What I've Learned from Art

A lot.

We sure have learned a lot over the past four months, everything from paintings to motion pictures. The unit that I found to be most challenging was controversial art, I believe Unit 3. The units that I most enjoyed were our units on painting and the camera arts...a picture really is worth a thousand words and more. The unit I didn't particulary like was the printmaking, Unit 11 (?) The unit that I learned the most from was our unit on sculpture.

What has most impressed me about the world of art are actually two things that I didn't fully understand before. The first would be just how much goes into a work of art, physically. Paintings and sculptures and drawings are always much easier than they appear.

The Sistine Chapel, for example, by no means looks like it was easy to paint, but I didn't realize that it was a piece four full years in the making. And sculptures: looking at them form a distance, especially from out of a book or on the computer, they are very beautiful, but you cannot see the intricate detail. Up close, when looking at a sculpture, you remember what it came from. You can envision that big block of stone and the simplicity of it, and then realize that the sculptor has created something out of nothing. You can see the careful carving of every line and curve, and texture of that piece of work. You can really appreciate it.

Learning about little things such as space and focal points and color and depth in a picture help me to see that piece in a new way. I can understand the effort and thought and labor that goes into the piece. I can really appreciate it all now.

I think that the biggest thing I will take from this class is a greater understand of humanity, something I think that we are all striving for on a subconcious level. I think that I understand people a little bit better now. It has been great being able to read everyone's thoughts in their blogs; which really help to see their view on art. Being able to see things from anothers point of view is a wonderful thing to have.

I have learned that art is personal: all art is personal. Paintings, music, sculptures, artictecture, movies; they all mean something different to each of us. Though we look at the same piece of work, we see two different things. It all has to do with our individual backgrounds, our stories, what we belive and what we have been through in our lives. This is why I love how art is never, ever black and white, and it is always open for interpretation. It is special in a different way to everyone.

Im glad that I took this class because it has broadened my thinking, if that makes sense. Especially with that controversial art, or art that I don't necessarily like. It is all about not so much hating the art itself, but looking deeper: understanding the intentions of the artist, the feeling behind it.

With this, I have become much more open and appreciate, I'm sure my classmates have too. Choosing to take Art 10 was a great descision. This is one of the few classes in college I will be able to apply to life.

Thanks to Michelle for her patience, enthusiasm, and a great semester!

Conceptual Art

Conceptual art to me is something tangible, something that we would not necessarily considered to actually be art. It is entirely subjective, and to each person, it is different...as all art is. I think that reading about Yoko Ono and her works helped me to understand this. She took a match, lit it up, and watched it burn. When you just look at it, you see a match, burning. But when you really see that match, what does it mean to you?

I thought about this, and there are many different ways you can look at it. To me, the match represents life and death. It is lit, and burns with radience. There is a giant spark at the beginning. We shine brightly throughout our lives, as the fire burns down the match. When it is time for us to go peacefully, the fire will quietly come to a halt at the end of the stick.

The thing that I like best about conceptual art is that it tells something like it is. With most all other forms of art, the emotion and "point" of the artwork is exaggerated or brought out with the artsy stuff: the paint, clay, oil and so on. But conceptual art is very raw and original; what you see is really what you get.

Art Visit!!

Like most of you, I took a trip down to the Crocker Art Museum...and I actually really enjoyed it! Much more than I expected to. I went at a quiet time of the day after the kids from the elementary schools took their field trips, and it was much more pleasent. (That is me in the picture above with my new friend: Overcooked, Robert Areson, 1973, Terra Cotta/Wood).




A note before I begin: taking this class has given me a great insight into the world of art. Two years ago, I was at the Louvre in Paris, completely baffled by all of the fantastic pieces of art in there (any of you who have been know what I mean...it is really just amazing). I have to say that the museum I visited was 1/20th of the size of the Louvre, without all of the historical pieces and value of the Louvre ( Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is insured for $670 million US dollars), I was able to appreciate the work that I saw in the Crocker more. I looked at probably, 100+ pieces of art, but I was able to really analyze and value each piece and its details. This class has been valueable to my college education, but I will remember the art tools I have learned here forever!

My brother and I visited the museum on a Monday. It was a nice sunny day to be there...we did a little outside observing, then went in, paid, got our brochure and got started. (I thought it was nice that they give a student discount). As soon as you enter this museum, you can see that is very well polished, well kept. The woodwork, staircase and painting on the walls and ceiling are magnificent...has a Victorian theme to it. I liked the furniture in there too.

We decided to start on the second floor. This floor consists of a ballroom (that you first walk into), and two wings called the "Cowell" and "Inderkum" galleries. There was a featured exhibition there, fellow Northern Californian, Edwin Deakin (1838-1923). I loved his paintings! Beautiful pictures of Californian scenery and also European landscape. Unfortunately, the lady at the foyer desk told me absolutely no pictures on this floor. I had two favorite paintings of his that I really liked: there was one of Notre Dame Cathedral in France, and the other was a picture of the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. Beautiful! To show you an example of his work, I was able to pull this picture to the right up off of Google Images. It is called Palace of Fine Arts and the Lagoon, San Francisco. Its a little blurry...but you kinda get the idea of his style.

Our next trip was upstairs to the second floor. I liked the variation in the art in these galleries. This floor, we were allowed to take some pictures on. The "Ose" gallery was interesting; it had the sculptures and three-dimensional artwork. There was a huge, mirror, multiple-angle looking piece...I can't really describe it, that you could walk into. A glass ladder with pieces of blasted glass on it of all different shapes and colors; I stared at this for 10 minutes and couldn't quite figure out what it meant. There was this Victorian looking...cake thing? It stood about 3 or 4 feet high and had all sorts of stuff, pearls, mirrors, lace, from the 1800's all glued together in the shape of a cake. And, of course, my friend Overcooked was here too!

The next gallery we entered was probably my favorite. Called the "Tsakopolus" gallery, this is where all of the colorful, exotic pieces were. The five pictures that I have above and below this purple paragraph were the ones I liked the best. That picture of the elderly man in the top left was spectacular. It was the size of the entire wall, probably 20ft x 20ft, just massive. I liked the painting in the middle because it was pretty and sparkly, two young Asian girls under a tree. The one that I am displaying was the most colorful of all (very appropriate for the city that it's in!) the Golden Gate Bridge.

Below to the left is one I couldn't really figure out but liked anyway, that big orange block. It's amazing how people see that as art. The painting to the lower right was my favorite in the whole gallery. I love Native American artwork even more than I love Reniassance artwork. This painting was very well done and had a lot of meaning. I am not Native American myself, but I can certainly appreciate the message.


The piece is Browning of America, Jaune Quick-to-See Smith, 2000, Oil/Mixed Media on Canvas. It is a painting of the United States through Indians' eyes. There is the geographical outline of the country, with Indian people and animals in their environment like wild dog and buffalo. Then to the right it lists in very light print "Invaders of the East:" Anglos, Saxons, Celts, Visigots, Frisans, Iberians, Druids, etc. The way that I interpret this is, Native Americans were originally here: this is their land. We, those of the East and West, have taken from them their own soil. The Brown smear looking streaks I think are the blood shed of the Native American people, and the tears from loss of the land and culture. Truly a beautiful piece of art...this painting really captivated me.



























Altogether, a great, great visit. I don't think there was anything I didn't like. Well, I guess the museum staff could have been more friendly, but that's about it. I would have liked to see more. But I was very happy with my visit; definately worth the trip down there. Viewing the art in person is so much better than seeing it in a book. It comes to life when you can see it in its full size and texture. You can really see more of the detail that the artist puts in, every inch of every piece is carefully thought out and constructed, whether it be a painting, a scultpture, a work of clay of aluminum (I saw a few of those!)


More than anything, you can see the piece just as the artist made it. When we look at art on the computer or in our text, there is much lost in translation. We can see that it is a beatiful piece of work, but cannot fully grasp its depth and complexity as we can when it is there in front of us. When we see it in "real life," we are looking at it exactly as the artist sees it; we see it from his or her point of view. When we see the piece in its most radiant view, we can fully appreciate its worth.


My trip to Crocker Museum was better than I thought: I was pleasantly surprised. I will now make an effort to stop in art museum's in major cities, because now I can really appreciate them.

Two Worlds Collide

The work of Aziz and Cucher is a little bit disturbing to me because I don't really understand it, and I don't know how to interpret it. It is certainly artwork, yes. What I am looking at are faces of people, appearently of all races. They have their hair, and their skin, their noses, but are missing their mouths and their eyes. So I am trying to put meaning to that.

Well, the eyes are the windows to our soul. The emotions that we feel in our hearts are poured out through our eyes. We see the entire entity of another soul in the person's eyes. They allow us to see and percieve our world. The mouth is our means of communication. As human beings, we comunicate with our voice; we are the only species on earth that has the ability to do that. We smile, frown and show our feeling with our mouth.

So, what I have put together is that Aziz and Cucher have taken away the two parts of our body that allow us to show emotion, and our personality. Our personality and being is our identity. That taken, we are unidentifiable entities walking about, and ostensively, we are all the same. As Adrian Rudolph said that this work is "cultural, commenting, perhaps, on the gradual but waxing loss of identity and the means of communication in a technological environment that promotes anonymity and conformity”. I think what he means is that, with today what society has become, and what has been promoted via technology, we have all lost our identity in conformity.

As for the manipulation of digital images: I think that it is really sad, especially reading about the astronomical increase in breast augmentation procedures. It saddens me very much to know that there are so many women out there that think that they will be happier people if only they had a bigger bust. I don't think that all of these women in entertainment and in real life that have breast implants realize the effect that they are having on women of all ages all around the country.

I think that the biggest problem related to this has to do with men. They see these women on television and in Maxim and Playboy and they think that this is what the ideal woman should look like. Now I should say here that not all men are like this: there are you good guys out there that like natural. But, there are many, many men that now have their heads wrapped around the notion that women need huge fake breasts to be beautiful. And in turn, women feel that this is what they need to be appealing to men. What a nasty cycle we have got ourselves into!

Unfortunatley, I have seen this happen in my personal life twice in the last year. I know a woman in her early forties, recently moved to California with her family. Her husband of many years just kind of casually mentioned to her one day, "Hey, honey, have you ever thought about a breast augmentation?" So what does she do after this? Gets them done. Went from a 32A to a 32D to please the husband (and herself, so she claims).

I can't really explain how I felt after I found out about this. Disgusted, of course. But more than anything, I was really sad. SO sad. Oh my goodness. If my boyfriend ever said that to me, I would be so incredibly upset. I would feel very...reduced. And I know that in her heart, the women that I'm talking about felt like this, though she will never say it. It's like, "Who I am as a person, every single wonderful, good quality that I have isn't enough to keep you loving me? All of that is overlooked?"

I must say that we women are just as bad: we put just as much pressure on men to have the perfect bodies too. My bottom line with all of this is: we are all perfect as we are. Please don't take the cover models seriously, guys and girls. If you truly love someone, the outside doesn't matter. So love your boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife as they are.

My Favorite Painting

What a good idea for a blog! I have come to understand that most of you, classmates, had a bit of a tough time deciding on a special painting for this assignment. I hate to say it, but my reaction was entirely the opposite. Though I know there is an infinate number of spectacular paintings in our world, only one came to mind for me: Michealangelo's Creation of Adam--my favorite, favorite. Can you believe this painting took years to complete? Amazing...

This magnificent piece of art was completed in 1511 A.D. by the very famous Michaelangelo. The Creation of Adam is painted onto the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City (Italy), and the medium Michaelangelo used was fresco ( the ink/limewater mixture). On this note: I have learned that fresco was widely used by the painters of the Renaissance (Michaelangelo's era) as well as the Greeks and Romans.

This painting has been said to be one of the most famous in the world; I'm sure that most of you recognize the image above. In case you are wondering what exactly the painting means, it is a depiction of God giving Adam his first breath of life, a passage out of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testement in the Christian Bible. God is the powerful looking man with the white beard; Adam would be the naked man in a relaxed position on what appears to be a sheet or a cloud, soulfully looking into the eyes of God. There is a slight distance between the two, the fingers just barely touching is God sending into Adam the spark of life.

A little bit about about the man behind the painting: well, Im sure every one has heard of the artist Michaelangelo at some point or another. One of the most known painters of the Renaissance and without a doubt in the history of art. To the right is a headshot of him; you are looking at one of the most talented men of all time. Not only an incredible painter, but also an architect, poet and engineer who made invaluable contributions to the Renaissance. He was right there, side by side with Leonardo da Vinci, another very famous Italian of that era.

Michaelangelo's most famous work, by far and wide, is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. He was invited to do this work by Pope Julius II, and completed the 12 apostles, 9 episodes and altogether 300 figures in just over four years (wow!) The most impressive part of this whole feat: he painted the entire ceiling lying on his back.

Very often, you will see the centralized version of this painting (which I love); with the close up of these two fingers just barely touching each other. See below:

This brings me to why I chose this painting. Ok, I'll be honest--the first reason is that it is hanging in my living room. Another reason: I attended Catholic School earlier on, and in the back of our church was an enormous replica of this painting, so the memories, good memories, come back when I see it.

Most of all though: there is something about this painting, and for that matter most of the old Renaissance art work that is unlike any other. There is a mysticism, and an eroticism about it. To me, it is almost otherworldy (as it literally depicts)...I swear to this day that there is truly no artwork like the artwork that came out of the Renaissance. An uncomparable beauty...

Thomas Kinkade...Artist?

Jeez...I just don't know what to think of Thomas Kinkade and his genuinity. Everything I have read about him and his charecter has been so black and white.


I'm going to start off by making one thing clear: whether or not he is a true artist, the man does have talent. I've seen his paintings before taking this class and while taking this class, and it is undeniable: his work is spectacular and pleasing to the eye. Look at this picture to the bottom right; I know I sure can't paint like that.



The majority of Kinkade's paintings are bought by people of the public to bring home and hang in their family rooms. This brings me to the main question of this blog: is this truly art, is Kinkade an artist? What does his work mean, where is it's depth and what does it say to us.



How many people have Chris Olifi's Holy Virgin Mary hanging in their home? I doubt that Mr. Olifi created that piece to make millions off of. With that comparison, is it to be said that Thomas Kinkade has some financial motivation here? Absolutely, I'm sure all of you can agree with me on that. Remember reading this "Kinkade’s success started in the 1990s, when he and his friend Kenneth Raasch started Media Arts Group. Eight years later the company was listed in Forbes as a top ten business to watch. When Kinkade was on QVC, he sold over $2 million worth of products in one hour." (Wikepedia)



Of course we can't know exactly what when on in the mind of Kinkade when this happened, but as human beings, we can make a pretty good guess: he realizes that he can paint these beautiful, fluffy, feel-good, chocolate box paintings, they have a massive appeal to the public, who are willing to pay big money for this "art," he gets his first taste of millions, and over the years continues to pump out these paintings for that reason.



I also think that the "Christian hook" has a lot to do with his success (and fraudulant behavior). I read in the Wikepedia article that many who bought into Kinkade's gallery franchise saw it as a religious oppurtunity. And with his reputation of being a devout Christian, he was trusted. The 2006 lawsuit against him claimed that franchise owners were "defrauded." Basically, lied to. Well, I guess not directly lied to, but not given full truth and cheated of information. Do true Christians do that??



I do think that Kinkade is simply feeding into consumer demand, it just doesn't seem like art to me. Look at what has happened to his paintings and their revenues over the past 10-20 years: this is the model of capitalism.

Analyze That...

Thank you Marie for finding this fantastic picture! Hmmm, where do I even start with this one. There is certainly a lot going on here.

Well, beggining with an overall analysis, this looks like it is taking place many many years ago, I would say back in the time of Moses. Look like there were a group of warriors that were headed somewhere on their horses (crossing a valley or a river) and they had an unexpected run-in with a lion. The two in the distance are overlooking on their horses, and the closest to the attacked warrior is attempting to slay the lion before he kills the man.

Lots of drama here: we have three different emotions going on at once. The warriors overlooking the fight have a look of shock and horror on their face as they watch what is going on, the man attacking the lion appears outraged and very determined--(you can see it in his eyebrows), and the poor guy being mauled by the lion clearly looks like he is in a lot of pain and anguish as he gazes up at the sky waiting for the lion to stop.

A classic image of man vs. beast.

First thing I noticed: check out the analytic lines going on here. Though the people and animals in this image are indeed in motion, the lines are static and intense. With the exception of the lion's victim, the three other warriors are very focused on the lion and his fate; he is the focal point. We see contour lines in this image as well...take a look at the muscle definition in the attacked man's chest, also in the horse and even in the lion if you look closely enough.

Looking beyond the action section of this image, we see mountains, trees and what looks like rain clouds brewing in the background. A good example of aerial perspective here: the mountains very far away appear to be the darkest, the tree and wolf mid-distance look a little bit lighter, and the mountains and land closest to us appear to be the lightest.

The chiaroscuro, the contrast, is easy to find in this picture: the darkest part of the picture are the rain clouds and distant mountains, while the lighter parts are closest to the front. The highlights from what I can tell are the lion's victim and his distressed horse. See how the light hits their chests...

An interesting picture overall...it's nice to be able to apply term we have learned to a piece of art in our own words...

Analyze This...

http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1192

Watch the Magic!

It took me a little while to decide which object I could use for this assignment, and I finally decided to use my 6-inch statue of St. Francis. The sun hits the front of my house at a better angle, so I photographed him there on my walkway. My first shot (seen above) was taken in the morning, approximately 10 am, and the second was taken hours later at 4pm. What a difference...more than I realized when I took these photographs.The first picture just looks totally dull to me. There is sunshine, yes, but it is in the background and brings no light to the front and center. The light brings focus to the photograph, and in this picture the attention is drawn to the street behind it...St. Francis looses his presence in this photo. The chiaroscuro, the contrast here is dramatic with the sunshine hitting one area and shade overtaking another.

Now look at the photograph taken later on in the afternoon. Totally different lighting. Bright, angelic, illuminous would be a few words to refer to St. Francis in this photo. This lighting is much more fitting for the object of this photo as well; being a religious figure, we imagine a certain brightness.

As said in our textbook, we associate good, pure spirits with light and brightness and the evil spirits whith dark and dispair. When we see art with angels, saints, Christ and so on, they are usually bathed in light. Look at how the sun hits the side of his face, it lights him right up. If you look closely at his face, he is looking upward, as if up into the heavens.

The suns light has given two shots of essentially the same photo different identities. The first isn't much more of a boring picture of a statue with some plants around it. The second is an illuminous shot of a spiritual fugure. It is amazing how the placement and angle of light in a photograph can give it a whole new meaning...

Line and Space

Fascinating unit this week! I found it interesting learning that there is so much to the dimensional and linear aspects of artwork. I didn't really become observant of linear perspective in our everyday lives until it was suggested as this week's blog topic. Now I notice this all day long. Many buildings are built this way; the first and most obvious structures that stick out in my memory is the architecture in Paris, France.

Take a look at the view of the city from the Champs Elysées in the center; perfect example of the vantage point here. Fantatic lineage in this photograph of the French capital. I'm sure that Gustave Caillebotte was thinking along the same lines with his piece Place de l'Europe on a Rainy Day.

I have a new way to observe some of the most beautiful pieces of artwork now: the art from the Reniassance. Now I can appreciate the artists manipulation of space and dimension to accentuate their work. Much of the art from this period I have learned has implied lines leading to the focus, usually a person. I have missed some of the most obvious messages until this point because I hadn't knowledge of the artists focus. My most recent realization: DaVinci's Last Supper. The one point perspective is flowing from Christ! Seems so obvious, but I just simply never knew...

This week, I have discovered my new favorite art: the beautiful human body. After I read the section in our book on "Outline and Contour Line," I have become increasingly observent of people's muscle outline. For example, look to my picture at the right of this woman's back. We know it is a woman because we can see the outline of her hips below the waist, and her muscles are smaller in size. Her deltoid, rhomboid and latisimus dorsi muscles are beautifully shaped, each is carved with a contour line. I especially love the defined line in the lower back: I think it adds a very feminine touch, and if you look closely, there are two indentations in the lower back as well. Just beautiful...

When we learn to appreciate depth, space, lineage and dimension, we see not only artwork in a new light, but the rest of our world too. We see cities, landscape, people and animals and everything with fresh eyes. Definately my favorite unit in our class so far...

Controversial Art

Well, here's how I feel about Chapter Four: I found this week to be very challenging. Challenging with my own personal beliefs, and challenging with my conflicting opinion with classmates. I suppose we all were pu to the test with this unit. But you know what? The most beneficial thing we can take from arguing over a piece of controversial art is that we learn a lot about ourselves.

I think the image that we studied this week that threw me off the most was Chris Olifi's Holy Virgin Mary. Needless to say, I was very taken aback the first time looking at this piece. I read into it a little bit more, studied Olifi and what his intentions were, studied other professor's analysis on it. I understand it more now that I have learned the cultural significance behind it, the explanation of the elephant dung, and so on. But to be very honest, I still don't know how much I agree with Olifi's rendition of the Virgin Mary.

Yes, my beliefs were challenged and that was good for me to hear other people's thoughts on it. But I simply just don't really like seeing a sacred being depicted as Olifi has done so. I love how he has given the Blessed Virgin dark skin, because she is indeed mother to all around the world, not just white Christian Europeans. But the bare behinds cut out from porn and elephant dung...I'm just not sure about that and I completely understand why people were so offended by the piece. Please note that this is just my personal opinion...

It did surprise me a little bit to hear the reactions of others about this piece--how many people actually liked it. Kind of made me question myself if I was overreacting?? But I have simply learned that other's have their opinions, I have mine and that is what makes art so exciting.

There's just no way we could all share the same opinion about artwork. Every single being will see a piece differently from the next guy because we all have different backgrounds, different upbringings, different thoughts. And really? There would be no beauty in art if it meant the same to every single person. We are all special.

Time has changed us too. What we as humans saw hundreds of is not that which we see today. Examples: Michealangelo's David and Edouard Manet's Lucheon on the Grass (both seen here) caused a huge uproar in their time, hundreds of years apart. But today, they are no longer as controversial and now beautiful classic pieces of art, a painting and a sculpture.

Contraversial art is a wonderful thing. How much we can learn about each other and our world with it!

Week 2 Reflections

To be honest, I have learned more this week about art than I think I have in my entire life. I mean, anyone can look at a picture and say it is a pretty drawing. But in this class, we learn how to not just look at art, but really see it, see what is beneath its surface, understand its true meaning. This week we learned about the difference between form and content. I always thought that they were the same thing. But sometimes artwork is not always seen by the artist and the audience in the same way.



For example, Judy Chicago's Pasadena Lifesavers to me looked like candy, almost like a picture you would see in a daycare. But I read Chapter Two, and to her, the picture is a symbol a feminism. I read the explanation and it made sense after that, but I never would have put that together on my own.



I think that learning the difference between representational and non-representational art has been the most meaningful for me so far. To me, this allows us to put art into two categories: things we would see in the real world and that which we normally wouldn't. I can process a pice of art better if I can label art as one of the two. And then abstrct art; well, thats its own category, isn't it. I will definately say that abstract artwork, though it is not my favorite, is by far the most interesting and thought provoking.



What I am liking the most so far is what I have always liked: the landscape artwork, Monet and Bierdstat. The abstract art is challenging to me...I guess I need to get used to using my right brain more

About Me!

Hi classmates! My name is Kathleen and I am 20 years old. I am a Nursing major and for the past three years since high school, I have bounced back and forth between Sacramento State and Sierra finishing my Nursing pre-reqs and my general education classes. At this point, I have finish all classes I need except for one: an Art class! So here I am in Art Appreciation with the rest of you. I wanted to take it with Michelle because I have heard wonderful things about her and really enjoyed her presentation in the Theater last Spring for Love Your Body week.



I actually am looking forward to this class: it is a nice change from all the science classes us pre-nurses need to take. I want to learn how to analyze art and how to see the intentions of the artist. Art is such a huge and beautiful part of the history of humans, and I think it is something we all need to value. I look forward to the next 16 weeks with each of you as we learn how to appreciate art.