Environmental Art

I was immediately intrigued when I saw the photo of Spiral Jetty by Robert Smithson. I haven’t ever really been a huge fan of art, but this is something that I think anyone can have an appreciation for. Nature is undeniably breathtaking, and no artist will ever come close to capturing the beauty that God has created for us! With that in mind, what better way to create beautiful art than incorporating the natural beauty around us? That’s exactly what Smithson did with this piece of art. This spiral is located on the edge of the Great Salt Lake and is composed of 6650 tons of black basalt, limestone, and earth. Since its construction, Spiral Jetty has been fully submerged twice, but at this time is again able to be seen from ground level. Something else I love about the idea of creating art using nature is the fact that it is constantly changing. Maybe not drastically, but changing nonetheless. Over time, the spiral has gradually become partly covered with white salt crystals that float in the water. Although the salt crystals weren’t part of the original construction of this piece, I don’t feel like it detracts from the beauty of the piece. Some might say it actually adds to it. 

I have a feeling that this is one of those pieces of art where a picture doesn’t even come close to doing it justice. There are so many possible ways one could view this piece, and I’m guessing the impact of physically experiencing it in the actual location is way beyond what we can experience looking at a photo.

An artist who knows how to make a big impression...

You would think after being in this class for an entire semester, random or strange pieces of art shouldn’t surprise me so much. But once again, our textbook has presented me with something that definitely took me off guard…

Claes Oldenburg is a Swedish sculptor associated with the pop art movement who made sculptures of everyday ordinary objects. This would be very boring, except for the fact that the objects are ten, sometimes even twenty times their normal size. The sculpture that caught my in the book is his sculpture of a giant clothespin, located in Central Square in Philadelphia.

My first reaction to this art was why would someone do something ridiculous like sculpt a giant clothespin, but then I thought why not? It’s definitely not the most ridiculous thing we’ve seen at this point, and kudos to Oldenburg for just having fun with his talent. He was able to break out of the mindset that art should contain serious subject matter or invoke profound thoughts.

Another example of his work is the Dropped Cone on top of a shopping center in Cologne, Germany. One thing you have to give him credit for is getting people’s attention. It would be pretty much impossible to miss a giant, dripping ice cream cone on top of a building!

A third sculpture of Oldenburg is titled Spoonbridge and Cherry.

I’m not sure what it is about his sculptures, but I’m definitely a fan. Just looking at them reminds you to not take life so seriously and just enjoy the little (or not so little…) things in life!

Optical Art

Optical “Op” art is based on the idea that what one sees is determined by how one sees. It is a type of abstract art driven by mathematics. Op art can create an illusion of vibration, a false sense of depth, the illusion of movement, and other effects. The op art movement was led by Bridget Riley and Victor Vasarely. This painting by Bridget Riley is an example of optical art that gives the viewer a false sense of depth. Not everyone may see it the same, but as I look at this painting, I see the surfaces of the painting sloping inward towards the center. It seems as though there is a valley that continues on into the painting, but we all know that this is not possible.

“Sir-Ris” by Victor Vasarely is another example of the illusion of depth.

I guess I’m not exactly sure how op art works, but I know that it works somehow because I definitely started feeling nauseous as I was writing this blog. The pictures clearly aren’t moving in any way, but they are created to deceive the viewer into thinking that they are experiencing movement.  I find that whole concept really interesting, and I guess I never really thought about it as art before now. I always just viewed it as more scientific or mathematical.

I agree that art is seen differently by every person who views it, but op art is one technique that artists can use to control, to an extent, what those who view their art experience.

Ventures of Robert Venturi

Normally I tend to agree with a more practical approach to things, but in this case, I’m kind of leaning towards Robert Venturi’s side of the argument concerning architecture. Venturi is a Postmodernist architect who rejected the Modernist tendency of function over form. His response to the phrase “less is more” was “less is a bore.” Now I’m not saying that practical buildings are not necessary, but there is something about really creative and unique architecture that I find appealing. Venturi leans more toward creating architecture that is aesthetically pleasing and emphasizes individuality and excitement rather than buildings designed purely for preserving space and fulfilling basic shelter needs.

Take for example the Vanna Venturi House. Robert Venturi took basic elements used in building traditional homes, but used them in a way to create a unique house that is still modern.

Venturi also felt that it was important to preserve details and beauty in buildings. I definitely agree with this. I can’t imagine how boring it would be if all buildings were designed with the Modernist ideas in mind. There are some pretty neat glass and steel sky scrapers, but if that’s what all modern architecture looked like, our world would be a pretty boring place.

I enjoy Venturi’s architecture because it is simple, yet not necessarily boring. His respect for detail is evident in a lot of his designs.

Art?

Art?  Maybe.  Random paint splatters that my 8-year-old sister could do?  Definitely.  That might sound a little harsh, but those were my first thoughts when I looked at Jackson Pollock’s painting on page 85 of our textbook. Maybe I’m missing something, but when I look at Pollock’s paintings I don’t really sense any skill involved. I’ll admit that they do look neat. But that’s about as far as I’ll go with that.

I guess I should give him some credit for his creativity though, considering that his art is considered the beginning of “action painting.” He also added bits of random objects, such as sand, nails, and bottle shards, to the layers of his paintings, which is a creative way to add texture and make the paintings unique.

Pollock was expelled from 2 different high schools and struggled with alcoholism most of his life, so he obviously had some inner turmoil. Looking at his paintings, they seem like they could be the results of Pollock using painting as an outlet for frustration or troubled emotions. According to Pollock, each of his paintings had a life of their own, with him controlling their direction. Looking at it from that perspective, it’s possible that his paintings were not just random paint splatters, but rather his way of dealing with difficulties in his life. I suppose that that’s what art is really about. Not so much what we, the viewers, see, but the story behind the art.

I still don’t see much talent involved in Pollock’s works, but it’s quite possible that I’m missing something in my very limited knowledge and experience with art. What do you think?

Who needs words?

That was my first thought after viewing Lee Miller’s photography from the World War II concentration camp in Buchenwald, Germany. Lee Miller was an American model-turned-photojournalist who worked as the official war photographer for Vogue magazine during WWII. After the war and throughout the rest of her life, she suffered from episodes of severe depression, which was later diagnosed as post-traumatic stress syndrome. This is not surprising at all considering what she must have witnessed during her time as a war photographer. Some of the photos, including this one shown on page 68 of our textbook, are almost too painful to look at.

  

It’s hard to fathom that images this horrible can even be real. Yet when you look at them, they communicate more than would ever be possible with just words. Lee Miller's photographs from the Holocaust epitomize the phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words." 

  

Photography is one art form that I believe can be appreciated by anyone. Although photos can be manipulated and used for bad intentions, there’s no denying the content of a pure, un-altered photograph. It’s an art form that usually doesn't require a lot of analyzing—the truth is right there before our eyes.

The Metamorphosis

My initial reaction after reading Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” was that it was rather strange and ridiculous. I was shocked by Gregor’s basically unemotional reaction to waking up one morning as an insect. He was more worried about not being able to sleep on his side and missing his train. I don’t know about you, but those would have been the least of my worries had I woken up as an insect this morning… It’s almost as if he recognizes his situation but is more concerned about the inconvenience of it than the horror of transforming into a giant insect.

As I continued to think about it though, I started wondering that maybe the author had a purpose for having Gregor react this way. Maybe his seemingly neutral reaction to being an enormous insect was meant to emphasize his obsession with his daily routine and job. It was almost as if his thoughts about getting to work and missing his train disabled him from thinking or worrying about anything else. His security was found in routine.

As was stated in the textbook, Kafka himself was plagued by insecurities, which tended to be the theme in many of his books. It seems very possible that he may have been using his stories as a way to communicate his own anxiety. Although the idea of a human transforming into an insect is absurd, along with the character's reaction to it, perhaps Kafka felt that he could relate to his character.

Pirandello--Act I

The beginning of the first act of Pirandello’s “Six Characters in Search of an Author” was a little slow and somewhat difficult to follow, but that changed when the family of six characters was introduced. They presented themselves as characters in a play, thrust into life, and in need of an author, hence the title of the play. They had an interesting story for the producer, and as I continued to read, I started seeing some correlations.

At one point, the Father says to the Producer, “We all have a world of private things inside ourselves and each one of us has his own private world. How can we understand each other if the words I use have the sense and the value that I expect them to have, but whoever is listening to me inevitably thinks that those same words have a different sense and value, because of the private world he has inside himself too. We think we understand each other: but we never do.”

Although this was just a line in a play, I feel that there is a lot of truth in this statement. It strongly reminded me of some of the discussions we’ve had thus far in class, especially about art. A lot of our discussions revolve around finding meaning in art, or whether there is any meaning at all. And even if we do form some idea of what the artist is trying to communicate, how can we be sure that our conclusion is accurate?

 

In the above quote, the character is talking about words, but I feel like his statement can be just as easily applied to the interpretation of art.  We can argue for hours about what an artist is implying through his or her art, but it is impossible for us to ever really know. We all look at art from a different perspective, depending on the “private world” we have inside ourselves. No matter how hard we try, we will never see into the private world of an artist, and therefore, we will never be able to form a completely accurate assessment of the art.

Now, I'm not saying that we should never search for meaning in art, poetry, music, etc. because that can potentially lead to some very interesting discussions, but I am saying that it's not something worth arguing over.