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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKelly Sun
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
I am certainly no art connoisseur, nor do I have any working knowledge about modern art. But from the few modern art pieces I have seen, I have developed a very simple pleasure in its boldness and its sharp contrast from the traditional works I have often dubbed the “boring-classical-stuff.” While I can look at an abstract painting and admire its creativity and uniqueness, I can never actually tell what it is trying to achieve. I always stumble upon the question: how does one judge modern art? The “Introduction” by Briony Fer answers my question by bringing up the role the spectator plays in viewing a work of art; that the approach of the modern spectator should be to understand the intention and concerns of the modern artist.
What really intrigued me about Fer’s article is his mentioning of us needing to be “self conscious as spectators of art” (34). I have never placed so much value in the role of the viewer. Fer explains how we need to understand that as viewers of a piece of artwork, we may be living in an era completely different from the intended context of the work. By living in a different context and having preconceived notions about what is considered a successful painting, we would not be fit to judge Edouard Manet’s L’Olympia until we understand Manet’s concerns. As a spectator we have to erase our preconceptions that may exist from our experience with viewing da Vinci or Michelangelo and focus on the regards of modern art.
After all, as Fer describes, L’Olympia was originally seen as a failure and uninteresting. Critics were quick to say that Manet had an inadequate usage of technique and did not capture the essence of Venus. As art critic Zola soon pointed out, this was a fault on behalf of the spectator for not being able to read the modernity of the work.
Manet himself set the modernity of the work. He chooses the language and context by which his work can be judged: he deliberately chooses to use a contemporary everyday girl rather than the elegant form of Venus. This thereby invalidates spectators’ critiques that the painting was “incompetent, indecent, or obscene” (32) because it is clear that Manet never intended to follow the Classical approach.
I agree with Fer that as spectators we are responsible for understanding the demands of modern art and what it hopes to achieve. When observing a modern painting or sculpture, we must recognize that context plays an essential role in understanding the work. We must understand that in fact the barely distinguishable faces of people in a crowd in Manet’s Concert aux Tuileries is not at all a result of the artist’s poor technique, but a purposeful move to capture a “passing glance” in a crowd – an effect common to the modern art context.
Upon viewing Jackson Pollock’s Autumn Rhythm for the first time, I could only wonder “Why?--why did he paint this monstrosity, why is it so well-known, why is the liquid paint strewn throughout the canvas in a seemingly random manner, and primarily, why would anyone consider this art and not just a mess of paint that could be found at any local kindergarten floor?” However, there is more to this artwork than just a mess of paint, and upon closer inspection of this controversial masterpiece I began to understand its true importance.
ReplyDeleteI first attempted to discover what truly makes this painting different. As Briony Fer states in “Introduction” from Modernity and Modernism, “a modern art practice is constructed out of a sense of difference”. Since Pollock’s Autumn Rhythm irrefutably represents modern art, it can be expected that a large portion of the artwork’s significance derives from what sets it apart. In the case of Jackson Pollock, the most prominent “difference” exists within his methodology. Whereas the common painting method called for a taut canvas upon an easel, to which careful brushstrokes were applied, Pollock elected to splash liquid paint upon a large piece of canvas that he laid upon the floor of his studio. His paintings were created by running around his studio, carefully dripping and splashing paint upon the canvas --the act of creating his paintings did not occur in a careful manner in which the final product was of utmost importance. As such, Jackson Pollock created an art in which the process carried equal importance to the final result.
It should also be noted that the painting is not truly random—there are clear variations in thickness and arrangement of the paint that could only result from deliberate movements by Pollock. He clearly had some level of preconception regarding the appearance of the final product. This non-randomness is also reflected in the even coverage of the entire canvas. If the process were truly random, areas of emptiness and strongly varying densities of paint would be expected. Autumn Rhythm is evenly covered with all three colors, and the only empty areas occur consistently around the perimeter of the canvas. This provides even more evidence of the deliberate nature of the painting.
Upon further viewing of Autumn Rhythm, it becomes clear that this is a significant piece of modern art. It represents a major shift in methods, with a newfound emphasis on the process over the final result. Pollock took pride in the event of creating the painting, and the movement around and within the canvas that led to the final result. The randomness also fades upon closer inspection—while the painting clearly does not convey a certain scene or object, it was undeniably constructed in a deliberate manner. Pollock desired to create a final product that would accurately represent the process behind it.
Felby Chen
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
Titian’s “Venus of Urbino” is of most interest to me; I would like to explore why the female at the center of attention is undressed and in such a sexual position, while the two females in the background are dressed and seem to be in a tense situation. First off, I believe Venus, the female lying on the bed, is lying in such a position because she is flaunting her body. She knows that she has a very curvy and full body, and is not afraid to show it. She sits on the bed as if to lure men to come sleep with her. She braids the top of her hair and holds a wreath – Venus is symbolic of a goddess and is also the Roman goddess. In the older times, females were considered symbols of fertility – this is why Venus is placed in the center of the picture. In Roman mythology, Venus is the goddess of love, beauty and fertility. With these two beliefs in mind, one notices that Titian is trying to convey men’s liking for and propensity to dote upon females with more curvaceous figures, especially the younger ones.
Stemming from the claims from the previous paragraph, one can easily comment that the two females in the back are clothed because Titian, the painter, is trying to imply that the two females are not as appealing as Venus, for the girl, who seems to be crying on the chair, has quite a thin figure, while the woman on the right of the girl, who may be a little curvaceous, is too old. The painter subtly clothes them to indicate their imperfection. Furthermore, the two women are definitely not happy; the girl seems to be crying on the chair and is almost in a fetal-like position (which, in psychology, shows that she is feeling weak and regressing instead of progressing in emotion at the moment), while the woman next to her is standing with one hand crossed (in psychology, a crossed hand tends to show feelings of reservation), and one hand hanging, as if to comfort the girl but not really wanting to, since the hand is in such a position where the woman does not seem to be about to take initiative.
Danielle Beeve
ReplyDeleteHistory of Art R1B
Sect. 6
Upon first hearing the term ‘Modern Art’, I assumed it to mean anything produced within the last few centuries or so. However, according to the “Introduction” by Briony Fer, “not all the art that has been produced within that period is deemed to be ‘modern’-only certain types of art…[have that claim]” (10). As such, ‘Modern Art’ must refer to some kind of quality within the work itself, something that breaks away from the classical and attempts to create a new form of expression; as Fer puts it, “a ‘modern’ art practice is constructed out of a sense of difference” (11). For me, this ‘difference’ is aptly illustrated in many of the paintings mentioned in this section, most noticeably in Jasper Johns’ False Start, Edouard Manet’s Berthe Morisot with a Fan, and Pablo Picasso’s Bowl with Fruit, Violin and Wine Glass.
False Start is a splash of colors over and under laid with stenciled names of the colors, but the named colors do not match up with the colors themselves. The brushstrokes are bold and obvious, as can be characteristic of some modern works (11). The colors are quite vibrant, and yet the stenciled words manage to catch the eye of the viewer more ably. This piece to me could possibly be a comment on the use of names in general. By mixing up the word with the color the artist is perhaps illustrating that names are not a given, that we have arbitrarily conjured them up along the way and they are not fixed or immutable. In a way this fits Charles Baudelaire’s idea of modernity, which he defined as “the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable” (12).
Berthe Morisot with a Fan represents another trend of modern artists described by Fer that involves removing the face of the person as the focus of the painting, in this case by hiding it with a fan. The bottom part of the fan in this work skews the features of the woman, so that they seem to be slightly out of place. I agree with Fer in that this technique could possibly be “a device to redirect our attention elsewhere, away from…the human face” (12). However I also find it likely that perhaps Manet used the fan to incorporate an element of mystery, I wondered why would the woman want to hide her face behind a fan? Perhaps she felt ashamed in some way, or wished to hide something that could be read on her features. The multiple interpretations of this element are to me one of the most interesting parts of works of art, that they “may legitimately invite speculation,” (7) meaning that there is not necessarily one answer or interpretation. In any case, the use of the fan caused me as a viewer to take more interest in the painting, more so than if she were just a woman sitting on a chair with her face free of obscurity.
Another term used by Baudelaire to describe such works was the essence of ‘modernity,’ which in this case was “an experience which is always changing, which does not remain static and which is most clearly felt in the metropolitan centre of the city” (13). Picasso’s painting seems to embody the essence of ‘modernity’ as it incorporates bits of recent newspapers, a partial sketch of an instrument and pictures of wine and fruit. However it also goes back to the earlier definitions of modern in the way it was put together, with some things upside down and everything sort of strewn together in collage form.
These three pieces collaboratively represent many elements of what is considered ‘modern,’ they defy traditional boundaries and expectations of earlier works, and in this way are able to set themselves apart as belonging in the realm of ‘Modern Art.’
When one thinks of modernity, it is a natural instinct to think of broad, incoherent brushstrokes, abstract figures, and conceptual definitions of what is art. Yet, more or less this type of modernism strikes on a very shallow level. Anyone can point to a Jackson Pollock or Pablo Picasso painting and see that it looks radically different than a Raphael or Rembrandt painting. However, a modernism that strikes deeper into societies understanding of art is one that challenges our preconceived notions as to who the modern person is. Eduard Manet’s Olympia is a painting that reaches this deeper modernism.
ReplyDeleteIn stylistic approach, Olympia appears as a classical painting. Brushstrokes blend together to create three-dimensional surfaces upon the two-dimensional canvas. The ruffling of the bed is delicately done, giving weight to the woman lying on the bed. The servant is bringing the woman a bouquet of flowers, possibly from a man trying to court her. The painting in methodology is Renaissance-esque, with a defined sense of space established and a scene created in front of the viewer.
However, when one looks at the social connotations of the painting, one sees the radical modernity Manet tried to bring about in French society. As one can clearly see, the woman on the bed is naked. Yet, upon further inspection one sees she is partially clothed. The woman is wearing shoes, a bracelet, earrings, a choker and a flower delicately placed in her hair. Furthermore, one can look at the cat on the bed. It appears as if it is startled by the presence of whoever the woman is looking at, as if this person was never seen before and is considered an intruder. These pieces of the artwork tell the story of a woman working in a brothel, where her body and spirit are nothing more than for another’s pleasures. The flowers the maid is holding only further drive this idea home. They are a gift, as if to convince her that he is worthy of her “services.” Also, the look in her face is one of defiance. It assumes dominance over the viewer in its apathy of emotion. It’s as if she knows what the person has come for (and that the person had to find her, not vice versa) and will grant them what they want. It’s as if she finds the sexual encounter as a business proposition rather than an act of love, of emotion.
The Olympia challenges the idea of who the modern person was at the time. Manet was stating that it was common practice for men to go to brothel houses, specifically the modern Frenchman. The French public, however, promptly rejected the painting, denouncing the painting as immoral and vulgar. They refused to accept the standards to which their society had fallen and in essence reject modernity.
Julia Herron
ReplyDelete1.21.09
Response Paper #1
It seems that works of art from particular artistic movements share common characteristics, subjects, and techniques that make it easy to attribute a piece of art to a certain movement – Neoclassicism or Impressionism, for example. But the Modern movement seems much more difficult to pinpoint, especially since the definition of Modern changes whether you are talking about the period or using it as a description. Modern artists of the 19th and 20th Centuries became more aware of technique and how a subject was represented in relation to the impression a painting created, such as Manet’s manipulation of technique for L’Olympia.
It’s difficult to imagine how L’Olympia could have generated such a negative reaction when it was first displayed in the Salon. Today the painting is not likely to shock us, but that is because the societal context of the painting has changed dramatically. Olympia looks much more like today’s ideal of beauty – thinner and more sexualized – than the ideal of beauty in 19th Century France. To me, the grey line outlining Olympia’s body makes it seem almost like a photograph, but I can imagine how this detail was seen as almost vulgar in 1863. The patrons that appreciated art at this level, the bourgeosie, were accustomed to idealized nudes like Titian’s Venus of Urbino. There is nothing harsh about Titian’s nude. The shading is soft and her form is exaggeratedly womanly. Her expression and the position of her leg are more reserved than Olympia’s. Olympia looks the viewer straight in the eye with no shame, and her posture further illustrates her confidence.
Greenberg wrote, “art is a matter strictly of experience, not of principles, and what counts first and last in art is quality”. There is no doubt that L’Olympia is a quality painting, and this makes it a solid example of the Modern movement. The painting creates an experience for the viewer, even if it does not follow the conventions and principles of paintings that preceded it. Modern painters showed a desire to break from the past, even the very recent past, and Manet does this with the honest, almost blunt style of L’Olympia.
Controversy was a primary goal of modern painters – if they succeeded in making the bourgeoisie uncomfortable, then they had successfully distanced themselves from the art of the past. Modern art specifically challenged Renaissance subjects and techniques and expanded the definition of art and beauty.
I attempt to live in a world of reason and I strive for systems and rational to figure out everything. I am one who has forever dreaded the concept of art as there is no set procedure in order for me to create a portrait or a painting. Sure—I have been told many of times: “there’s no messing up in art”, yet being one who aims for set processes, I have constantly ignored this motto. From the assigned reading, one of the things that I find significant is the concept of people having various opinions about art work. To read about and recognize that there is no right or wrong way to understand art amazes me. To hear that people actually have arguments over the meaning of pieces of art is slightly ‘cool’. I have always strayed away from the art museum because I have believed that I would not vision art the same way that other people do. “Art is subject to changing views”, (9) and I have come to understand that analyzing art is not a one-way street in which everyone must follow an identical path.
ReplyDeleteI like how the reading emphasizes the fact that construction of art is a personal task, as the author writes: “Art is self-governing and autonomous,” (16). A burden has slightly been lifted off of my shoulders as I no longer feel the pressure of a drawing being for the eyes of other people. To be honest, I would actually like to go grab a sheet of paper and begin to doodle away—with complete control and lack of fear of a horrible picture.
Reading the description of Gustave Courbet’s piece, The Stonebreakers, I was actually able to witness variety how people vision art. In describing the image, I am sure different people would say different things, which brings me back to art being self-governing. Reading his descriptions served as an example of how I can possible describe images later on in the course. He used many different descriptive phrases that painted a picture for me (though I was able to see the actual image); phrases such as ‘bent over’, burned skin’, ‘muddy shoes’, ‘cracked wood’, etc. Word choice is often a personal factor as well which further supports the theory of art being an autonomous factor.
Throughout the reading, artwork was sometimes considered a failure because of different thoughts and opinions. On page twenty-seven, someone ridiculed a painting because this person could not come to terms with other people and their beliefs in reference to the painting. A quote that sticks out for me is: “It was a question of incompetent spectators rather than a failed painting,” (32). This sustains the idea of art being a self-governed aspect of life. It gives complete freedom and protection to the artist to do as her or she pleases.
Ultimately, I have gained (a tad bit of) confidence in relation to the subject matter of art/the history of art. I signed up for the course perplexed and hoping for the best. Reading the “Introduction” to our reader, I have come to believe that the History of Art R1B will not be so bad after all. The reading has persuaded me that if I have an argument about an image, and if I can sum it up in a few words in order to prove me case, I shall be fine.
Mike Dreibelbis
ReplyDeleteHOAR1B
I must confess to have been in the past a great critic of “modern art”. I think what had me convinced that it was nothing more than splotches of paint on a canvas such as Pollock’s Autumn Rhythm or similarly Jasper Johns’ False Start was that I approached these pieces expecting to look at them in the same manner that I would a work by the more traditional paintings of Breughel or even the impressionism of Monet. Upon reading the introduction, I must confess I accept Fer’s rebuke of this methodology in looking at the art. For when put in context, or studied against the other works of the artist, one can make sense out of the so called splotches and see the message the artist was trying to convey. I believe that when Fer said that “works of art may legitimately invite speculation”, he was spot on. I had never previously thought much of art being to ask questions about the piece itself and perhaps even referencing previous works, not in the way that Johns’ and Pollock’s works evoke. The more I study these two pieces however I seem to see more that they may have been trying to break the mold. Everyone knows about the Impressionist movement and how impressionists were breaking away from the traditional strictly naturalistic representation of the world around us, but I for one refused to acknowledge that artists such as Pollock and Johns in the same manner were breaking away from tradition themselves. Now I realize that Autumn Rhythm and Jubilee aren’t the artist representation of the world and that they see things in such a way. But the emotions that these images evoke can be stronger than what each person sees in the piece, and that is a shift in paradigm, at least for me.
Another thing that I was confused about was the actual meaning of this term “modern”. Baudelaire’s idea of painting everyone in contemporary dress and contemporary settings as adding a “heroic or epic dimension” was surprising to me. Though I disagree that a woman sitting with a parasol such as in Morisot’s La Nourrice is as heroic and epic as The Oath of the Horatii by David, I see how putting significance in the simple things of the contemporary can be just as important as remembering the great images of the past.
Modernism also takes on other meanings as well. Not only is the representation of the people of the period modernism, as is seen with Malevich’s Black Square. Malevich made the claim that art needed to move in another direction, and I believe his points to be valid as well. The fact that this idea of modernism can span the realm of the abstract and the naturalistic world makes it an important movement.
As an art student I’ve wondered and even asked more than once, “How is art graded?” This question only seems to intensify as I place it within the leagues of great artist such as Édouard Manet and Titian. What are the critics basing their appraise or harsh criticisms on? According to Briony Fer, art, especially modern art is judged off of differences. She states in her “Introduction,” “’modern’ art practice is construed out of a sense of difference. We could even say that the modern is a form of difference.” (7) If you take this into consideration then you must realize that in order to identify differences, you must compare one piece of artwork to another. This approach is apparent in the critique of Edouard Manet’s modern painting, L’Olympia.
ReplyDeleteEdouard Manet’s 1863 painting, L’Olympia was met with great distaste and criticism. But why? Is it because of his short, swift and obvious brush strokes, the overwhelming nudity, or the stark contrast of colors? To the critics, these issues were not the problem with Manet’s painting. They destroyed his work of art because they juxtaposed it with Titian’s earlier and similar painting, Venus. Venus depicts a gentle and coy scene. The lady’s body is soft, womanly and graceful. She holds flowers in her left hand, crosses her legs, and gracefully tilts her head as to softly look into the eyes of the viewer rather than a direct and confrontational gaze. Her facial expression matches her body, it is soft and gentle and the scene behind her is one of wealth and priority. The walls are decorated with vivid, bright, and embroidered fabrics and her lady in waiting is dressed in deeply colored and decorated clothes. The tiles behind her are lavishly colored and next to Venus is a sleeping dog. This picture of a wealthy, beautiful and docile woman was held as the standard for women and nudity in the art realm. Fer states in her articles, “the way we order and group works of art, and the context we place them in, will affect the way we see them." (6) The critics of Manet’s time followed exactly that and grouped both of these images into the same category and ripped L’Olympia apart. L’Olympia was too different too be considered a worthy painting.
What is it that robs Manet of the praise Titian received? It is the differences between the two paintings that labeled his art as “modern.” His scene depicted a different story. Rather than featuring a delicate and soft lady, he paints a thinner figure, most likely to be a courtesan. Her body posture is rigid, upright and stiff. She lacks the gentleness and delicacy of Venus and instead directly faces the viewer in a confrontational manner. Behind her is a black servant dressed in rags, and behind the servant are dark, gloomy drapes. The scene is one of lower class, a prostitute maybe waiting for her next suitor. A black, angsty cat replaces the dog. Unlike the docile sleeping dog, it’s back is arched and it’s yellow eyes like the courtesan’s pierce towards the viewer. The luxurious scene is replaced with one of angst, confrontation and the harsh reality of her life.
It is with comparison that critics judge the worth of art. Especially during the development of “modern art,” it was the differences that defined the quality of a painting. The comparison between L’Olympia and Venus capture the claim that modern art “…refers to the contemporary and is defined by its difference from the past.” (10)
Ruixuan (Jenny) Zhang
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
Response #1
To me, modern art is probably the least defined category of art because there is really no concrete way of describing their pieces. Such examples are Pollock’s Autumn Rhythm and Johns’ False Start. When you look at both of these paintings, you notice that there is no central component that draws upon your attention. Each drip or rough brush stroke of color is seemingly mixed and spread onto a large canvas. This is interesting because when we compare modern paintings to “academic paintings”, like Bouguereau’s Mother and Child, that were very famous during the Renaissance (11), we can tell that the latter focuses on the people in the painting; in particularly the darker-colored child in the lower right corner because it sharply contrasts the light and softness of the background and the mother holding the toddler (12). Also because the mood created for the child is very gloomy and slightly depressing, almost as if the child has no life in him or her, compared to the mother who looks like she is full of life. Modern art is different in that sense because there is no central character in the painting, every detail uses the same technique and no portion of the painting draws more of the audience’s attention. The two modern pieces I mentioned in some ways seem a bit amateur because there is no structure and looks like something that anyone can paint. However, that’s what makes modern art interesting because the artists’ intentions may be deeper, to make us think deeper about the meaning behind the messiness. So in ways, modern art can be interpreted as being more thought provoking and require intelligence and analysis to be appreciated. To further my point about the lack of central component in modern paintings is by looking at Morisot’s La Nourrice (10) and Monet’s Camille au jardin. Fer notices that the faces of the people in the painting are intentionally “obliterated” (11). In the first piece, the woman is face is blurred (11) like the background and the only features we can guess out are the two black strokes that represent the eyes of the figure. Even the background of the painting is confusing, possibly because of the lack of color in our reader, or because the strokes intended for each object in the painting is painted over by strokes for another object; leaving the overall background to look like one big mess except for the slightly distinguishable umbrella in the lower left corner and the white mass in the lower right corner. Monet’s painting is similar in the same sense in that the central figure is painted with the same distinct brushstrokes as the background. Furthermore, despite the darker coloring of the woman’s dress hem and also parasol, her face is blackened out by the shadow of the parasol. This is also the modern artist’s attempt to rule out any center to the painting.
Another interesting component of the modern art is the increasing usage of geometric shapes and “ready-made” (14) organic materials in the paintings. This is particularly common in works by Pablo Picasso such as the Bowl with Fruit, Violin and Wine and the wooden guitar in class. According to Fer, Picasso’s work is also a representation of modernism because the “ready-made” pieces are elements of contemporary life. Furthermore, unlike the paintings in the 18th and 17th century that used shadows and lucid paint to create a three-dimensional illusion to the painting, modern art used the organic texture of ready-made objects to give real-life three dimensional character. So in a sense, modern artists like their predecessors try to capture the images that they see onto a canvas or piece that can be experienced by the audience. However, unlike their predecessors, modern artists choose to help the audience experience these images with the perspective of the artist in mind. As described in the article by Benjamin about impressionism, modern art is special because artists do not simply draw what they see and perfect it but they recreate their experiences based on sensations they felt when they first saw the image; these modern artists then modify the realistic image to mold their “impression” of the experience.
I have never understood why or how a completely black painting, such as Black Square, by Kazimir Malevich, or a portrait revealing heavy brush strokes and little fine detail, as does La Nourrice, by Berthe Morisot, could be artistically valuable until reading “INTRODUCTION” by Briony Fer. Briony introduces the idea that modernity is “an experience which is always changing” and paintings are “modern by virtue of the context in which they were produced”. Context seems to be a pervasive theme throughout his introduction to modern art. He gives several examples of different critics and ways of analyzing modern art.
ReplyDeleteEdouard Manet's L'Olympia seemed to me to be just another painting of a naked woman on a bed. The woman is in a pose with her left hand resting on her exposed upper thigh and her right hand supporting her upper body on a large pillow. A black servant is in the background presenting flowers, usually signifying spring. This painting, however similar to other works, startled the modern art scene. Briony states that “Looking at Olympia now, it may seem unlikely that [it] could have proved difficult or impenetrable for its contemporary public” (24), thus implying the upset. The critics from the era of creation labeled it a failure, but history revers it. Artists before the modernist era would paint figures that tried to be superior to human form, and most paintings with this type of model and pose were named after Venus, a goddess. What they saw in L'Olympia was nothing shy of a prostitute on a bed exposing her sexuality directly to the viewer of the portrait, while tradition pointed toward the goddess with the superior human form. This overt reference to corporeal sex, coupled with the way the painting is outlined gave the critics nothing to think other than of its failure and shortcomings, because they had no other frame of reference.
Our society has changed. It has grown and the types of art have become more vast. The modern movement has become things that the people from the early 1800s could barely fathom. One could say there was an evolution for the art movement; one which is slow and steady. An interesting thought is how the growth of art is traced. Where the boundaries lie are hard, if not impossible, to determine at the time, much like the ages of the earth. Clement Greenberg claimed that Pollock's art retroactively defines development of the modernist movement. “[His] view depended on hindsight”(16) says Briony; Pollock's art did not spring out of Manet's work from the 1860s, but rather grew out of the following bridge of art leading to his life.
Briony also claims makes the point that “modern painting was a product of modern culture”. He uses Black Square and The Merchant's Wife, by Boris Kustodiev to illustrate the evolution of modern art in the short term. He says that both works of art “make competing claims for what is significant, for what art should be like”. Kustodiev painted a contemporary merchant's wife wearing the modern tradition of clothing. Malevich painted a black square. Malevich asked “his audience to 'spit on the old dress and put new clothes on art'”(15), directly referencing Kustodiev's style of portraying contemporary dress. Malevich, “by this date and in this set of historical circumstances [believed] to be 'modern' meant – in part at least – refusing to paint figuratively”(16). Under the context of this society Malevich believed modern art had certain ideals which molded his style.
My appreciation of art, if only still budding, has been greatly increased by Fey's introduction to modern art. My eyes are now open to the possible socio-economic aspects not shown overtly to the viewer of a colorful explosion of randomness. “Contexts for viewing change”(34) and I am interested to study the development of modern art, and what people in the future will think about some “failure” art that may have been recently produced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReading Briony Fer’s Introduction sparks excitement within me to be taking this Art History course. Even though I find art to be very intriguing, the most interaction I have had with paintings, photographs, etc., is merely viewing them at various art galleries and museums. Thus, the criticism of the assortment of paintings presented within the introduction unveiled me to the vast means and complexities of analyzing such artwork.
ReplyDeleteA concept of Fer’s that I found to be interesting is when he states that, “the way we order and group works of art, and the context we place them in, will affect the way we see them. When we characterize something, we characterize it in relation to something else, even though we are not necessarily conscious of the comparisons we are making” (6). I think that a person’s analysis and interpretation of a work of art can greatly depend on the kind of personality and outlook one has, the environment and background that one comes from, the morals and values one has, etc. Since these factors vary immensely in each individual, each person is going to have a different opinion to offer; with this being the case, I suppose there cannot be a true and entirely correct interpretation of artwork. However, this causes me to wonder if an interpretation that differs from the artist’s intention of portrayal can be considered as being true. Or is it the job of an artist to simply invoke thought and various interpretations in viewers without having a true intention of what is depicted? This further causes me to question what exactly are viewers supposed to be analyzing and interpreting? Are people supposed to try and figure out what the artist’s intention is, or are they supposed to merely create their own intention and value in that particular work of art? Perhaps it is a combination of both?
Another key point that I found interesting and foreign to me was the definition of ‘modern art’. Hardly having any knowledge of art and its history had left me to think of ‘modern art’ as being artwork coming from the modern age. Yet after reading Fer’s Introduction, I now know that modern art is, mistake me if I am wrong, art that points out differences in relation to the present. When I turn this definition of ‘modern art’ over and over in my head, it causes me to wonder then if all works of art from all various ages and eras can be seen as ‘modern’; for it seems that deeming art as modern can simply be done by comparing it to other works of art. Such comparison can be conducted with all art, so essentially could not every work of art be ‘modern’? I suppose such a concept can also lead one to conclude that there are differing interpretations of modernity; what one may think of as modern, another might think of as being of the past. So can ‘modernism’ and the ‘modern age’ really be clearly defined? Being entirely new to modernity and interpreting artwork, I could be wrong with such thoughts; I am excited though to think that this course will help me in answering all these questions that are beginning to unfold in my mind.
Christine Chou
ReplyDeleteThe topic of Manet’s “Olympia” also interests me. At first glance, the subject doesn’t seem to be a radical departure from artistic conventions – it’s a representation of a nude woman, a common subject for artists. In contrast, though, older representations of nude women, such as those from the Renaissance, were highly saturated with mythological overtones. They were outright representations of figures from Greek mythology, for example. Even Titian’s “Venus of Urbino” carries classical associations. The woman is placed in a contemporary Italian setting of the 16th century, and maids in proper period dress appear in the background, all details placing the painting in a non-mythical world, but the title itself still includes the name “Venus.”
Manet, who modeled “Olympia” in the reclining Venus pose, strips away any sense of the mythological. His painting appears starkly different from the Venuses that came before it. Her expression is no longer coy and inviting like the woman in Titian’s painting, but is instead austere and confrontational. A lot of the previous Venus motifs and various nude women which appear in art seem to be lush displays of the female body for the viewer to appreciate, but in “Olympia,” the woman’s body is no longer languorous, but stiff and even angular looking. Her legs are locked together. Manet isn’t just painting a woman, but he seems to be incorporating a social comment on the modern world and the way in which women use their bodies in such a society, where many Parisian men had their first sexual experience with a prostitute. I think Manet is confronting the viewer with this and asking people to reflect on the type of world they live in.
I think modern art can be interesting because it brings up a lot of issues about the changing world. “Olympia” was shocking for its contemporary audience, which was still mainly accustomed to classical narrative scenes from mythology or idealized images. Manet gives viewers a scene from the life of a prostitute, seen receiving a gift bouquet from a patron. It’s a less pleasant image of the urban world, where there’s more going on than just shiny new electric street lights, automobiles, wide boulevards, and new capitalist markets, where there are also women who must use their bodies in exchange for money in order to support themselves. In Briony Fer’s “Introduction,” Fer states “a majority of spectators read paintings according to their narrative, moralizing content” (32), so they were probably expecting a different type of painting than the one Manet presents – a painting colored by contemporary social issues instead of, for instance, a painting espousing how to be a proper citizen through a classical example like the Academic canvases which were a Salon staple.
According to Fer, “the majority of contemporary critics saw ‘Olympia’ as a failed painting” (24), which I found surprising, because today it’s a very famous work. The critical reception paintings received directly at the time of their completion is always interesting, because sometimes it can be so different from how the modern-day view of the work stands, such as with “Olympia,” which is, as Fer points out, now “canonical” (25). The rejection of Manet’s painting back in the 19th century because it wasn’t in the traditional vein, stylistically and thematically, is something that seems to happen again and again with many works of art, in which something which is different and breaks from the mold is rejected. But these views are always changing. People’s relationship to art is dynamic and attitudes are always in flux. Likewise, it’ll be interesting to see how works created today will be regarded a few decades from now.
Kim B. Hoang
ReplyDelete"Defining the Modern" Response
I must admit that I had to Google what the Paris arcades, phantasmagoria, and more are when reading "Paris, the Capital of the Nineteenth Century" by Walter Benjamin. These words do not appear often in today's language, showing the lessened popularity in this type of architecture and philosophy over time. Benjamin describes how commercialization and quickly faded trends were a result of urbanization in Paris. One would assume that technological advancement in any city is impressive, particularly for this time period. However, Benjamin writes this essay with a more cynical perspective.
The standards of newer architecture of this period were still very inflexible when Benjamin compares Paris to Greece. Old forms of beauty must "prevail." The Hellenic mode of classical Greek architecture and culture seemed to be something Paris wanted to mimic and restore; Parisians did not try to reinvent themselves to become the different beauty or set a higher standard. With that, I see the first flaw that contributes to the fall of Paris even before it begins as Benjamin describes in his essay. The Parisians are trying to take modern materials (in this case iron), and twist it to serve a less efficient function in order to comply to Greek standards of beauty.
Benjamin has a great emphasis on a utopia. First, he writes how Fourier conceived a utopia by combining the old and new, urban and rural spaces. This shows the middle ground that he lies in - not content with either extremes but forced to cope with both. Fourier uses the flâneur figure as a symbol of no identity, just shifting between crowds because their presence can't stand alone, in order to show the drastic effects of urbanization. If society as a whole cannot accept and adapt to urbanization, its infrastructure cannot survive. Since urbanization is rapid and radical change for a society, its flâneur members do not embrace the direction it is heading. They are dragged along, rather than going along with the new (or borrowed) ideals.
I also thought it was interesting how space was personified. Benjamin describes how a place of dwelling “owns” a person and has him/her in its power. People are objects to possess, and lands without them are useless. What is the optimal amount of people for a size of land though? Although Benjamin is awed by the culture, architecture, and density of people at the Paris arcades, it is questionable if he appreciates its effect on life.
Benjamin may have predicted the downfall of Paris before the rebellions began. His examination of architecture, philosophies, and commercialization of urbanization shows how people could react towards such a drastic change in culture. But by then it was too late for Paris.
Brendan Cronshaw
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
1.21.09
A black square smack-dab in the middle of the canvas, bordered by a few centimeters of plain canvas on all sides, sounds plain, simple, and basic, and yet it is anything but.
Although Kazimir Malevich’s painting appears unbelievably simple and stark, being literally a perfect square created solely of black oil paint (from what I can see), it provokes question upon question, thought after thought, the majority of which go unanswered, continuing to nag at me. Why did he use just one color? Why not paint something a little more complicated and appealing to the eye than just a single black square? Why was this painted in the first place? What does it mean? What statement was he trying to make? Why? How does this even constitute art?
At its most basic level it is a painting on a canvas that is a little more than a meter square (Modernity and Modernism: French Painting in the Nineteenth Century, Introduction, p14). From what can be gathered by looking at the black and white image in the text, there is a solid black square centered in the canvas with a border on all sides and it seems to be just the slightest bit crooked, sagging just a little to the left. There are also a few dots, one right of center and two in the bottom left hand corner that appear white, although this may just be an error made when the page was printed. Upon finding the image online, further inspection reveals that there is in fact one noticeable white mark in the center of the square, although the digital images fail to reveal anything related to the strokes or thickness of the paint used. The name for the work, Black Square, does describe the work itself but it could be understood to mean or refer to something else. Knowing that the artist hailed from Russia, one could infer that he was making a statement about the government and the Red Square there, but this is would be a hard argument to support given just the painting. However, it isn’t how the painting was made or its title that makes it ultimately interesting and thought provoking, rather it is the painting itself; the entire object as a whole.
This painting was by far the most intriguing in our reading and got me questioning why Malevich painted it and what its meant to portray or suggest. Was he painting it for us to see it as something specific such as a response or a statement or a representation of an object, or rather, as Briony Fer suggests, “not seeing the Black Square at all” (32). Instead maybe he wants us to make it our own and imagine it to be what we want it to be or imagine it to mean what we, the spectator, want it to mean. The beauty and ability to provoke deep thought, of modern art is, in my opinion, not necessarily what the piece actually looks like physically, but instead what it means, suggests, portrays and represents. The ability of the artist to make a piece of work their own and make it the statement and icon that they want it to be, is what truly makes the art beautiful and great.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThrough the reading, I have gathered that defining ‘modernity’ is merely stating a personal opinion. The fascination surrounding modern art has to do with its ability to take on different interpretations and meaning as a result of the time, the place, and the viewer, among other things. I found it intriguing that the reading emphasized the role of “comparison” within the context of analyzing pieces of art. It is understandable why comparison would be significant for purposes of interpretation; however, is the comparison of art any different than comparisons that are made within other aspects of life? The only way to decide whether anything is good or bad is to compare it with supplementary experiences, objects, or persons. The derived conclusion, whatever it may be, is contingent upon personal beliefs and values. Modern art, as I have perceived it, conjures the ability for individuals to take from and express their differences of opinion on a piece. This outright dismissal of traditional practices coincides with the rise of large metropolitan areas throughout Europe. Is this divergence an attempt at making a statement? If so, what one?
ReplyDelete“Introduction”, compiled by a multitude of authors including Briony Fer, focuses on French painting in the 19th century. In this piece, a considerable amount of time is spent discussing “invisible pictures”, namely Gustave Courbet’s The Stonebreakers and Edouard Manet’s L’Olympia. This concept has to do with descriptive writing, and how authors and critics can arrive at different conclusions about the same piece of art. Some authors will concentrate their efforts on the objects or persons represented, others will talk more about shadows and brush strokes, and yet still more will take a completely different approach. Modern art facilitates critical thinking and perspective so as to render and challenge its purpose.
Traditional painting, so I have read, takes on an idealized form. Modern painting, on the other hand, purposely challenges formal classifications to cultivate a difference in opinion about what is being represented. Was this difference an attempt by painters to distinguish themselves as individual artists? Was this difference an expression of the constant modernization occurring within society? Was this difference a demonstration of changing political viewpoints? The vast scope of modern art makes it improbable that could be a single motive. Since modernity deliberately refrains from holding a strict definition I guess, theoretically, a million reasons could be given and accepted as true.
This summer my family took a trip to London’s Tate Modern Art Museum, and I will never forget my brother’s comedic response: “I hate art!” Briony Fer’s response to this would undoubtedly be that “the repertoire of knowledge envisaged for the modern spectator was not necessarily the same repertoire of beliefs and values brought to painting by actual spectators” (Fer 31). What prevents my brother from being a “modern spectator” is his lack of understanding for and ability to withdraw certain elements from what is called modern art. Like the critics described at the onset of modern art, my brother could only see how the pieces departed from the art he is used to, and how they lacked the technical illusion he usually admires. My brother needed the correct context.
ReplyDeleteWithin Modernity and Modernism, I initially found myself frustrated with Fer’s inability to apply a functional definition to modern art. I would think describing something as modern would require a specific and agreed upon criteria. It seems like we can all look at a painting and more or less judge if it fits into the genre. Because of this I value the example of the Olympia painting by Manet. Within this painting the emphasis is placed upon its ability to stray from conventional ways of representation. Manet “Recast the motif and its traditional associations in contemporary form”(22), which indicates that modern is a relative term and “subject to historical change”(10). Through the works of artists like Pollock, it is also apparent that there is an emphasis on the relationship between the subject matter and the manner with which it is treated. In a parallel sense, the relationship between medium and artist is also emphasized. However, in this case the context becomes somewhat unclear to me. It seems counterintuitive to focus on an artist’s process if what is observed is the end product. One thing that strikes me about the categorization of art and perhaps the success of a work is the relationship between the critic or art cannon. and the art itself. It seems modern art was met with much criticism and disapproval, but the fact that it eventually dominated the scene is important. This indicates that the evolution of art is in the hand of the creators, yet also allows the counter culture aspect which modern forms love.
Through the passage by Walter Benjamin, it has become apparent to me that the “context” in which modern art lives is complex and interconnected with history. Benjamin says “Art enters the service of the merchant”(96). Undoubtedly, this result of industrialization was hugely important to the evolution into modernity. Suddenly, the pure uselessness of art (in a physical sense) becomes a useful commodity to the consumer fetish. A new attitude towards life called for a new attitude towards art. Another interesting aspect of modern art’s evolution is the invention of a camera. It makes sense that realism and the illusion is no longer sought after, and that a new niche of art must be filled. I really enjoyed the passage “Ambiguity is the appearance of dialectic in images, the law of dialectics at a standstill. This standstill is utopia, and the dialectical image, therefore dream image…Such an image is the prostitute-seller and sold in one.(105)” This really seems to accurately depict modern art.
ps sorry for the late post. i was working at the library and they kicked me out right at 10, before i had time to figure out how to register on the site.
Bing Lin
ReplyDeleteSec 6
Although I have been drawing and painting since I was able to hold instruments of art, I never delved into the extensive and rich world of art, much less claimed to understand it. Because of my art practice being more of skill building through still-life drawings or landscape paintings, I felt more comfortable with what the general public consider as “classical” pieces of artwork than the ones deemed “abstract” and developed a tendency to link “abstract” with “modern”, preferring to categorize these two unknowns together. As I read through “Introduction” by Briony Fer, however, and looked through the points presented as well as the art pieces shown to illustrate these points, I began to understand that modernism in itself is a very complicated and wide genre and that Fer’s statement that “a ‘modern’ art practice is constructed out of a sense of difference” can be applied to the means in which a piece is constructed and how the artists expresses their differences in opinion through these departures from tradition.
First, Fer presents the three paintings by Morisot, Manet, and Monet, where each artist uses broad sketchy strokes to render both the background and foreground of the pieces, a technique that strays from the classical style of detailed foregrounds. This would be, I believe, the way most of the general public would perceive as modern art, simply because of its sketchy and almost abstract way of representing the central figures. Using the same treatment on the foreground as well as the background not only rouses the curiosity of the viewers in regards to the reason behind the blurred figures, but also allows the eyes to wander throughout the entire painting instead of being stuck on what would otherwise be perceived as the central figure or focus on the canvas. Looking at Morisot’s La Nourrice, I wonder if the purpose of using the same stroke on the figure as the background was to point me to the woman’s surroundings, which may allude to some social issues or the artist’s concerns during her time, and inspires me to look more into the historical and social background in which Morisot painted this piece of art.
Through Manet’s L’Olympia, Fer further explores the idea of modernism as subtle differences that highlight the purposes or issues presented by the artist. Though at first glance, L’Olympia seems like the exact replica of Titian’s Venus, further examination yields many subtle differences in technique and representation of the female figure that emphasizes a departure from the traditional. Critics claim that Manet failed and created a “travesty” due to the rough outlining of the figure and the thin nature of the woman’s body as opposed to Venus’ wholesome figure, spewing speculations about the prostitute role that the woman’s skinny and used body may represent. Yet, I believe that it is this very argument by the critics that shows how Manet has succeeded in capturing attention through these marked differences in the artwork and presenting his beliefs and opinions through purposeful changes from the traditional and accepted norm.