Student Gallery

The gallery experience is worlds apart from any image you see on a screen. To be in front of the work and see first hand what the artist saw or was trying to portray. From the minuscule detail from the thickness of the paint to the slight variation of shading. All which can not be seen from any reproduction or projected image, the finer details are (in most cases) just as important as the overall message of the work. Also in a gallery you are surrounded by people who are there for the same reason you are, they are there to appreciate works, and understand that the only way to see a work is to be standing in front of it. Most of these people you are surrounded by have a deep love and understanding of art, and from my experience they are great resources for insight into the artist and the works themselves. Many times the galleries are exhibiting new artist you have never heard of, in which case you would have completely missed if you never stepped foot into a gallery.

When looking at art the medium in which it is made in can stimulate different emotions even before you fully submerge into the work. For example, I am attracted to lots of vibrant colors or a work full of dark contrasts. In turn when I step into a gallery and survey the room to decide which section I will start with I normally will gravitate to colors or contrast. I guess it comes down to preference, but think about it a work (excluding the subject matter) made in charcoal is going to evoke some sort of intense emotion, because most charcoal works are very contrasty and linear. While a work created in bright color pastels will be received as joyful or carefree. If we look at the infinite range of color variations in acrylic paints and the variety of tones and moods, we can begin to understand how within each medium the texture and use of color dictates the mood as much as the medium itself.

"Devil and a Farmer" By Christian Monjarez is a turbulent expression of what could be speculated as a battle between a framer and the devil. As the subjects are evident from the tittle the story and the artists narrative to the characters are left much to the imagination of the viewer. From the position of the devil and farmer (both on the lower left side of the canvas) it can be speculated, do to their close proximity to each other that the devil and farmer are one. On the lower to mid right side of the canvas there seems to be a loop with the sun in the center. The work is difficult to read due to it being more of an abstract piece. Through previous encounters with this artist I have come to understand that much of his work comes from personal reflection and great understanding of the human spirit. I hope to discuss with him about this work to further understand the details and intention of the work.

Abstract Expressionism

"Autumn Rhythm" by Jackson Pollock (1950) is a work of no real forms. There are no trees or people, and the whole piece is the subject mater, not just one spot or section. Many people find his pieces to not be art, their scattered reasons for their assumptions is not important. Their definition of art and my definition of art are different, I find Pollock's work to be quite brilliant in its own right. One must look at the way Pollock's pieces are made and not just the end product that is hung on the wall. Due to his piece being made line by line with no pre-sketches or plans, the finished product becomes some what of a journey. By looking at the lines first created and working your way line by line to the last line, you can reenacted the way Pollock painted that particular piece. Seeing one color work its way across the canvas passing another color, then trailing down, etc... it engulfs you in the one of a kind story of the creation of the work. Which causes his works to be timeless.

Realism

"Boating at Argentuil" by Manet (1874), is a imagie of what looks like two very wealthy people (a man and a woman) relaxing close to the water, possibly before or after a nice boating experience on the water. But with a closer look we see that the woman is not what she seems to be. She is a courtesan (we can tell by the black negligee under her dress which doesn't fit), So we can deduce that he has invited her for a day for his own pleasure, and to be seen. This comes down to the whole intention of Manet. He is making a statement about Paris during this time were everything is based on being seen. To be seen is the existence of the wealthy at this time. Have things changed? Are we like the rich Parisians of the 1870's? I think we are the same, our styles have changed and the demands of what's hips has changed, but being seen with the newest phone or clothing style has become the goal of most teenagers and adults. What else is the explanation for shopping malls, great big buildings with every need met under one roof to keep the consumer up to date on the newest "must have" of the week. We find that most young people for fun go to the mall instead of a park or cafe, it solves all their problems. They eat popular food, shop, hang with friends, laugh, walk around, and bump into their other friends, which only helps their social status. By being see in Gucci or Juicy Couture, they are seen as doing the right thing by their age group.

Inpressionism

"Olympia" By Manet, was a shocking and possibly even repulsive painting to the viewer. During this time a portrayal of a nude "French" courtesan was taboo of the highest degree. If it was a woman of any other "non-modern" culture it was fine and would be well received. If we look back at the salons of Manet's time, we cannot understand their objection to a nude French woman in relation to a naked woman, of a primitive culture. A naked woman is a naked woman (as you would be saying to yourself), but the limits of nudity and sexuality have become much more lenient through the decades. Now on TV (the mass salons of today) we see suggestive sexuality and suggested nudity in TV shows, while the ever popular YouTube we see open nudity and in some senses soft pornography, due to the lack of limits put on what people can put and find on the Internet. In the 20Th century, open sexuality is an everyday thing that we glance over in the media. Now some of the examples above are the extremes, but they are much more prevalent than five or ten years ago, and by far more prevalent in public than the days of Manet's salons.

Archetecture

1. Architecture was for the rich and businesses before the 1920'S

2.The distrust of decoration in the beginning of early modernism, was due to the Victorian style of mass quantities of elaborate decorations, while in modernism the less useless decoration the better.

3. Louis Sullivan philosophy on architecture was that the exterior of the building should reflect the interior function of the building.

4. The first time skeletal construction was used in Architecture was in 1871-2 to create the Chocolate works by Jules Saulinier.

5.Ludwig Miles van der Rohe's belief on glass but also his overall architecture was to reflect nature in his buildings.
(http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/artist?id=255)

6. A few of the elements of the Bauhaus were the simplicity of line and materials, also trying to attain the maximum interior space of the building, and minimalism.

7. Frank Lyod Wright: Believed in making his building blend in with its natural surroundings. He did this by building his buildings from natural materials, such as wood, stone, etc.
Corbusier: Believed in maximizing space, he used glass and concrete mostly, to make quick, stark buildings.

Dada

Marcel Duchamp's "The Fountain"(1917) opens the flood gate to the question "what is art" The interesting predicament of this question is "what is art" in comparison to what? "The Fountain" was a way of forcing people to answer that question. His intention was to break the convention of what art should or could be. Even to this day art is and aways will be ever changing, there will always be new artist's that push the limits of what we find to be "art."But we shouldn't try to find the one answer to the question, we should take each piece for itself and look at it in its own context and time. The intention of the artist should become as important as the style he/she expresses it in. Duchamp's intent of bring an object of low esteem to a high pedestal in itself a statement of the appreciation of function as much as its form. It is a beautiful in its function to dispose of human waste as efficiently and cleanly as possible, as much of its beauty in shape and line.

German Romantic Landscape

In Friedrich's "Monk By The Sea" (1820) we see a lone monk looking out to sea. His size is very important to the piece (he is tiny in comparison to the world around him). The emphasis of this piece is to give the viewer an awaking to his or her sizes in relation to the world they live in. If you really think about it people of today don't really understand it either, we do the same things everyday (almost) go to the grocery, hang with friends, etc. By doing this we make a micro world for ourselves in which we lose understanding of the macro world. In effect we have made our world smaller and ourselves larger. What is happening in Africa is not as important as the subjective day struggles of your or my existence. The harsh reality is that we find what is in front of us or is happening to us immediately to be of more important than something we may never experience. We go through life seeing it through our own two eyes and no-one else's, and in that sense what we see becomes more important than what someone else sees, thus causing confrontation between people. And as the painting is trying to show we are only a speck in this world with little individual influence.