Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Minimalism: For Class 3/31
Focus your response on Fried's difficult essay: what does he find wrong with minimalist sculpture (also termed literalism, specific objects, primary structures, ABC art)? What does he prefer about modernist sculpture? Define his terms (part by part, theater, timelessness, presentness, etc.) - what is opposed to what? Why does he critique Tony Smith's description of the unfinished turnpike, for instance?
Warhol and Pop: For Class 3/19
Focus your response on Crow's argument about trace and reference, mass culture and celebrity. How does Warhol reject modernist painting?
Abstract Expressionism: For Class 3/12
What is abstract expressionist painting and how does it differ from paintings that we have studied?
Modernist Sculpture: For Class 3/5
Focus your response on how Greenberg and Smith describe a visual encounter with sculptural objects - what words do they use and why?
Surrealism and Gender: For Class 2/19
Focus your response on the role of gender and sexuality in Surrealism. How do Man Ray and Claude Cahun offer different critiques using the female body?
Modernism and Mass Culture: For Class 3/3
Focusing on Walter Benjamin's essay, paraphrase what his main argument about reproducibility and originality - what is opposed to what? What is his attitude towards technology? Compare his response with Greenberg's.
Response #3
Response Essay 3
January 26, 2009
Kelly Sun
After reading Schapiro’s “The Concept of Impressionism,” I find that I have a much more refined understanding of what Impressionism is and how it came to be. I liked how Schapiro first started out with a general explanation to the concept of Impressionism – how it seems to be vague and momentary. He then goes on to elaborate on the exquisite qualities of Impressionism, such as how it was closely linked to sensation, which brought a certain essence to the painting. For a certain length he also refers to different definitions and findings on impressions; how scientists understand impressions to be a result of light rays exciting the retina, or how Locke argued visual impressions are simply results of the eyes viewing colors and lights and lines or voluminous bodies.
It was also interesting to read about the shifting from painting direct representations of objects to sensory impressions. Schapiro points out how the concept of impression was once considered unreliable for art, since they “introduced into art the impermanent, the subjective, and the illusory” (96-97). The original goal of the Classical painter or sculptor was to most accurately and precisely depict life through the way the human eye views objects, not through glimpses of color and sensory experiences. Essentially, impressionism contradicted everything the traditional artists knew and had developed for hundreds of years. The artist is no longer praised for being gifted with extraordinary precision and creativity, but for having a keen sensitivity to colors and light. I found all of this particularly riveting.
I feel that impressionism is unique because it brings the painter into the picture. The spectator now plays as big of a role as the subject matter being painted because the artist’s individual experience is being represented, whereas in traditional times the painter played a far smaller part in the actual scene. The painter was simply responsible for putting down exactly what is present before them down on the canvas. But in impressionism, the artist is no longer independent of the experience; his sense of the scene and taking in of the colors and light are the focus of the work. The art becomes purely subjective. The most important element of the painting is no longer what is being depicted; but how one sees the subject.
I found Schapiro’s introduction to impressionism to be a thorough explanation of what impressionism is, where it came from, and how it developed. He thoughtfully lays out the definition of impressionism and writes about examples of impressionist work. What I found especially helpful is that he connects the concept of impression not only to art, but also to science and philosophy. It’s intriguing to think of art as something that is involved with psychology, theory, and knowledge.
January 26, 2009
Kelly Sun
After reading Schapiro’s “The Concept of Impressionism,” I find that I have a much more refined understanding of what Impressionism is and how it came to be. I liked how Schapiro first started out with a general explanation to the concept of Impressionism – how it seems to be vague and momentary. He then goes on to elaborate on the exquisite qualities of Impressionism, such as how it was closely linked to sensation, which brought a certain essence to the painting. For a certain length he also refers to different definitions and findings on impressions; how scientists understand impressions to be a result of light rays exciting the retina, or how Locke argued visual impressions are simply results of the eyes viewing colors and lights and lines or voluminous bodies.
It was also interesting to read about the shifting from painting direct representations of objects to sensory impressions. Schapiro points out how the concept of impression was once considered unreliable for art, since they “introduced into art the impermanent, the subjective, and the illusory” (96-97). The original goal of the Classical painter or sculptor was to most accurately and precisely depict life through the way the human eye views objects, not through glimpses of color and sensory experiences. Essentially, impressionism contradicted everything the traditional artists knew and had developed for hundreds of years. The artist is no longer praised for being gifted with extraordinary precision and creativity, but for having a keen sensitivity to colors and light. I found all of this particularly riveting.
I feel that impressionism is unique because it brings the painter into the picture. The spectator now plays as big of a role as the subject matter being painted because the artist’s individual experience is being represented, whereas in traditional times the painter played a far smaller part in the actual scene. The painter was simply responsible for putting down exactly what is present before them down on the canvas. But in impressionism, the artist is no longer independent of the experience; his sense of the scene and taking in of the colors and light are the focus of the work. The art becomes purely subjective. The most important element of the painting is no longer what is being depicted; but how one sees the subject.
I found Schapiro’s introduction to impressionism to be a thorough explanation of what impressionism is, where it came from, and how it developed. He thoughtfully lays out the definition of impressionism and writes about examples of impressionist work. What I found especially helpful is that he connects the concept of impression not only to art, but also to science and philosophy. It’s intriguing to think of art as something that is involved with psychology, theory, and knowledge.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Kathryn A. Tuma
Response 2
I feel that Kathryn A. Tuma’s essay on Cezanne’s “Le Rocher Rouge” was somewhat occluded in its description by words that attempted to pinpoint its essence. Further, these almost annoying descriptions devalued her negative commentary on other art critic’s interpretations. The reference to Coleridge was useless and added a pretentious tone to the essay, especially since her goal was to interpret a work in her own words. She tended to deny interpretations and then follow them up with inserted descriptions that she did not make herself. The sentences were formed rather simply, but the inclusion of complicated adjectives and “poetic phrasings” created a sense of irony. Near the beginning of the section, she states, “We may name it, but it is not there. Yes, it is right to say that Cezanne’s painting elicits this misprision, but it is misprision…It is the figural antecedent.” (62) At the end of this very paragraph, she characterizes the painting herself through the Coleridge quote. By the end of the essay, she makes an attempt to describe Cezanne’s work in her own words: “Cezanne’s destabilization of geometry turns painting to emphatic facture….etc…”(65).
The irony is that she says the essence of the paintings, aside from the physical representation of ideology, is indescribable, yet she tries to describe it. No matter how many fancy words she throws around, she never exactly pinpoints it. That is the point. Written art criticism is difficult, as she of course mentions, and it cannot completely describe the essence of painting. I feel that fine arts and writing are two very different things. If she wanted to write criticism, she should have used simpler language and took a different angle. The only thing that seems plausible is going at the artwork from a purely ideological standpoint. Reducing other criticism to dust was unnecessary and contradictory for she attempted to describe it herself. She may have used fancier language than her predecessors, but it was equally ineffective and in addition, the poetic phrasing and literary reference added to it the air of a “pretentious academic.” If she were following anything she was saying, then she wouldn’t have used “old” literature to describe something new.
The most effective part of the essay was when she started deriving interpretations off of Cezanne’s own words (2nd paragraph on pg. 65 – 75 in the reader). Otherwise, I feel that she failed to stick to a firm source analysis (for it seems that she only described the colors in order to negate other critics rather than smoothly integrating it into her own argument) and that her essay was clouded with both deviations and negativity towards other interpretations.
I feel that Kathryn A. Tuma’s essay on Cezanne’s “Le Rocher Rouge” was somewhat occluded in its description by words that attempted to pinpoint its essence. Further, these almost annoying descriptions devalued her negative commentary on other art critic’s interpretations. The reference to Coleridge was useless and added a pretentious tone to the essay, especially since her goal was to interpret a work in her own words. She tended to deny interpretations and then follow them up with inserted descriptions that she did not make herself. The sentences were formed rather simply, but the inclusion of complicated adjectives and “poetic phrasings” created a sense of irony. Near the beginning of the section, she states, “We may name it, but it is not there. Yes, it is right to say that Cezanne’s painting elicits this misprision, but it is misprision…It is the figural antecedent.” (62) At the end of this very paragraph, she characterizes the painting herself through the Coleridge quote. By the end of the essay, she makes an attempt to describe Cezanne’s work in her own words: “Cezanne’s destabilization of geometry turns painting to emphatic facture….etc…”(65).
The irony is that she says the essence of the paintings, aside from the physical representation of ideology, is indescribable, yet she tries to describe it. No matter how many fancy words she throws around, she never exactly pinpoints it. That is the point. Written art criticism is difficult, as she of course mentions, and it cannot completely describe the essence of painting. I feel that fine arts and writing are two very different things. If she wanted to write criticism, she should have used simpler language and took a different angle. The only thing that seems plausible is going at the artwork from a purely ideological standpoint. Reducing other criticism to dust was unnecessary and contradictory for she attempted to describe it herself. She may have used fancier language than her predecessors, but it was equally ineffective and in addition, the poetic phrasing and literary reference added to it the air of a “pretentious academic.” If she were following anything she was saying, then she wouldn’t have used “old” literature to describe something new.
The most effective part of the essay was when she started deriving interpretations off of Cezanne’s own words (2nd paragraph on pg. 65 – 75 in the reader). Otherwise, I feel that she failed to stick to a firm source analysis (for it seems that she only described the colors in order to negate other critics rather than smoothly integrating it into her own argument) and that her essay was clouded with both deviations and negativity towards other interpretations.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What is Analysis? For class 1/27
In your post for 1/27, compare the visual descriptions by Clark, Tuma, and Potts. What do they notice about the works of art they describe? What do they leave out? Where do they say too much? What do you think are examples of good description?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Octave Tassaert’s ‘Ne fais pas la cruelle!’ (Don’t Play the Heartless One!’) made me think about the role of the spectator in appreciating modern art. My initial reaction to Tassaert’s painting was to laugh. There is something humorous about the incongruous cross-dressing. Although the man wears a long dress, he does not seem to lose his masculinity. His facial features and expressions are considerably masculine, given his heavy mustache and bushy sideburns. The wig he wears fails to hide his thick hair. His posture comes across as a comic attempt to imitate femininity. Similarly, the woman is dressed in tights, a top hat, and a baggy shirt. Her legs are spread wide apart and she appears to be mischievous as she lifts the man’s dress to expose his legs. But again, her facial features do not match her actions. She has a small face with delicate features such as a small nose, thin lips, and a pale complexion. Her sexually suggestive lifting of the dress is not aggressive, but dainty. The top (much like the man’s wig) fails to hide the woman’s light curls. So why did I find this picture humorous? Am I correct to find it funny? How would I react if the facial features matched their actions? I analyzed the painting once more in an effort to try to answer these questions. What struck me as humorous is that the subjects seemed to be joking around. The title of the painting, Don’t Play the Heartless One, suggests that the subject of the painting is not terribly grave. Instead it is playful. I believe that I have gathered enough substantial evidence from the painting to argue confidently that it is in fact a comic scene, but I realize that my interpretation, and more specifically the details that lead me to my conclusion, are open for debate. To answer my final question, I realized that being a spectator is more difficult than it seems. For instance, if the painting was of only the man, I might consider the painting less comic. I might think that the man was going through a dramatic identity crisis. If the woman was alone, I might think that the woman was trying to make a statement about her tedious, captive, unfulfilling life. Thus being a spectator is difficult because the context in which a work of art is placed in can alter our ability to analyze a painting without prejudice.
Defining the Modern: for class January 22
Welcome to the Modernity and Modernism section 6 blog. This site is where you will post your reading responses by 10 pm the night before class. You can post your responses as a comment. They should be roughly 1 page (though more or less is fine).
See the handout on reading responses for a form to follow and the syllabus for a list of which readings you are asked to respond to (marked with a *).
See you in class!
Sarah
See the handout on reading responses for a form to follow and the syllabus for a list of which readings you are asked to respond to (marked with a *).
See you in class!
Sarah
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
