Final Post

            When I knew I would have to take Impressionism through post-modernism I was not enthusiastic. But now that I have learned the history and technical advances in art that encouraged Impressionism and Post-modernism I am appreciative of the art movements. The reason why I did not like these art movements was because I held a deep love for realism and idealism, so the High Renaissance and Baroque period were my preferred art movements. Now though, that I have been immersed in the art world of Impressionists I have grown very fond of the Impressionists art, particularly the avant-garde realism. Although, artistically I have not recently been influenced by the artistic movements we discussed in class, I have seen some works of art that I am aesthetically pleased with.

            I would like to begin with the Stone Breakers by Gustave Courbet. I really enjoyed this piece not only because of its history, but because of its artistic style. At the time the piece was made the Socialist movements were taking place because of the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie. I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and I agree with many of the ideas that Marx proposed to form a more perfect society. Although some ideas would not work and need further adjustment, Marx’s Manifesto paved way for a new way of thinking. Today this could be brought up in the current Occupy movement. Many of the middle and lower class are protesting that the high class is not contributing as much as the middle and lower class are. The Stone Breakers although from a different time period, reflects those same ideas. The piece shows two men, one a boy and the other an old man. From their clothing and occupation, it is good to assume that they are the lower class. They are hard at work doing the jobs nobody wants to do to support their families.

            At the time it was made many of the critics that saw that piece where disgusted and offended at the piece because of its subject matter and its artistic style. The bourgeoisie did not like that the piece focused on such lowly life forms and not only that but exposed the unfairness the rich had against the poor. The piece was also presented as an academic piece, through its size and naturalist style. St. Simon stated that art should have a purpose in society, to contribute to society that would benefit it. I completely agree in that aspect, if we as human beings have something we can share with the world then we should have an obligation to share it and use it as a way to provide people with information and to better themselves and their community. Courbet used this piece to address the issue of the exploitation of the poor and to raise awareness of the new socialist ideas that were taking place. Like Courbet I want to create art that addresses the issues society currently has and hope that enough people see it to change their ideals and help society for the better. 

20th cent. art: Richard Hamilton

            Previous to WWII, America was not considered a world power by the global community. By the 1950s the Allies had won and the United States and the Soviet Union entered a Cold War. The United States came on top as a world power and saw itself as the protector from communism and its sphere of influence. Aside from the political problems, the Western powers had entered the new age of modernism. New technologies brought forth new ways of living and the people accepted these devices readily, thus the consumer culture was born. In the art world, specifically Britain, artists were commenting on the current consumer culture and critiqued how it changed the way society based its ideals. Called Pop art after the tootsie pop in Richard Hamilton’s famous piece, the art movement first comprised of British artists that were involved in the Individual Group in London. This group focused on discussing the place of art in a consumer society. Richard Hamilton’s piece Interior focused on the visual culture and comments on the ideals of the consumer culture.

            Seeing that art was being replaced by advertising to define beauty, Richard Hamilton made collages composed from various advertising magazines. Using old and new techniques of print making he was able to create interesting pieces. The piece Interior is a good example of his collage work. The piece juxtaposes different sections of advertisement prints. Some are colored and some are monochromatic. Hamilton juxtaposes the pieces to fit together, as if the scene is actually from a home magazine. Hamilton adds a television and fancy furniture to comment on societies need to define itself by the materials it possesses. Wendy Weitman from the Museum of Modern art states that, “through a complex layering of painting and photographic techniques, he [Hamilton] continues to examine issues of illusion and the processes of image-making.”

            Hamilton began his ideas of his collages from a film still in the film Shockproof while teaching a class in Newcastle Polytechnic. Lying on the floor, the still intrigued Hamilton by how it was arranged compositionally. Hamilton describes the still as focusing all attention on a girl in a ‘new look’ coat. Hamilton further notes that the girl’s angle seems awkward as the perspective seems distorted. What really toke Hamilton back though was the fact the still was not of an actual place but of a film set, so the wall were not together and the lighting in the still came from different angles. All these elements inspired Hamilton to experiment with his collages and some paintings specifically focusing on the interior. Interior echoes Hamilton’s experience by having the walls of the interior placed at awkward angles which gives no clear angle of perspective. The walls also don’t seem to be conjoined and the enlargement of some of the furniture creates a feeling of unease as you see a living space in a correctly placed atmosphere, but the direct manipulation of the objects around the woman are varied in scale. From a simple film still Hamilton was able to create compelling dynamic compositions that not only focus on the composition of art, but as well as the life of the consumer culture.

References:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/hamilton-interior-p04250/text-summary

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A2481&page_number=4&template_id=1&sort_order=1

Dadaism and Duchamp

Dadaism and Surrealism began during the Great War. Many opposed the incessant bloodshed of thousands and the oppressive nature of their governments to create propaganda and conform society to their benefit. Dada and Surrealism questioned the rationality and logic of modern society when so many were being killed on the front line. Instead of creating art that was ordered and structured Dada and Surrealism was attracted to abstract, irrational, unorganized, and uninhibited art in a sense that it was not based on modern society’s values, but on the emotive and ideological senses of the artists. One such artist that decided to break from the traditions was Marcel Duchamp. His works became the most controversial and most talked about works of art to this day. Not because of their form or composition, but because they were not pieces that were created out of the mind of Duchamp, rather he grabbed mass-produced items and changed them slightly and called it art; such as the works Fountain and L.H.O.O.Q.

            Duchamp coined his pieces as ‘ready-mades’, the transformation of already made objects into works of art. In 1915 Duchamp would be graciously invited to America to be a founding member of the American Society of Independent Artists. As being the chairman for the hanging committee, Duchamp had the exclusive access to select which works of art would be selected for the exhibition that was coming soon. Duchamp already created Fountain years before the selecting of works. Fountain comprised of a male urinal turned upside down with a signature, R. Mutt. Duchamp guessed right when his work was rejected, although he had turned his work in anonymously. After that he left the Society and created some ready-mades, but would later retire from art for chess. What is most important though is that Duchamp was questioning the purpose of art. He argued that artists for centuries had had studio assistants create their design, while the artist didn’t even directly craft his piece. What Duchamp was doing was merely bypassing that procedure all together by buying it off the market. Although it was not of his creation, he believed it to be of his designed since he chose the piece and displayed it in a way more abstract. Many of course were horrified and shocked at the piece because of its obscene nature as being a male urinal and directly correlates with humanities disgusting nature, but the most important element was the piece itself. It questions what the real nature of art is and what can be called art.

            L.H.O.O.Q. was another piece that created controversy. At the time the Mona Lisa had made international headlines because the piece was stolen and nobody knew where it was. Before this event the Mona Lisa was not as prized as it was today, so the theft left it with much fame. While this hiatus was occurring, many vendors sold postcards of the Mona Lisa painting. Duchamp bought one and decided to draw in a handlebar mustache with a goatee. Under the postcard he wrote L.H.O.O.Q. When the general public viewed this piece they were horrified and insulted that such a sacred and highly revered piece could be vandalized this way. In this way Duchamp was commenting on the nature of fame and how art can be viewed differently when under fame. In my opinion I would call Duchamp’s work as art, I do not like it, but the ideas behind the art give his pieces meaning. It wouldn’t work any other way, for example if I had grabbed a desk and split it in half, but I had no idea or symbolism behind why I did it or what the piece stands for, then the piece is merely a short gesture for art. I feel that in order for something to be art one must be connected in some way to the art. To have some sort of ownership to the object whether it be craft, idea, or design. 

Post-Impressionism

Much like technology, art is upgraded to new trends and new functions as time passes by. During the late 19^th century, impressionist artists dominated the art world. Their imagined and happy depiction of life came across as appealing to many, but some wanted to go even further in terms of artistic conventions. Paul Gauguin was a new breed of artist that was burgeoning in Europe. Called post-impressionist, these artists incorporated some artistic elements from the impressionist artists into their artwork, but further morphed the idea of painting. Gauguin’s painting, The Yellow Christ, is a good example of a post-impressionist painting. Through its different and similar characteristics of artistic elements, The Yellow Christ, according to Griselda Pollock’s formula, is considered ‘avant-garde’ work.

            Griselda Pollock uses a formula based on three rules for an artwork to be considered avant-garde. The rules are reference, deference, and difference. Based on these rules, The Yellow Christ can be considered avant-garde. The Yellow Christ uses reference by paying homage to the landscape paintings of the impressionist artists and to the Medieval European artists that depicted religious or spiritual scenes. Landscape is shown in the background of Christ, although it is not the focal point of the piece it is still engaging enough to refer to the landscape paintings of impressionist’s artists.

            Gauguin uses deference by showing an interest in light in color. The entirety of the painting is filled with vibrant and warm colors. Yellow, red, green, and blue, these colors create a lively and calming effect that creates a glowing rhythm of color. Gauguin also applies loose brushstrokes to create his piece, much like the impressionists painters. What sets him apart though, the ‘difference’, is that unlike the impressionists, Gauguin utilized color not as a tool to depict naturalness, but to evoke a more emotive feeling towards the piece. For example, Christ is depicted Yellow much like the landscape, I’m guessing because Gauguin wanted to symbolize Christ as nature, or specifically autumn, since it looks like it is fall. The landscape was just as important to the people as Christ was, so Gauguin wanted to portray the commitment the working class had to their religion as well as to their work. Another difference is the use of line, Impressionist painters had no real use of strong bold lines in their work. They preferred color to make up the shape of the figures and objects in the piece. Gauguin goes away from this convention to boldly outline all the figures in his painting including Christ. By outlining the figures, Gauguin focuses attention onto the figures. The landscape has little to no use of strong lines, so the figures in the foreground are the main attention of the piece. By doing this Gauguin goes away from impressionist artists. Instead of focusing on the celebration of the bourgeoisie and overall feeling of the piece, Gauguin is focusing on the lives of the working class. He wants the viewer to focus on the emotional feeling the female figures have towards their religion. The landscape is merely a additive that establishes the mood.

            Gauguin criticized impressionist painters for only painting what they wanted to paint. To have no sense of thought in the painting, Gauguin thought to be a useless painting. The Yellow Christ evokes thought because the subject matter is provocative, and the use of color combined with the subject matter makes a compelling piece.