museum examining the pieces in your own little self-made journey rather than having a guided tour. The wide range of art types was exciting to see as well since the Yale Art Museum had such a wide range of pieces and I’m sure the British Art Museum did too but we simply just didn’t get a chance to see the possible range. Speaking of the range of art types though the Yale Art Museum had many types of art from ancient to modern and so the question of what is art was sparked. To me art is what you make of it but personally when I look at a piece of art I want to see hard work and thought put into a piece. I do not like most forms of modern art because they really don’t seem like people worked on them. I could take a 20 by 20 foot white canvas, paint three black dots on it and call it “Giant Polar Bear in an Antarctic Blizzard” and yes some people might consider it art. Admittedly in that example there was some actual work done but there was no quality to the piece. Still what I might think is silly someone might find deep and incredible meaning out of and think that it is worth the huge amount they paid. All in all while I have my own set standards for what I think is art these standards differ from person to person depending on preference so if someone wants to stick a shovel in a wall and call it art, I won’t disagree with their vision but I can’t say I’ll be paying them a million dollars for a shovel that is now lodged in my wall.
I enjoyed the trip to the Yale art galleries overall. I wasn't really sure of what to expect from the British gallery, but I was pleasantly surprised by the beautiful paintings contained within it. We got to see a couple paintings which were full of detail, and were true works of art. However, we only got to see about two or three paintings in the British galleries. I found that to be quite disappointing, because we didn't really get to look at any of the more interesting looking pieces which were right nearby. I would have liked to have had some more time to look through on our own, without the guide to see some other pieces. Also, the guide seemed to be, either incompetent, kind of, or at least, unprepared for most of our questions. She was trying to explain simple things to us that, to be honest, we clearly already knew, such as perspective, and the fact that England is an island. That was probably one of the most ridiculous things, the fact that she actually asked whether or not we realized that England, was an island. The other gallery on the other hand I enjoyed slightly more because we got to see the various paintings and works of art at our leisure. I got to look at the ones I wanted to in more detail, and kind of brush over the ones I wasn't interested in, while still being exposed to them simply by getting to examine them for a short time. I especially liked the painting of the scene of the collisseum portraying the gladiators and Ceasar, even though the latin translation of the title was incorrectly posted. I will say that the sculpture of the heroin guy was pretty amazing, and was so realistic that I swear if you look at it for long enough trying to see if its real, it seems to move ever so slightly just like a real person would. However "art" if you can even call it that, like the two orange rectangles, one slightly lighter in color than the other, is total bullshit. Quite honestly that is so ridiculous that someone would even begin to consider that art. True, it may have been the first thing like that, the first time anyone has thought of doing that, but come on its two colored rectangles. I believe that art is something that takes talent to do, it should require at least some sort of skill to create. The heroin guy for instance, took immense amount of talent and skill to create something so realistic. On the other hand the two orange rectangles, or the shovel hanging, sorry, rather the reproduction of a shovel, is not art. Those things take no skill or talent to hang on a wall, it takes no ability to do that. Anyone could take a shovel and hang it on a string, and say here is a reproduction of a shovel, or even craft a crude shovel out of wood, but even that would take more talent and skill than those "art" pieces did. Would it be fair then to say that I could take a urinal, mount it to the ceiling and say, look at that it's a brilliant piece of art, now give me money. Or perhaps would it be more beneficial for me to take a piece of paper, staple it to a wall, and draw a line across it, or make a simple black circle somewhere on the page, and say here this represents birth, death, and infinity, or here this shows, man's inhumanity to man. It is so ridiculous to say that two rectangles of slightly different hues one on top of the other is art. To say that a realistic portrait of a person, or perhaps a sculpture made in marble is art, would be accurate because they take talent and skill to create.
One aspect of the field trip that I particularly enjoyed was seeing the paintings from the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. I enjoyed seeing the historical aspects and information learned in class reflected in the art. Not only were the paintings expertly painted and amazing to see, but due to the social, political, and economic history of Europe that we are in a way forced to attain in class, I was able to appreciate the paintings in the museum at a much deeper level than I would have had I gone without any European history background. I was therefore able to pick out certain aspects of the paintings, recognize symbols throughout the painting and their significance, and imply the artists purpose or frame of mind (likely influenced by social ideals or events of his time) while creating the painting.
One aspect of the field trip that I did not enjoy was the section of modern American art. Aspects of this section rather than impressing upon me the amount of work and care the artist gave to his work, it seemed to me to impose the ideal that a new idea (no matter how outlandishly simple or how little skill it could require) could be considered art. I understand that art needs to be innovative and I accept the fact that art will change and slowly become more modern as society changes. However I believe there is a fine line between being artistically innovative and taking advantage of the art world’s hunger for new and unusual pieces. One painting that particularly frustrated me was a long rectangular one that was hanging on the wall and could be seen almost immediately as a person wanders into the exhibit. This painting was of two rectangles each painted in a different shade of orange. This frustrated me because there can be no definite symbolism to the work. The artist merely painted two rectangles. People may argue that the artist leaves the work open to the interpretation by many who see it by giving no definite symbols, however it frustrates me that the artist could claim just about any purpose without a single item in the painting to contradict him (in other words, he could essentially make up a new purpose for each person who asks him what it is). I feel that art is a painting, sculpture, drawing, video, or innovative idea that has an expressed purpose by the artist and depicts images in a manner pleasing to viewers (be it cubism, surrealism, realism; they are all forms of art requiring large amounts of skill). This painting mentioned above in my opinion does not fit my definition of art.
Honestly, at first I thought that the field trip to the Yale art museums would be extremely boring and not very enjoyable, but in all actuality, the art museums were quite interesting and I had a great time. The British art museum was surprisingly more fascinating than I thought it would be. I was intrigued by the intricate details and amazingly beautiful colors. All the pictures we saw in the British art museum had so much details and each detail had a certain story in it that connects altogether that it was like connecting puzzle pieces together. For example, the painting of a train terminal with a busy atmosphere had so much going on in the painting, that it was so difficult to focus on one object or idea that instead of trying to go through the whole painting, it kind of forces the viewer to try to connect all the elements together, which makes the whole painting more interesting.
The other Yale art gallery was by far the best of the two. I think this was so becuase this art gallery has various artwork ranging from the early Renaissance period to modern contemporary. Unlike the British Art museum, the art gallery had more variety for different types of viewers who hold different interests in art. But honestly, there were some "artwork" in the art gallery that I would never ever consider to be art but an accident. Maybe it was just me, but The Shovel and the orange painting... I couldn't see the relevance or any artistic ability in them. That was kind of disappointing.The artwork that I absolutely loved and will never forget is The Drug Addict. I think that one was the most popular amongst all of us because it was so realistic looking to the point that I thought it was real homeless person who passed out in the middle of the gallery.
Art to me, means imagination, creativity and just letting loose to express yourself as you want it to. Art can be whatever you want it to be and doesn't have to have a concrete correct meaning to it, and should be open to various interpretations. For example, I previously mentioned that The Shovel had absolutely no artistic meaning to it, but to the artist himself and other people, they might have seen a beautiful and completely different meaning and feeling from mine, and I think that's art for me right there. Overall, the field trip was very very fun and I enjoyed it a lot.
I thought the trip to the Yale art gallery was surprisingly interesting. I have to say I enjoyed the self guided tour much more than the guided tour at the British art museum. I felt like when we got the guided tour, we were treated as if we had no idea what ANYTHING was. Epitomized by the question “Do you all know what an isle is”, I felt like the guided tour was destined for failure. The entire time she was showing us paintings as if we had no idea of the history of the countries that gave us the art. I felt much more in my element when we went across the street and we were able to look at the art from our own perspective and give our own interpretation of what art was. We were able to see the progression of religious art from the medieval times to the renaissance. We were able to walk around the corner to the exhibit of modern art, and find a junkie laying against the wall with a needle hanging out of his arm (with Mr. Kirby silently in the background watching). The self guided tour was a really cool experience because, rather than look at renderings of the paintings in books; we could see them up close and distinguish what made each work unique. I never have really had an interest in art, but the field trip was really interesting, and I really did enjoy it. After going to the museum, I discovered that art is a depiction of events as they are indicative of a time period. As I sailed through history on the walls of the museum, I noticed each time period had styles that were indicative of the era, and I discovered that art is the depiction of that. Yale really opened up my eyes to of the ages, but I still have that faint glimmering hope that Banksy will soon make his mark.
I thoroughly enjoyed both the British Art Museum and the Yale Art Gallery much more than I anticipated. The British museum was just what I expected, filled with old dark paintings depicting the struggles of Britain through history. At first I was a bit apprehensive to this kind of art because I felt it would be very boring and not appealing at all. But on the contrary, I had a great time. I thought the tour guide was very informative and helpful while analyzing the paintings and I found myself wishing we had more than the scheduled time given on this tour. Like the British museum, I also enjoyed the Yale gallery a lot. I didn’t like the older European art as much but I was fascinated by the modern art. One particular exhibit that I surprisingly did not like at all was the works by Picasso. I found them to be not interesting at all and I felt that any five year old with a paint brush could create works at a similar talent level.
As for what I think art is; I feel that it’s in the eye of the beholder and art can be anything. It is in my opinion that anything that is creative or original will always be seen as some as art. The hanging shovel for instance, I’m sure most of us thought that was a poor excuse for art and has no place being in the same museum as some of Van Gogh or Picasso’s works but I’m sure someone must have thought of it as art for it to be there. I find that no matter what something is it could be considered art. My blog response, although yes, it is late and it may not be as well written as some of the other responses, even this can be considered art by someone.
I enjoyed the visit to the art galleries. It was a great experience and trip for our class to take. Part of the reason being from learning about the art of that time, and also of important events that did occur in European history, it made the history come alive to me. Looking around at all of the portraits of people, and also the paintings of scenes at the British art museum made me reflect on the history of the times the paintings were taken. I guess I just never really appreciated the history of those times, until thinking about how real people painted these works, and what was happening when they were painted.
One particular thing about this trip that was great was having the freedom to explore the second museum, and look at the paintings that I wanted to as I saw fit. I think that made it more interesting for me, because if I wasn’t thrilled by a certain work of art, I could just move on to the next one and find something more entertaining. The guided tour of the first museum was alright, but I felt that we weren’t able to see as much of the art that we wanted to as we could in the second museum.
I think the worst part of the visit was definitely the pace that the guided tour took us at. I feel like we spent a bit too much time on some of the art the guide showed us. It probably would have been for me at least a much better use of time to just peruse the entire gallery and take in everything, rather than absorbing everything about a particular painting, and not being able to find something that interested me. I think that is why the second gallery went by much faster for me.
Art can have a very broad definition, and very many at that, but when I think of art, I think of something that is fascinating whether by what it is, what it represents, or how it was conceived . Even if it is something as silly as a urinal glued to a wall, or a shovel, or even ‘a replication of a spoon’ it can still be art if was original. I guess the thought process of taking the urinal and putting it up on a fake wall, and just how unique it is that someone would think of an every day object and declare it as art is fascinating.
Overall, this is always one of my favorite blogs to read. The range of opinion is so vast. As I said in class, my favorite was watching your reactions to "The Addict??." You guys managed to write 46 pages of responses!
Post a Comment