Bridget Riley

As we have gone through the semester I have come to realize that the art I tend to appreciate the most is simple and fun. I enjoy Pollock, Oldenburg, and recently discovered I enjoy Bridget Riley. Considering this is my last blog, I figured I would post about something I enjoy rather than a painting or book that I was not a fan of. When flipping through the pages of Chapter 37 in the book, it seems nearly impossible to miss the piece Current by Bridget Riley because of how it messes with your eyes.

Bridget Riley is known for what we call Optical Art, which pretty much just art that messes with your eyes. This form of art intrigues me. It fits the bill for the type of art I enjoy (it does not hold some incredibly deep meaning that one has to search for in order to appreciate) and it is fascinating to look at. You can stare are the painting and over time you start seeing different things as the painting begins to mess with your eyes. Some of the pieces trick your eyes into thinking the painting is moving on the canvas. Metropolitan 136 is another one of Riley's works that is fun to look at. Even just moving your head while looking at changes how your eyes perceive the image. 

I fascinates me how paint on a canvas is able to trick the human eye to where it appears it is moving. I couldn't imagine attempting to paint such an image. I don't understand how it is possible to look at the image long enough to finish it without your eyes freaking out on you. After staring at it for just a short time I have to look away because my eyes can't comprehend what is going on. On top of that, it would take a lot of talent and precision to get the detailed lines placed just as they are needed in order to create the desired eye-tricking effect. I find this to be a new and creative twist on art. It takes painting in a new direction that I definitely wouldn't have thought of taking it.  When I was younger I used to enjoy trying to find weird pictures online like these that would mess with my eyes, little did I know this was actually a kind of art. Bridget Riley/Op Art is another one to add to my list of art that I find fun and enjoyable. 

Claes Oldenburg

Usually whenever I look at art in the book I don't like it at first, but then as we discuss it in class it grows on me. The case is much different when I first looked at the works of Claes Oldenburg. I instantly loved it.The picture in the book is his gigantic sculpture of a clothespin standing up in the middle of the city.

 It is incredibly random, and I love it. It is probably due to my odd sense of humor, but I find his work to be quite humorous. He takes everyday objects that are so common we sometimes forget the exist, and puts an enormous sculpture of it in a random location. He didn't put the sculpture of the clothespin in a laundromat parking lot where it would be somewhat relevant to its surrondings, he put it in the middle of Central Square in Philadelphia. It is completely irrelevant to the location, which I think adds to the beauty of it. It is completely random, which makes it fun. The art we usually tend to talk about in class has a very serious tone and deep underlying meaning, so it is very refreshing to see art that is light hearted and fun. His work actually makes me laugh because it is just so random. For example his work below is like a giant went bowling in the middle of a park, it is great!

When we looked at the pop-art of Andy Warhol I really wasn't a big fan. I liked the simplicity of it, but it felt dull to me. Oldenburg on the other hand somehow creates things that are simple yet exciting. I don't think much thought goes into his works. It looks like he gets a random idea and goes with it. His "Dropped Cone" sculpture has to be my favorite. It is a huge ice cream cone that looks like it was dropped and splatted on the corner of a building... It is original and fun.

Giacometti

Realizing I haven't really blogged since mid-term, I figured it was about time to get blogging again. Flipping through the book at the works we have talked about I remembered my fascination with Giacometti's City Square. When I saw it I noticed the intense sense of solitude it gives, even though there are multiple figures within the same area. I get the 'alone in a crowd' feeling from this piece. The humanities book links Giacometti with existentialism, and at first it was unclear to me how sculptures could be linked to philosophy. It took a little thinking (mostly sparked by an essay question on the test) to make the connection of how Sartre's philosophies could be revealed in another artist's work.

Sartre's believed that 'existence precedes essence', and I actually can see that philosophy coming through in Giacometti's City Square. The whole 'existence precede's essence' philosophy implies that we are born with a clean slate, and as Sartre stated, we are who we choose to be. Basically what I get out of this is that we are responsible for who we are, we can't blame anyone for who we become, because ultimately it is our own choices that define who we are. The figures in  City Square appear to be the clean slate figures that simply exist, but have not developed their own identity yet. They are dark, bleak, and have no distinctive characteristics. Each figure also appears to be going in it's own unique direction, and will not not be influenced by the other characters. This seems to reflect Sartre's beliefs that we are responsible for defining ourselves by making our own choices; we are not defined by those around us. Whether or not Giacometti actually meant for his sculpture to reflect existentialism or not, I can see why the book links him to existentialism. Giacometti must have really liked using the dark and unidentifiable characters, because he uses them in multiple works. This picture below is his sculpture Three Men Walking, which looks an awful lot like City Square,  just with fewer people.

It seems a little uncreative to me to use the exact same figures for multiple works, but oh well I certainly am not artist. I still kinda like Giacometti's work, even though it seems a little bit dark and depressing.

The American Dream

It is obvious that West's The Day of the Locust is criticizing the so called 'American dream' and how ridiculous it is. I am curious about what other people think about it. Do you feel that West did a good job of portraying the American dream?
I really did not enjoy reading the book. In my opinion, it felt pretty shallow, unrealistic, and somewhat uninteresting, but maybe that is actually what West wanted the reader to think of the novel. Since West was able to effectively make the reader (at least he got me to) feel shallow and annoyed by the outrageous behavior of the characters pursuing the American dream, I would consider that a success for West. He definitely succeeded in getting his point across that the American dream is most definitely a ridiculous fake dream. When he uses the fake dead horse at the bottom of the pool to reflect the fakeness of their lives, I thought that was a little bit over the top. It was almost too fake to the point where it was annoying.

I am undecided on whether his method of exposing the realities of the fake lifestyle were too exaggerated, or if he needed to use outlandish events to expose the stupidity of the American dream. I thought West did a good job with the cock fight scene. He used something that is actually something that happens in society (unlike the fake dead horse in the pool, which was over the top in my opinion), and used it to show the craziness of the American dream. The brutality of the cock fight reflects the ruthlessness of the lifestyle as well as show the selfish indulgences of the lifestyle. An example of this is the way the character just buys a rooster only because he wants to watch a fight. He doesn't care that he is wasting his money for just a few moments of entertainment, he simply wants to be entertained.
I think that Faye's character was what West did the best with. It wasn't necessarily her character that I thought was effective, but more so the role she played in the novel. I found her personality traits to be annoying and over the top. Her overconfidence about becoming a star was too intense and felt unrealistic to me. Despite her annoying character, West used her very well all throughout the novel. I see her as the perfect symbol of the American dream. All the guys are basically drooling over her, just like society yearns to live the American dream. She is a really attractive girl, but other than her physical appearance she has no depth to her character. The American dream is very similar in nature. It is shallow and unfulfilling where there is nothing more than material possessions and no deep rooted relationships or happiness. Also the American dream can fall apart and be gone forever just like anything in this world. This is reflected when Faye is gone in a heartbeat. After the night of the party and sleeping with Miguel she moves out from Homer's and is not seen the rest of the novel.
In my opinion, on the large scale the book was good. West was able to effectively represent the American dream and my different aspects off it, but the details he used were annoying and over the top. But I do find it annoying when people are in pursuit of the American dream, so maybe West intended for the reader to be annoyed.

I feel like this blog is bland without any form of artwork to go along with it, so here is a related song. This is a song called An American Dream by the band August Burns Red. It is raising the point that we the ones to blame for fueling the flame of the lifestyle of indulgence and are becoming suffocated with such a lifestyle.

Jackson Pollock

From our class discussion, it seemed like the general opinion of Pollock was not a good one. Most people in class didn't seem to think he was very creative or very talented, and I had the same opinion at first. But like many art works we have talked about in class, the longer I thought about it, the more it grew on me. My first impression pf Pollock was the same as many others. I thought that it took no talent or creativity, and a child could do the exact same thing. There clearly isn't any depth to his work, it is just him walking around splattering paint all over a canvas on the floor, which really is something even a monkey could do. When I thought about how simple his works were, it hit me that his work might actually be something that I enjoy. It is obvious there isn't any underlying meaning, so we (hopefully) wont have people trying to analyze and pull meaning out of his works. Not trying to dig for meaning and being able to take the picture at face value is refreshing. His works are simple, easy to understand what is going on, and easy on the eyes. Some of this paintings have cool color schemes that are enjoyable to look at. Here is one of his paintings that isn't anything extraordinary, but for some reason I enjoy it.

I feel like Pollock changed the way people look at art. He might not have done works that require a great deal of imagination or talent, but he did do something very original. He made it evident that art is something that anyone can create. I typically think of art as something that would be difficult to make that is done by a well known artist, not something my 4yr old niece made. But Pollock's simplistic approach to art has stretched boundaries of things that I would consider art. Even if you don't like his art, I think he should at least be respected for his originality and ability to challenge people to think about what the definition of art really is.

Frank Lloyd Wright

When we first took a look at Wright's works in class, I was instantly a fan. Then once again as I was reviewing for the mid-term exam, I took another look at his works and was reminded of just how cool and creative his designs were. He had an incredible talent for innovation and creativity. In class we discussed how he was able to use modern materials, like steel and concrete, to make his structures unique. He was also fantastic at utilizing nature in his designs, especially in the Fallingwater house. Being interested in this ability I decided to read a little further to try to see if there was anything else unique about his style. I discovered that the as he went on his career, there had been great improvements in the glass industry. Being incredibly innovative, he utilized glass work in his designs. He used glass to compliment his ability to create designs that utilized nature. He used glass to allow nature to play a vital part in his designs. Here is one example of his glass work in the Meyer May house.

What I like about the picture below is how it captures that Wright was able to not only make the house visually appealing from an outside perspective, but he also was able to make nature a part of his design from an inside perspective.

Then another thing i discovered as I was looking into more about Wright's works was the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. This building is so cool. This building shows how versatile of an architect he was Not only did he design houses for a rural nature setting, he was also able to design a museum in for a crowded city environment. I am amazed by the wide variety of buildings he designed throughout his career, and how he adapted his style to the advancement of building materials. He was always up to date and original. I think it is safe to say that Wright was an architectural mastermind. Below is an inside view of one his most famous works, the  Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.

Fernand Leger Influence on modern music video?

Every time we talk about artists and their works in class, we mention how they started something new and changed the direction of art, but rarely do I see these influences in modern art or humanities. This very well could be because I have minimal exposure to modern arts (other than music), or that I just fail to make connections. Today was the exception to that though, when we watched Fernand Leger's Ballet Mecanique, the style instantly reminded me of a music video by the band Underoath. I could be crazy and seeing connections that someone more knowledgeable in humanities would say have nothing in common, but in my mind I could totally see multiple commonalities between this music video and Ballet Mecanique.

The video is not on youtube so I can't embed it into the blog, so here is a link. The video is for the song Writing on the Walls by the band Underoath. http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/Underoath/Writing+on+the+Walls--50971016

     The first thing most people probably will notice is that music is loud and chaotic, and for some that have not been exposed to this genre, it probably seems a little bit overwhelming. There are some sections of the song that are more melodic, but there are also portions that consist of screaming, odd rhythms, and heavy percussion. This sounds a lot like the way the music in Ballet Mecanique would be described. Although there are not guitars, keyboard, or drumsets, it still has a very chaotic and sometimes uncomfortable feel to it. Neither of the two videos are something most people would consider easy to listen to or watch.

     The other aspect of the videos I found strikingly similar is the way they were filmed. I know nothing about film, so there could be a name for this style of video/movie, but I am unaware if there is. One of the first things I noticed about Ballet Mecanique was how random and short each of the clips were. It never stayed focused on one object/scene very long. It constantly is changing images, which adds feeling of chaos that the music is giving off. The scenes were random, and I was unable to pull a meaning or theme from the movie. This is exactly what I got from the Underoath music video as well. It never stayed focused on one scene/image for very long, it was constantly changing to the other things going on in the video. I didn't see any specific meaning in the music video. It was random, chaotic, and far from relaxing to listen to, just like Ballet Mecanique . 

  Call me crazy, but I feel like this Underoath music video is the modernized version of Ballet Mecanique. It had many of the same characteristics as Ballet Mecanique, just adapted to the higher technological level of our society (like electric guitars, electronic keyboard, and higher video quality). The fact that these two videos were made over 80 years apart, yet are very similar, shows how no matter how big if a time gap there is, we still draw influences from the artists that were well before our time. 

Do we not always notice connections like this because we are too blind to see them and don't look for them, but really every new art stems from artists before their time? Or do we sometimes feel like some ideas are completely new and original, not pulling influence from people before them?