Questions

1. In what ways has our conception of painting been changed and what has shaped such changes?
2. Is there a subconscious desire to continue traditional and/or new forms of painting despite intentions to subvert or claims it is no longer relevant?

Richter claims that "In this history, the age of painting is definitely over. The new image is a digital one that has transformed photography, film, television and video into a single liquid substance [...] In this history, painting is no longer relevant." Richter also goes on to argue that Duchamp did not "stop painting," but that in fact, his many of his works did include painting despite his intention to subvert it. He further asserts that Duchamp is an heir to Leonardo Da Vinci, a revered artist in the Western world. From Duchamp's case, we can make two possible conclusions surrounding the "impossibility" of subverting painting. On the one hand , we can infer that because traditional and even looser ideas of painting are deeply embedded in Western society it is much more difficult for an artist to completely break such a chain. Because of this, there is perhaps a subconscious desire on the part of art critics, the common person as well as the artist to continue old ideas of painting to appeal to society's unrelentingly conservative sensibilities of what art is or should be.

Schedule Updates, Reminders, etc.

1. For future blog posts, continue to write 2 questions, and supply a few provisional suggestions for how to answer ONE of them.
2. Remember to meet in 350C Moffitt for our "Research Session" with Kathryn Wayne. If you have any initial ideas about what your research topic might be, and you have questions about how you would start to pursue research on that topic, you may bring your questions to Kathryn. She's extremely knowledgeable, and will know how to direct you to image searches, articles, books, and so forth.
3. Paper due dates:
Paper 2 final is due Thursday, November 6th. This mean that you will need to start thinking about your research topic BEFORE the final draft of paper 2 is due. The first draft of your research paper will still be due on Thursday, November 20th, so I can hand them back to you before the break.
4. Writing Analytically days: If you want to bring in samples of your work to discuss with the rest of the class, this would be a good idea. Also, if you have more general problems you're wrestling with in writing these papers, you may bring them in for discussion as well. This is not a formal assignment, but I encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity...
5. Finally, remember that there is no class Nov 4th--go vote, if you didn't do it early!!

Question

The author states that "painting is able, like no other medium, to ask other media the provocative question as to whether they mean something, whether they have something to comunicate or inform."
To what extent does this hold true, and as technology continues to advance, will painting be further capable of playing the role of arbiter in the art realm or will it begin to fade into antiquity?

Painting has seen its share of appreciation and a theoretical depreciation, yet it still remains today a respected medium to which there is certainly still a market for. Whether or not it is the standard by which other mediums even new ones can be judged against
is still true where the further we delve into the future, it seems as though the more we still yearn to hold on to the past as if in a rebellion to what is current and common. Painting certainly stands alone, yet
it is not necessarily just a comparitive tool. It may be possible to create provocative art that stands on its own and does not have to be compared to painting. However, it is in our nature to compare and to contrast,
and if it is unavoidable to look at relatinoships between art across time and mediums, painting is an accepted standrard to which other art can be put up against.




Is it possible that the avant garde or what is considered avant garde is apparently no longer available in that the advancement of technology controls the methods and techniques used by artists and thus negates the idea
of invention through art itself?

While technology rapidly advances and artists are somewhat attached to the trajectory of emergent digital mediums, I think the avant garde exists in the way that technology in itself is a tool while not the same as a paintbrush,
the newly formed mediums challenge present artists to use them in a creative provocative way. The idea of being avant garde is to interpret existing mediums or even new mediums in an artistic way, and while the qucik turnover of
different techniques and methods may suggest that the avant garde doesn't stay avant garde for long, it does offer the opportunity to create and invent at a perhaps more rapid pace than before. The avant garde certainly still exists
and is attainable, but the permenance may not be as our culture itself has shifted to a hyperactive pace.

Why has painting not become obsolete?

The comment that stated that material, image and reality exist independently from each other and cannot be reduced to each other is an interesting point to note. As painting transcends the trivialities that avant garde is trying to pursue, it will never become obsolete. It deconstructs the very thing that tries to remove it.

Is painting superior as a form of knowledge?

I personally think that all other sorts of arts originated from painting and it should be considered superior for it transcends all the other more "original" forms of art. Painting is our only thread to the past and it is only thtough paintings that we can begin to understand the other genres that agreed with or resisted it. That is, although there were forces that tries to deny it, it still remains the center from which revolution begins.

Painting in a World of New Media

In combining photography and painting, what could the artist Gerhard Richter be saying about photography and how does this relate to Reijnders’ argument?

Richter’s overpainted photographs combine large-scale abstract painting with snapshot photography, with different ratios of paint to photo. When viewing his work there is a tendency to look past the paint to try to figure out what the world behind it is and yet the view is obstructed and the viewer must look at the paint. The paint confronts you. Whenever we open our eyes we basically see what could easily be turned into a photograph, and thus just viewing a photograph is not confrontational in itself. The content and messages expressed in the photo could be confrontational, the actual medium of photography is not. However, viewing paint is not a natural experience and thus the painted surface is automatically challenging. Richter’s art also draws attention to our tendency to try to see the “real” through paint. Whenever we view a painting we try to see the “real world” or the real feelings behind it, but as Reijnders argues painting has no essence, it has nothing to communicate.


What did Reijnders mean by the “omnipresence of topicality”? Reijnders brings up the term topicality in the quote, “The acceleration of the contemporary media means that we are now confronted with something quite different: the omnipresence of topicality. A topicality that does not allow history to progress but absorbs it…. Technically speaking, painting has disappeared entirely from sight, but conversely, this allows it to observe what is topical from its ambush and to suddenly leap out in quite an unexpected guise.”

The dictionary defines topicality as “of or belonging to a particular location or place, local; or currently of interest; contemporary.” I can’t be sure what Reijnders means by topicality exactly, but I will do my best to interpret this quote. It seems like he uses topicality in regards to media to say that technological media has created an environment where we are surrounded by media that is rooted in the current time, so instead of looking forwards and backwards, we are looking at now. The avant-garde doesn’t fit in because it is based on the idea of forward progress, meanwhile painting itself isn’t really based on anything so can come back to comment on what is topical, or current.

questions

In Empire, Warhol creates a film that has many similar characteristics to painting. He lowers the frame frequency so that everything happens slowly. Also, he gives only one point of view to the camera. The audience doesn’t have the benefit of seeing the camera move in time, just as they don’t have the benefit of seeing a painter’s point of view move when viewing a single painting. In making this film similar, but not exactly like a painting, is Warhol trying to show how similar painting is to film? Or is he trying to accentuate the differences between the two?

Ultimately, painting cannot show the passage of time. Warhol accentuates that film can show the passage of time by adding a level of strangeness to the way time passes in Empire. Warhol slows down his film, but the film still shows the passage of time. In slowing down the film, Warhol causes the passage of time in the film to be alien to what the audience is used to. The audience notices the film is too slow, and thus their attention is drawn to the passage of time. Because the film is so long and stagnant, the audience might view it as a painting. A member of the audience could walk up to the picture, look at it for a time, see the same point of view, and then walk away. That person could even return later without there being a huge change in the image on screen. This person, however, would be able to see tiny movements indicating the passage of time, and be reminded that the film isn’t really a painting. All of this accentuates painting’s inability to portray the passage of time, and thus a fundamental difference between painting and film.


Reijnders states, “since we see the light through machines, it seems beyond the human, even immortal.” Machines are a man-made creation portraying light, just as a painting is a man-made creation portraying light. What is it specifically that digital lighting gives to art that makes the art seem more immortal?

The main difference is in the process of the light portrayal. In painting, the picture is man-made. In the image, however, the light that falls on the figures created usually comes from a natural source. The process of the creation of light is not examined by the painter, instead the painter manipulates preexisting light to fit his ends. The light in TV screens is, in a sense, man-made. A human being created the instrument that would generate the light for the artist. The artist then works with this light to serve his artistic purpose. The actual light, however, is created in a man-made process.
Ironically, this makes the technologically produced light more human, or at least more intimate to human creativity. Not only is a creative person molding light to fit his artistic purposes, but another creative person invented a machine that could produce this light. In painting, the light is more inhuman. The light’s creation is entirely remote from humanity. I’m not sure which is more immortal. If immortality is tied to non-humanness, it seems like painting is more immortal in its dealings with light. Then again, painting is an image of light, whereas digital media creates its own light. Maybe the act of creating is what makes people feel this immortality to movies and TV. It’s a funny contradiction, how people feel that machines are so inhuman compared to nature. Machines are a direct product of humanity, while nature is a preexisting entity independent of human creativity. You’d think we’d see the humanity, although indirect, that is behind the idea of the machine. Almost everyone, however, feels a strong lack of humanity in machines and mechanical technology.

Painting

Why does the advent of photography signify the demise of painting, as so many have claimed?

I feel that while photography enabled society to better document reality and achieve what painting has always been reaching for, this is not paintings only purpose.  A certain appeal of painting lies in its ability to question reality and what we percieve and to continually question our surroundings

What does the author mean when he states that "painting could perhaps lie outside time"?

possibly displaced by technological advances

Painting?

Will painting ever be rendered "obsolete?" Or is the staying power of painting secured precisely because it distanced itself from "its supposed tradition?" A couple of readings back, a question was posted about whether Duchamp was trying to rescue or destroy art. As more information becomes available to us about Duchamp's work, is it safer to say that maybe he was trying to do both?

In Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy, Reijnders suggests the idea that Duchamp (and Warhol and the others) simply destroyed painting in order to rescue it. He claims that "the renunciation of painting has, however paradoxical this may seem, merely increased its freedom of movement." From the Photography reading, we learned that because photographs were so realistic, it freed painting from our desires to depict something realistically.

Can we find an act of rebellion in Andy Warhol's art?

We can find rebellion in Warhol's art beginning with his renderings of common supermarket items, Coca-Cola and Campbells Soup. Similar to Duchamps readymades, taking commonplace items and interpreting them as objects of art, Warhol takes items a general audience is familiar with and makes them art. But how is this a rebellion? It can be viewed as social commentary on the nature of consumerism. While Duchamps readymades were domestic objects of function, Warhol chose items with a trademark value, rebelling against the consumer obsession with name brand items by throwing it in their faces in repitition.

Are pieces like Empire, or I, a Man challenge the viewer, rebelling against how people perceive art in its environment?

I think that they do. The former is a n 8 hour piece that in ways simulates a single angle lens view of something, in this case the Empire State Building, but because there is a dimensional time scale assocaited with it, one has to watch it for the full 8 hours to take in the work in its entirity, defeating those viewers who spend far less time on an art piece. Perhaps it is a statement that no amount of time can be enough to fathom art, or that any mundane image in art has the power to hypnotize and entrance the viewer.

Paint and Paint

As stated in the article, the painter Gerhard Richter stated that "Many amateur photographs are more beautiful than a Cezanne" (4). Is this true, or is there some other basis on which art should be judged?

This is in some ways a valid statement, as the capability for mass production of photographs gives it the advantage of both availability and the accuracy a photograph can bring. However, painting has methods of expression that are not present in photography. Like stated in the paper, painting has an illusory ability.

What role does painting play now that technology has overtaken most of painting's roles? Is it completely obsolete, or has it simply found new reasons to exist?

In terms of practical uses, art does not have a place, and I am not sure if it ever has. Painting has always been something to contemplate, and not to be understood fully even after much observation. In this sense, painting will retain a certain function, although other forms of media will dominate pop culture.

1. Has photography killed painting, as Paul Delaroche suggested? Or did photography free painting from the need for realism?

-If photography is seen as a standard for representation, then any stylistic deviations from photorealism in a painting are even more important.
-Photo realistic painting is still valuable as a skill. Photography is limited by what exists in reality, but painters can still create the illusion of photography with subjects that exist only in the artist's mind.

2. Where is the line drawn between ready-mades and assisted ready-mades? Is it possible to create art that is not in some way a ready-made?

-Painting generally involves the use of technology, the paints, the brushes, the canvas are all created by people not credited in the final work of art. What about artists like Andy Goldsworthy who only use "found" tools? His work is entirely created with natural tools, but is it still a form of the ready-made, made by natural processes rather than technological ones? If no artist can escape the ready-made, why is Duchamp's work so offensive?

A State of Utter Idiocy?

1. Has art really become obsolete and "too sluggish and too opaque to be able to keep in touch with the world us?" (334) If has indeed become obsolete, is there a real need to "make a clean break" with it? Does that make modern art a fruitless pursuit? Can't we still appreciate it even though it is supposedly outdated?

I don't see why people have such negative opinions about art. So what if it's archaic? Just because we now live in the world where technological media is accessible everywhere, that doesn't mean we need to abandon the traditional idea of art. Kids still doodle without anybody telling them to. What does that mean? We practice art naturally. School teacher still do art projects in classes, because it is fun and it encourages creativity, which we value highly in our society. Surely these are of no comparison to high-level art, but shouldn't art be something that we can all enjoy? It is one of the last connection to the world before all these technological advances dominated the world. Why purposefully seek to destroy that?

2. Reijnders says "Most painters and their supporters regard [Duchamp] accordingly as their sworn enemy" (395) and "...Andy Warhol is another figure who is regualrly associated with the end of painting" (336). Are they really the reason for the end of painting, or is it the society as a whole (introduction of photography, gradually digital images etc)? What about Duchamp's claim that "all modern paintings in the world are basically assisted ready-mades" (395) since the artists used paint tubes?

I had actually never thought of modern paintings as "assisted ready-mades," but I think Duchamp had brought up a good point. We never defined how much of producing and creating must an artist participate it in order to call the artwork a "painting" or a "ready-made." Because technically, if I buy the paint, the canvas, and the brush and paint, doesn't that make my artwork a semi-ready made? If so, then the era of modern painting already brought upon "the end of painting" even before Duchamp and Warhol came around. Also, I don't think they really initiate the end of painting, because a large part of it was the society's technological advances and the introduction of digital media etc. Did we actually even come to the end of painting?

Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy

After studying a few of the movements in modern art, it seem that although they are very different in certain respects, they all seem to be trying to accomplish one main goal: to deconstruct the institution of art and painting and to challenge the principles that it upholds. Cezanne and his destruction of line and form, Picasso and the Cubist's attempt to radically change representation and dimension, Duchamp (enough said), and now the attack on elitism in painting with the Pop art. When are we going to stop deconstructing and attacking painting, or are we? Reijdner's comments "The battle against painting was fought by all the artistic movements that thrust themselves forward as an avant-garde at the beginning of the twentieth century" (334) With the emergence of technology and mass media, does "painting have to be destroyed" has painting become "impossible"? Have the modern movements all been in the direction away from painting? It has always seemed to me that the technique of painting has been an integral part of art; the first thing you learn in an art class is painting. So why are we trying so hard to destroy it?

Questions

1. In the text, Frank Reijnders states that Duchamp was one of the few for realizing that "he had to separate science from science and, similarly, painting from painting, in order to bring both back into play." What did he mean by this? What are some of the difficulties presented when mixing art with science?

Science and art are seemingly two very different disciplines that, if not prompted to do so, would never intersect. Most people think of science as something concrete; consisting of fundamental facts, set definitions, basic logic, and it tends to be governed by an orderly method comprised of established rules of how one must doing things. Art, on the other hand, poses a reputation that seems almost the complete opposite--art has no rules (or so they say). Many believe art is full of freedom, creativity and innovation. That being so about the both of them, it is obvious that the two mixed together would be like oil and water. Critics would state their complaints against artists who have used perspective techniques in the past stating that the pieces were too scientific and lacked creativity because all they did was follow formulas. When artists attempted to incorporate scientific methods into their art, most of them failed because they got too caught up with the colors, brush strokes, and so forth. However, artists like Duchamp figured out ways to accomplish the impossible. With his Large Glass, Duchamp successfully uses the science of optics to create a wonderful work of art.

2. Is the final product after painting a photograph still considered a photograph or a painting?

Gerhard Richter was famous for this photo-paintings in which he would project a photograph onto a canvas, trace the picture then paint a replica of the original copy. In a way, this duplicate of his sits on the fence of being a photograph or a picture. Yes, the artist uses a canvas, paints and a paintbrush to create the entire product--items fundamentally understood to be the makings of a painting--however, the image he creates is quite real, literally a snapshot of the real world. This is very difficult for me to classify the work being that it is so much like a painting as well as a photograph.

Painting? A State of Utter Idiocy

In Frank Reijnders, “Painting: A State of Utter Idiocy?” he quotes David Reed as stating “We see painting in a different way now because of film and video”( Reijnders 22). Is this statement true? Have we lost the ability to see the revolutionary aspects of painting due to our constant bombardment of “faster, more perfect, more direct [images]” (Reijnders 20)? Why? Do we lose the powerful effects that paintings had created in their time because we have so many newer images to reference? Also because of our references to new images are we that much more critical of paintings for not being “perfect”?

I believe that since we have been born into a world where art has been around for hundreds of years we are going to recognize certain images. These images are then used for comparison, so although we may not want to judge past painting or art, we do. We are biased and want to see perfection. As a society we are obsessed with perfection and painting is no different, we hold standards today that we not held before. Artists of the past could not have dreamed about the abilities we have today and so there works do not always measure up to the standards we carry. It is unfortunate that we cannot always look past this but often it is done subconsciously. By using our standards, we do lose the effect that these works once held; it is only through recognizing our bias that we can move forward and truly look at works and understand them. We have to not only look at the painting but also understand the history in which it was created.


Reed also states that “Since we see the light on or through machines, it seems beyond the human, even immortal” (Reijnders 23). This made me think of how the artist was once seen as the immortal in creating paints. Now with this new technology aiding the creation of art, it brings up the question of who is immortal. Is it still the artist (person) or the technology?

Since artists today use this technology, it makes it much more difficult to come up with a concrete answer. Although it takes the mind of the artist to start creating, the technology is actually producing what they hope to create and accomplish. I think it is very difficult to state anything is immortal, like Reed states, I would not call past artist or present technology immortal. If anything it brings up the question as to why we think and name artists and now technology as immortal.

pop!

"Pop" began in Britain with the idea of an "aesthetics of plenty" and was established by the artists/architects/photographers themselves. Pop art in America, however, was established more or less by critics and art dealers. Happenings and Fluxus were established a few years before Pop art in America. How much of Pop art do you think is a direct reaction to the Fluxus idea of purging the world of professional and commercialized culture?

When the exhibition “Parallel of Life and Art” showed grainy reproduction of fine works of art, Hopkins says the “exhibition subordinated the authentic artistic gesture to the principle of reproducibility.” Were the artists in the IG creating art, or destroying art? (This question was asked about Duchamp as well. Maybe a less specific question that follows is: are all artistic revolutions intrinsically destructive?)

questions

Hopkins starts off the "Pop and Politics" section by the luxuriation exemplified in a Wesselmann painting about the Kennedy era and how in this and other paintings dealing with notions of bounty there are hints at various social inequalities and empty promises made by politicians. This type of art sides closely with the art of the political cartoon, so I wonder what the boundary is between the two. Is this kind of pop art just political or social newspaper cartoons in technicolor?

Pop Art. Pop Art. Pop Art. Pop Art.

The reproducibility of art in the age of Pop art makes it lose the "aura" that art used to hold. Art is sold for prices comparable to those of mass-produced marketed items. How has this affected the attitudes of the people creating this art?

Question

Hopkin notes Thomas Crowe’s argument that “the restatement of identical images in the Disasters series reminds us, poignantly of the daily repetitiveness of tragedy” and that “when you see a gruesome picture over and over again, it doesn’t really have any effect.” (117). How does Warhol’s work respond to this idea, and what implications does the blending of the boundaries between the grotesque and decorative imply?

What determines the "value" of art? How much of the value is monetary? Do prints and post cards and beach towels of a painting devalue it? If Da Vinci had painted hundreds of identical copies of the Mona Lisa, would it be devalued?

Questions

Many of the artistic movements we have studied have attempted to remove art from its aristocratic roots and create art that relates more to the lower social classes. Fine art has consistently participated in the struggle between high and low culture, and until the emergence of mass produced art could be considered mostly something for the wealthy few. However with the emergence of pop art and the mass production of work, has art finally become something to be consumed by everyone? Must art be mass produced to be available to all?

The Value of Art

In “Blurring the Boundaries: Pop Art, Fluxus, and their Effects,” David Hopkins explores the consequences of mass consumption and consumerism on art in a capitalist and largely affluent post-war America. If value of art is usually based on its scarcity, how can one value art that is mass produced?

Susan Sontag once commented that Warhol has a "good taste for bad taste". Although Warhol's art is novel and revolutionary, how has his art managed to maintain its aesthetic value? Where does Warhol come in between the audience and the art piece? Is Warhol merely communicating something that is already explicit?

Pop and Flux Art

In David Hopkins, “Blurring Boundaries: pop Art, Fluxus and their Effects”; Hopkins states that “to retain their integrity, the arts had to protect themselves against the debased variants on their accomplishments that advanced capitalism generated for the mass” (Hopkins 95). How has capitalism made art generated for the mass today? Does this devalue art? Have the art movements of pop and flux ruined the integrity of art? If art is too available to the public is it then not important/ valuable?

Warhol and Mass Culture

Hopkins states that "Democratizing processes were often the subject of Warhol's fey pronouncements. He noted approvingly that when Elizabeth II drank the Coca-Cola offered by President Eisenhower it tasted the same to her as to the man in the street. In a famous utterance he conflated the conformities of commodity culture with an alien political credo: 'I want everybody to think alike... Russia is doing it under governemtn...Everybody looks alike and thinks alike, and we're getting more and more that way'"

To what degree can we accept that this 'sameness' and 'democratizing processes' that Warhol advocates is beneficent? Moreover, can we see the dangers in what can arguably more aptly be called 'homogenization' (i.e. ignoring power dynamics that exist within a society)?

Blurring Boundaries

The Fluxus events were predominantly aimed at advocating "anti-art".  Duchamp illustrated that everyday objects such as tools (his readymade with the snowshovel) and appliances such as a urinal can be transformed into art.  While these items are not necessarily thought of as having artistic appeal, Duchamp exemplified that they could be.  So then, what exactly is anti-art?

Does increased exposure to artworks increase or take away from the artistic appeal?  Is this a reason why art continually transforms, redefining and recreating its boundaries in order to prevent intellectual stagnation? 

Coca-cola

"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca Cola, too. A coke is a coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it." - Andy Warhol

When looking at Warhol's paintings of Coke bottles, at first one thinks nothing of it because of the fact that we see the item everyday whether it be at home, a local convenient store, a vending machine or in someone's hands. However, back in Warhol's time depicting such an everyday object in an artwork was completely absurd and revolutionary. What do you think he was trying to say about the American people during his time through his paintings of the Coke bottle as well as the quote displayed above?

Pop Art and Gender

In "Blurring Boundaries: Pop Art, Fluxus, and their Effects", Hopkins often contrasts Modernist masculinity with many Pop artists and their works. In what ways did Pop Artists challenge contemporary gender constructs (and their portrayals in the mass media), and in what ways did they reaffirm gender stereotypes?

Questions

Andre Bazin asserts that “painting is after all, an inferior way of making likenesses, an ersatz of the processes of reproduction” (8). In the wake of this mechanical process that can capture a scene in an instant of time, how does this new typology fit in relation to painting in terms of quality?

Undoubtedly photography and its technology is effective in the process of a pure reproduction but the word likeness is open ended and as different languages of art, painting and photography occupy different spaces in the realm of reproduction. If the end goal of likeness is to produce an image as closely as it is aesthetically, then photography seems to be a superior tool. Yet black and white photography or even unskilled photography can distort what is real and create images that are not exactly like what the human eye sees as opposed to the lens. Even the process of layers and chemicals imply a sort of trajectory through which an image has to be taken to become a photograph. On the other hand, at present, photographic manipulation technology has redefined what a photograph is and the scale of likeness is extended infinitely. Painting with the human hand is not as exactly but it in theory might be a little closer to the likeness of inexactness and variation that we experience in everyday life.

Kracauer points out that photography is similar to fashion where both are confined by time, and ceases to have legitimacy when old. Is it possible for a photograph to be timeless and unbound by what we as humans have defined as history?

As the mechanical process of taking a picture records an instant in time, the image and the time that it is taken is confined to a time date and place. However, the content of the image itself can perhaps break out of the limits of time where when it is viewed at different times across different time periods, it may be impossible to distinguish the time of the image from the image alone. In this scenario, the content of the image potentially has no relationship or correspondence to things to be compared with or related to, and at this point an image with these attributes may not be confined to what we can relate it to and time itself.

Photography

1. André Bazin argues "Simultaneously a liberation and an accomplishment, [photography] has freed Western painting, once and for all, from its obsession with realism and allowed it to recover its aesthetic autonomy." How exactly does photography break from an obsession with realism?

Realism, as I have understood, is the way in which the product resembles the object depicted; that is, the degree of likeness. Modern art sought to redefine what our assumptions about art were. In a way, photography continues the trend of seeking to question and interrogate what constitutes art. In fact, philosophical intention and social commentary in the process of creating art is now more emphasized than previously such that the product itself can range from simple to elaborate. In short, it is valuing the process as much as (or possibly more than) the product.

2. What is the importance of memory and how has photography revolutionized how we conceptualize it?

Memory can give a person or a people a sense of connection to the past, a sense of identity and of the present as well as ownership of the direction the future can be led to. Memory can oftentimes give cohesion and order such that collective progress (if we are to assume it benefits groups of people) . Photography, then, is a new form of preserving memory, old forms of which include storytelling among other things. Moreover, photography arguably popularizes the preservation of memory and it also makes memory useful for other purposes as well..

Photography, Truth and Art

1. In “The Ontology of the Photographic Image,” Bazin argues that photography and cinema “satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism.” Do we really have an obsession with realism, and if it is satisfied by photography, how could abstract art satisfy us at all?

Our obsession with realism stems from our absolute obsession with truth. For example, how many times have you seen movies try to gain credibility with the words, “Based on a true story,” or heard someone say, “that’s so true” as a complement? There are many psychological principles that could help explain why truth is so important to us, but one of them could be the human need for common experience. In order for us to not feel totally alone in the universe, we need to know that we share common beliefs, experiences, and sensations. Realism in art could be seen as a way for people to share their common visual perceptions of reality. Abstract art, meanwhile, could be seen as a way to make emotions and very subtle sensations, a common experience that binds people together. For example, Pollock’s drip paintings convey a certain feeling of violence, but what would it mean if you had never experienced feelings of violence, if violence was not part of your truth.


2. In “Photography”, Kracauer writes, “With the increasing independence of the technology and the simultaneous evacuation of meaning from the objects, artistic photography loses its justification; it grows not into an artwork but into its imitation.” Is photography able to go beyond “skillful emulation of familiar styles?”

I am really having trouble with this idea that photography obliterates meaning, because it seems to imply that meaning cannot be found in the real world, that is has to be invented and inserted into images by artists. I also do not agree that photography is only an imitation of art, because both could be seen as imitating nature and human experiences. Also, photography, because it is so much less labor intensive and time-consuming, has been able to go where traditional art forms had never gone before, such as macro photography. Ultimately, this quote seems to suggest that photography is not artistic, though if we go back to the quote that art “makes the phenomena strange”, photography clearly does this.

Turn Around and Smile

Photography is a perfect representation, the undeniable truth of a moment. Yet, photography also is incomplete, since all it can depict is a single frame of life. Is there an art form that surpasses photography in this, and in what way?

Artistic photography is a bit of an oxymoron. Why would anyone try to give artistic meaning to a form that deals with exact replication? Is there something about the narrowness of photography that makes it appealing to manipulate?

Is there a perfect image? “Seemingly ripped from the clutch of death, in reality it has succumbed to it”. In analyzing photography as being similar to mummification, one must realize that while photography attempts to transcend death, its attempt is reflective of the impossibility of such a venture. The death of the image begins the moment it is being captured. Not only does the physical quality of it disintegrate, the essence of it leaks away. It becomes tainted with perceptions or interpretations of it, and we become further and further removed from the moment we try to preserve. The photograph serves as a stark evidence of this phenomenon.

What are some ways in which photography reflects social forces? Discuss how they have been successful or unsuccessful in doing so. I think that the point on how the photograph loses its meaning with the blizzard of them cheapening it reflects an important social phenomenon. With increasing consumerism and commercialization, even something as sacred as art have been cheapened through overproduction. It truly reflects how society has become numb to everything, and even if the photograph could defy death, the society will never be able to sustain it.

Photography

In Bazin's article, the fact that artistic representations of reality are inherently inferior to images as they lack the "quality of credibility".  In previous readings, the subjectivity and past experiences of an artist influenced how they painted certain images.  When Renoir and Monet both painted the scene at La Grenouillere, the two paintings came out differently due to their emphasis and de-emphasis on certain elements.  My confusion arises on the notion that we perceive the world differently because how is what I see different from what you see?  If there is a difference, then how does photography account for this different in perception because there would be a discrepancy between what one actually sees and what is captured on the photo. 

Kracauer glosses over the notion of photography as a memory aid.  How would modern society be different today without the advent of the photography?  Would it profoundly change the way education is taught, history is learned, our perception of the world?

I feel like without photography, we lose a integral part of our history because those pictures capture what words cannot.  After all, a picture speaks a thousand words

Photography

1. In "The Ontology of the Photographic Image," Bazin says that "Originality in photography as distinct from originality in painting lies in the essentially objective character of photography" (359) Is photography really objective? If so, it acceptable for an artwork to be detached from its maker? (in this case, the photographer) Shouldn't the artist and the process of art be significant parts of the artwork, or is it only the tangible product that matters in the end when evaluating an artwork's value?

I don't think that photography is really objective. I disagree with Bazin when he says that "The personality of the photographer of the photographer enters into the proceedings only in his selection of the object to be photographed and by way of the purpose he has in mind" (359). I think those factors, the subjects, layout and proportions of the elements in the photos and basically the style of the photo, all indicate to me that photography isn't exactly objective. And I don't think it's acceptable for an artwork to be separate from its maker, because even though the process of art went through an object (the camera), the inspiration and the act of actually taking the photo came from the artist.

2. What does Kracauer mean when he states that "For in the artwork the meaning of the object takes on spatial appearance, whereas in photography the spatial apperance of an object is its meaning. The two spatial apperances-the "natural" one and that of the object permeated by cognition-are not identical" (367)? What exactly is spatial appearance?

Maybe he means that the meaning of the painted object manifests itself in its mere appearance on the canvas/paper and that the fact that the object takes up space in photos gives the object its meaning? But why? Isn't Spatial appearance is its physical presence on the canvas/paper...? Maybe the spatial appearance connected to cognition just the idea of perception...?

Photography

1. Photographer and art critic Andre Bazin argues the importance of his art: “Besides, painting is, after all, an inferior way of making likeness, an ersatz of the process of reproduction” (360). In what ways did the introduction of photography simplify the psychoanalysis of the creative process of art?
Photography removed artists’ negotiation between symbolism and realism. It also removed the artists’ creative interpretation; the model is the process and the product.

2. In the second paragraph of “Photography,” Kracauer writes of the photograph, “Since photographs are likenesses, this one must have been a likeness as well” (365). This statement caught my attention because of the author’s choice of wording: must have been” (365). I wondered how much we as viewers can take for granted the credibility of photographs. Especially today with Photoshop and other editing programs, any image can be recreated or edited. Without another present eyewitness (besides the photographer), how do we know the photograph captured an actual event? In that case, are paintings still the most accurate form of creative reproduction?

photography

Bazin puts forward the idea that "photography and the cinema ... are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism." It made me wonder: is that the reason why photography that can be called art (I mean, let's face it... since the accesibility of the camera to the masses, photography became more of a means to capture a moment and isn't necessarily seen as "art" but seen as a way to capture some kind of memorable moment) isn't so much "actual" reality but something more of a "staged" reality? If so, how can photography be separated from a painting, especially if the photographer or painter has painstakingly taken the time to set up their scene and what not?

With the advent of digital cameras, how often to we see photography "in its very essence?" Bazin writes that "only photography derives an advantage from [man's] absence." But most pictures have been "photoshopped" or digitally altered in some way. Even with film cameras as well. When you develop a picture in the dark room, you control how long it stays in the solution. When you take the picture, you control the light, the setting, etc. I guess you can put Polaroids in that "actual" reality category, but as the medium becomes more and more established, "artists" usually find a way to take photography away from "its very essence."

Photography Discussion

Both articles discuss a photos ability to preserve a moment or person in time and space. Bazin talks about photography as a continuation of our psychological desire to preserve our legacy once we are gone, or having "the last word in the argument with death". A photograph, like a mummy, gives humans a reassurance of immortality. However, Kracauer on the other hand describes photographs as having an opposite effect. Once a photograph becomes old, it enables the modern viewer to compare the present and past states, and in a sense solidifies that moment as a foreign time, where the photo exists only as a memento of history. How do photographs serve the past? Do they embalm or bury the times and places that they represent?

With the many technological advances in photography today, and the new abilities to manipulate photos with computers , how has photography as an art changed? Does photography still have the reliable objectivity that Bazin describes in his article? Or has photography become more like painting in its distorted representation of the world? Photography, like painting is a genre that has evolved in form and function. We now have other sources of realistic representation such as television or computers (GoogleEarth) , and no longer rely on photos to give us that real life "mirror image".

Kracauer makes the point that a single photograph’s meaning can only be temporary. With current photographs, we can understand the details of the photograph within its intended context, and thus can derive meaning from the picture. With older photographs, we can’t fully understand the context of the photograph, so we see the details but cannot derive meaning from them. The details are effectively stripped of their meaning with the passage of time. He ultimately seems to conclude that photography is not a valuable art because of this temporary quality to its meaning.

How does this make photography different from traditional painting? Doesn’t an artist of a painting also operate within his own time period’s context? Wouldn’t a future audience be unable to understand the implications of certain details in a painting?


I think that this specific argument Karcauer makes isn’t very strong. Yes, photographs must be understood within a certain context. However, I think this is also true for every other endeavor of the liberal arts. It’s as if he assumes other artwork is immune to the passage of time. While certain paintings might arguably allude to universal, eternal, unchanging Truth, these paintings all employ techniques to portray this “Truth”. These techniques are a product of a time period, and can thus be misunderstood by audiences from a different time period. To one culture and time, a picture of a mother and child might allude to some eternal Truth about the importance of family and the bond between parent and child. To another culture and time period, this image might allude to some spiritual truth viewed through the lens of Christianity’s Mary and Jesus. Painting is just as susceptible to losing its meaning as time wears on as photography.







Gray states that photography has caused us to “admire painting as a thing in itself whose relation to something in nature has ceased to be the justification for its existence.” Painting no longer needs to create accurate and realistic replicas of nature, because photography will always do a better job. Before in this class, we’ve discussed whether painting can ever produce a perfect replica of nature. One could argue that the painter’s subjectivity and view of the world always enters into his rendition of nature. Gray seems to believe now that we have photography, we’ve found a way to replicate nature. Painting might have failed, but now we’ve found something that succeeds. Is this true? Can photography provide us with accurate, unbiased representations of nature? Or is photography always a product of the subjectivities of the photographer?

Obviously, from the way I phrased the question, I think that photography is subjective. The photographer gets to make all sorts of creative decisions: where to take the picture, what time of day to take the picture, what subject to have in the picture, what angle to tilt the camera for a certain artistic effect. Even if the photographer were attempting to remove himself from the process, he would never succeed. So, maybe this leads us to a better question. If both painting and photography fail at giving unbiased, accurate representations, can any technology one day be developed that will succeed? I guess this question might take us as far as to question whether some unbiased, accurate reality even exists. Is there even a Truth (with a capital “T”)? Am I digressing? Probably. But a person can’t really go around talking about the effectiveness of replicating reality without a clear definition of what this reality was to being with. And defining reality seems like a much trickier question. It’s also the question that is at the root of the arguments about replication in art, so the existence (or nonexistence) of a definition of reality is pretty essential to this whole discourse.

photography questions

Bazin writes that photography "has freed Western painting, once and for all, from its obsession with realism and allowed it to recover its aesthetic autonomy"(361). Has photography made realism in painting obsolete or archaic?

• Representation is no longer the justification for painting.
• Photography isn't necessarily the ultimate form of representation. Kracauer points out the shortcomings of photography in imitating reality.
• Photo realistic works of art are not devalued by the invention of photography.

Kracauer draws parallels between photography and fashion: "Photography is bound to time in precisely the same way as fashion. Since the latter has no significance other than as current human garb, it is translucent when modern and abandoned when old"(368). Do you agree? Is this statement unique to photography?

• Paintings can also be bound to time. Futurist or Constructivist paintings would not have nearly the same effect on an audience today as they did when they were first painted. The political implications of a futurist painting are outdated, and colored squares would not be a shocking insult to artistic ideals.

According to Kracauer, "The photograph annihilates the person by portraying him or her, and were person and portrayal to converge, the person would cease to exist" (369). What does this mean?

• photos are like... antimatter?
• ???

It seems that one of Bazin's argument in "The Ontology of the Photographic image" is that photography releases painting, the plastic arts, from fruitless and futile attempts in making likenesses. That since photography produces a preservation of life, it is greater than anything painting can achieve. My question is: by what standard is he measuring the creation of likeness? Is it necessarily true that photography creates a greater likeness, or rather creates a more vivid illusion?

Its my opinion that Bazin is measuring likeness on the basis of the photograph being a reflection of an object, and a paiting being an approximation and at best a distortion of an object compared to its form in reality. However, photography, at least at that time, is only one snapshot reflecting one moment and neglecting everything before and everything during. In regards to painting people, what about the subjective that is influenced by the objective in the perception of others?

In the second article, there is a discrepancy in taking portraits between "recording" and painting the "history" of a person. In photography, the wrinkles of a face are recorded but the history is said to be "buried under a layer of snow." However, I am not convinced that somehow the history of someone can be imbued in a painting. What does the author mean by this?

I believe that for someone to paint the history of a figure into the painting, perhaps its necessary to know the facts of someone's past - for how can a stranger know one's history. Perhaps its the subjective response to a person, their being, and the artist creates history rather than simply painting it. I do agree that the photograph does not "preserve the transparent aspects of an object but instead captures it as a spatial continuum from any one of a number of positions" but i feel that a stranger artist painting a portrait with intentions of painting history is no better than just that, or some perversion of it.

Photography

In Andre Bazin’s article “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” Bazin begins by mentioning Egyptians and “the practice of embalming the dead … to be a fundamental factor in their creation”. With this in mind, how does the idea of Egyptians preserving their bodies after death relate to photography as “plastic art”? How are they both participating in creation?

Egyptians embalmed bodies to preserve the dead, by doing so they created and captured a moment of time. For Egyptians the body captured the moment and for photography the embalmed time with a flash. Now our art of preservation is in photographs, portraits. This was something that I would have never thought to relate but does seem very accurate.



In his article “Photography”, Siegfried Kracauer states that, “Photography is bound to time in precisely the same way as fashion.” (55). Is this an accurate statement is photography only relevant within its time period? Will it be forgotten like fashion and looked back as an old form? Has this already happened with the advance of new digital media?

I think that photography does capture the moment of the time and leave a lasting memory, but Kracauer states that “The photograph becomes a ghost…” (56). This is because that memory or story is forgotten when people are no longer there to explain the moment. I thought that photography was new form of preserving but Kracauer made me doubt whether this will be true. When I’m gone will my photographs be important to anyone else? I think that it is difficult to say that photography is gone because it is still around us, but I do think that with new digital media that it has changed and perhaps evolved in people’s eyes.

Questions?

1. In the essay titled Photography, Siegfried Kracauer boldly states that "Never before has a period known so little about itself." Referring to an era dominated by new technological advances involving media, Kracauer believes that innovations such as the illustrated magazine, which consists of an abundant amount of "topical" photography, are weakening the minds of mass society instead of pushing them to advance. Do you agree or disagree with Kracauer's statement about the influence of the magazine? Explain.

I find it hard to agree with the author's statement that photos "sweeps away the dams of memory" mainly because at the end of the day, a picture is still a picture. We've all heard the statement that a picture's worth a thousand words and the idea that a photo-or a compilation of many photos as in a magazine-erases the historical content to the objects captured is a bit ridiculous. For instance, the emotions people felt during America's Great Depression can be described and read in any US History textbook, but once one is shown a picture of say a starving child sitting alone on the bare floor, one is able to more clearly see the hardships of that era, the pain this person is suffering, and so forth. Photographs definitely tell their tale not by words but through images of actual events that took place in history.

2. Why does Andre Bazin call perspective the "original sin" of Western painting?

Calling perspective an "original sin" implies that the instant perspective was created, all hell broke loose in terms of the many forms and styles that emerged as a reaction to this monumental invention. Bazin states, "That is why medieval art never passed through this crisis...it knew nothing of the drama that came to light as a consequence of technological developments." This way of describing perspective however, suggests a negative way of thinking about what is to come of Western art and it's "obsession with realism" but as he gets further along into the essay, Bazin demonstrates the great qualities this new form of art possesses.

questions

1. Why does Bazin feel that the painter's aesthetic world is so different from the one that surrounds him and what boundaries enclose the painter that do not limit the photographer?

Perhaps Bazin is using the discontinuities between the realm of the painter's creativity and that of reality in which he exists to emphasize the accuracy of photography. Despite the various differences in media, one would think that painting would allow the artist more freedom of representation. However, the painters attempts to create a realistic substitute for an object are limited by human involvement. By eliminating the "middle man", photography allows for an objective and accurate image to be captured.

2. What differentiates the "last image of a person" which is said to be that person's "actual history" from any other memory image?

Kracauer remarks that "The meaning of memory images is linked to their truth content" (51), which, he explains, can be derived by comparing one's conscious recollections with the perceived "truth". These elements comprise the recognized truth of the liberated unconscious that preserve the unforgettable. However, Kracauer goes on to say that "All memory images are bound to be reduced to this type of image, which may rightly be called the last image..."(51). Then perhaps our actual history is comprised of an assortment of memory images consolidated into an unforgettable last image.

Paper #2 Assignment

4pp, due Thursday, October 21st. Please include a works cited page, and please bring two copies to class on the due date.

Using provocative quotes and ideas gathered from course readings in addition to readings of artworks, please prepare an analytic essay that addresses one of the following questions, all of which are pulled from the blogged questions about Duchamp and Abstract Expressionism. In this essay, I would like you to practice integrating complex theoretical ideas (about how both genres of art and specific artworks respond to or reflect upon society, politics, history, etc) with close readings of artworks. To that end, you may choose to use one or several artworks as your primary example(s), and you may feel free to make a comparative study of artworks across genres using multiple texts from the course reader. For example, you might discuss the legacy of futurism in Duchamp’s work or compare and contrast Duchamp and Pollock to approach the role of gesture in Abstract Expressionism. When you select an artwork or artworks, please use one(s) shown in the text(s).

Questions:
1. While reading for a different class, I came across the quote "A wise man defined the purpose of art as 'making the phenomenon strange.' Things become so familiar that we no longer perceive them at all. Art, however, can take ordinary phenomena out of the background of existence and into the foreground of consideration." How can this quote be applied to Duchamp? What phenomena did he make us perceive that we otherwise may not have noticed?
2. Each artistic movement seems to grow out of a larger historical context, such as war, in the case if Abstract Expressionism. How did the war affect Abstract Expressionism and how does this compare to previous artistic movements in their respective historical context?
3. How does one go about analyzing abstract art when it is described as "gestural" and has more to do with the process or act of painting rather than its meaning?
4. What makes Duchamp’s use of utilitarian objects art? Why is Duchamp’s indifference and mockery of traditional sculptures interpreted as artwork by critics?
5. Duchamp isn't really an artist in a traditional sense that he uses skills of the hand to paint on the canvas. After all, it seems like all he really had to do was experiment with putting different objects together. But he is an artist in a sense that he started a revolutionary movement in art. So does that make Duchamp an artist, or a thinker?
6. For my own clarification, what exactly is the importance of myths and symbols to abstract expressionism? Everitt states “[Pollock’s] pictures illustrate, in a partly automatist style, primitive myths…” (Everitt 263) how does Pollock demonstrate these primitive myths? What elements from his artwork show this?
7. In “Abstract Expressionism” Anthony Everitt, states that Alan Davie commented “that ‘the artist was the first magician and the first spiritual leader and indeed today must take the role of arch-priest of the spiritualism’” (Everitt 302). In what ways does Duchamp try to reject this statement? Why does Duchamp do this, what is his ultimate goal?
8. Everitt mentions Pollock's interest in Carl Jung and the "primitive symbols and semi-conscious patterns of automatism", is there a relationship between psychologist's theories of the unconscious mind and abstract expressionist's attempt to capture more primitive art?
9. Abstract art, more than any other style of art that preceded it, seems very personal to the artist who created it. Do people appreciate the art because they understand the artist's intentions, or is art only what we viewers make of it? When you look at many of the featured paintings in "Abstract Expressionism," what do you really see and do you think you understand the artist's intentions? Does the value of art depreciate when it becomes inaccessible to the general public, or is it the opposite?
10. If Duchamp's Fountain and other pieces like it were intended as a "screw you" statement, to be shocking and ironically placed on a pedestal, now that such art pieces are appreciated, accepted, and non-ironically placed on a pedestal, do they still retain their artistic value?
11. Why did abstract expressionist painters produce so many seemingly repetitive pieces of art (such as Rothko's rectangles, Pollock's drip paintings, etc.)?

When you are beginning to think about this essay, you may approach the question “straight”, and simply weave the line of thinking from the blog post into your own motivating thesis/question. Or, you may ultimately decide to set yourself against the way the question from the blog is conceived and/or articulated—that is, you may find that the question you’re discussing misses a crucial point that would enable it to be posed or answered in a more productive way. If this is the case, don’t become grouchy or “argumentative” in a colloquial sense. Rather, set yourself to the task 1) of reformulating the question and 2)of incorporating into your paper an analysis of how you might answer the blog post as if it were a counterargument to your own.

Questions

1. As Duchamp challenges the notion of art and the viewers of art, it is interesting to question what defines a person as an artist that has some form of legitimacy. No doubt any of us have the physical ability to put our shit in a can and submit it for consideration, but who would really do so and take that risk? This calls to question the divide between artist and non artist where perhaps the difference is that an artist is so convicted to his work and attitude in a way that he or she will stop at nothing to express his point of view without boundaries. What other attributes are important in discerning an artist and a non artist?

2. The act of painting as a form of self realization has been a repeating theme where artists attempt to break from the mold, yet as the article shows, nothing is made from nothing and everything comes from something in the sense that all these artists were influenced by others and or by changing political climates. In this case, are these abstract expressionist really expressing anything of themselves or is it an accumulation of their experiences as they are still subjects of society?

1. "Why not Sneeze Rrose Selavy?" I must simply ask- why? Granted there are multitudes of works that I don't understand, but what made Duchamp think that this was a good idea?
Also, if he was really so indifferent, what motivated him to create art?

2. The Existentialist thesis "being is doing" emphasizes process at the expense of product. However, if the idea of abstract expressionism is to express the true function of your thoughts, what does being an abstract expressionist painter studying Existential philosophy entail?

To what extant did Duchamp’s charisma and image affect the way the public viewed his art? Was his image defined by the art he created, or vice versa?

In trying to abandon “crutches” in art, such as painting a representation of an object, in order to attain a more creative form of art, did Modern artists make art less accessible to the general public?

Discussion Questions

1. While reading for a different class, I came across the quote "A wise man defined the purpose of art as 'making the phenomenon strange.' Things become so familiar that we no longer perceive them at all. Art, however, can take ordinary phenomena out of the background of existence and into the foreground of consideration." How can this quote be applied to Duchamp? What phenomena did he make us perceive that we otherwise may not have noticed?

2. Why did abstract expressionist painters produce so many seemingly repetitive pieces of art (such as Rothko's rectangles, Pollock's drip paintings, etc.)?

questions

1. Why was the "Nude Descending a Staircase" so controversial and shocking when past movements in art seem to have shown a nude in a more scandalous manner?

2. For both America and Europe, movements in art seemed to come rushing out spontaneously after the Second World War. How did the war influence revolutions in art?

Karl's Questions

1. At what point does Duchamp's art become an insult to art rather than a rebellion?

2. With the wide variety of paintings thrown under the category of Abstract Expressionism, how have the different artists achieved the goal of "expression of the deepest levels of their being"? As in, were some types of abstract expressionist art better at achieving this goal than others?

Duchamp & Abstract Expressionism

1. Can we detect a trend in Duchamp's phases in terms of his art? Do these changes reflect something about early modern - or even much of - modern art?

2. To what can we attribute the inclusion of African and Indigenous elements in abstract expressionism?

Have Abstract Expressionists mastered the art of creation by producing the physical manifestation of an interiority that was previously latent and unknown to the world?

How has Duchamp’s random and unsystematic use of subjects of art help to deconstruct the hegemonic perspective of art? How is this different from the Cubist, Futurist and the Constructivists?

Discussion Questions

1. Duchamp describes his contestable art as "experiments", such as the "Fountain" or "Unhappy Readymade". Was Duchamp more interested in creating art or was he more interested in testing the reactions of society?

2. Everitt mentions Pollock's interest in Carl Jung and the "primitive symbols and semi-conscious patterns of automatism", is there a relationship between psychologist's theories of the unconscious mind and abstract expressionist's attempt to capture more primitive art?

discussion of duchamp and abstract impressionism

1. Duchamp claimed to go against "retinal" art for "conceptual" in order to engage the mind more and free the artist from the "intelligence of the hand" - does this bring art closer to the viewer plane and make it more accessible, or more arcane? And did he indeed abandon "retinal" art?

2. How close are the ties between abstract impressionism and futurism in style and feel. How much of it was a reflection of the contemporary time and how much a reflection on the products of our psyche (as observed through Freud)?

Discussion Questions

1. Abstract art, more than any other style of art that preceded it, seems very personal to the artist who created it. Do people appreciate the art because they understand the artist's intentions, or is art only what we viewers make of it? When you look at many of the featured paintings in "Abstract Expressionism," what do you really see and do you think you understand the artist's intentions? Does the value of art depreciate when it becomes inaccessible to the general public, or is it the opposite?

2. Duchamp isn't really an artist in a traditional sense that he uses skills of the hand to paint on the canvas. After all, it seems like all he really had to do was experiment with putting different objects together. But he is an artist in a sense that he started a revolutionary movement in art. So does that make Duchamp an artist, or a thinker?

discussion questions

1. How important to a piece of artwork is the title? How much can the title change the interpretation of a piece? Is the title inherently part of the artwork, or should the artwork be considered without it?

2. If Duchamp's Fountain and other pieces like it were intended as a "screw you" statement, to be shocking and ironically placed on a pedestal, now that such art pieces are appreciated, accepted, and non-ironically placed on a pedestal, do they still retain their artistic value?

Questions

- In describing Fountain, Duchamp said "But you can still get people to swallow anything if you try, and that's what happened." (288) With that, do you believe he was just trying to show how shallow art had become (despite all the "deep" meanings people attached to it) or was he just being controversial? How does it change your perception of whether he was trying to rescue or destroy art?

- How does one go about analyzing abstract art when it is described as "gestural" and has more to do with the process or act of painting rather than its meaning?

Questions

1. What makes Duchamp’s use of utilitarian objects art? Why is Duchamp’s indifference and mockery of traditional sculptures interpreted as artwork by critics?
2. Each artistic movement seems to grow out of a larger historical context, such as war, in the case if Abstract Expressionism. How did the war affect Abstract Expressionism and how does this compare to previous artistic movements in their respective historical context?

Abstract Expressionism Q's

1. In “Abstract Expressionism” Anthony Everitt, states that Alan Davie commented “that ‘the artist was the first magician and the first spiritual leader and indeed today must take the role of arch-priest of the spiritualism’” (Everitt 302). In what ways does Duchamp try to reject this statement? Why does Duchamp do this, what is his ultimate goal?
2. For my own clarification, what exactly is the importance of myths and symbols to abstract expressionism? Everitt states “[Pollock’s] pictures illustrate, in a partly automatist style, primitive myths…” (Everitt 263) how does Pollock demonstrate these primitive myths? What elements from his artwork show this?

Questions

How can Duchamp's bicycle wheel experiment be a thing of mere entertainment upon the first installation yet two years later be so revolutionary?

Does the fact that complete abstraction is "impossible" take away from the artistic achievement of the abstract movement, since it was working towards an unattainable goal?  As such, why continue if that goal is never going to be reached?

Papers, Posts, and Presentations

Hi guys,
Ok, here are the due dates for papers...
Thursday, October 9: Essay #1 final due (3pp)
Tuesday, October 21: Essay #2 Draft due (4 pp)
Tuesday, November 4: Essay #2 Final due (5 pp)

As far as posts go:
Thursday, October 9th: Post #7 due (on Abstract Expressionism). MODIFICATION: YOU MAY SIMPLY COME UP WITH AND POST TWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. (i.e. questions you think will produce a good conversation that you would like to participate in)

Thursday, October 16th. Post #8 due (on photography)

There will be NO POST on Tuesday, October 21.

Presenters, Gwen and Renee, see me after class to figure out whether you want to present on the 16th or on the 21st. If you wish, you may split up, so that one of you presents on the 16th, and one on the 21st.

Problems with Futurism

The Cubists “created an art which was… theoretical and artificial, but which… seemed to be about the substance of things” (Britt 168). The futurists, on the other hand, seemed to be more concerned with creating something new than with creating an actual art form that possessed any guiding values. While the futurists, as a movement, try to “Destroy the notion of value itself,” they also, “glorify action and violence and vilify tradition of every kind” (Britt 178, 179). This seems contradictory. If there is no value system to futurism, then there is no reason to give preference to violence over tradition. Also, Marinetti talks about how the younger generation should throw away the ideas of the older generation, Marinetti’s own ideas. If Marinetti truly believes that no movement should last, then he wouldn’t be instructing the younger generation to do anything. Futurism obviously grabs at some kind of lasting influence, due to its proponents focus on public manifestos to broadcast their beliefs. This movement is so bogged down by contradiction, I wasn’t surprised at all when I read that Marinetti urges to, “break away from rationality as out of a horrible husk” (Britt 179). Obviously rationality didn’t strongly enter in to Marinetti’s creation of his first futurist manifesto. It seems that the futurists want to be inventors without actually having something to invent. They’re so focused on being new and rebellious that they seem to be almost unconcerned with the actual creation of art or culture.

Futuristic art is an awkward genre because it grew out of this poorly-defined set of values. Most of the art lacked originality. The great masters mentioned in Britt’s essay all have serious flaws. Balla simply borrowed art that came before, namely Marey’s photography and Seurat’s pointillism. Russolo was a poor artist, but he did create synaesthesia. As interesting as this artistic effect is, it seems to have little to do with the goals presented in the futurist painter’s manifesto, and more to do with Russolo’s personal innovation. Bocioni’s The Laugh is described by Britt to be his “least successful” attempt at integrating Cubism into Futurism (Britt 188). Finally, Britt emphasizes the fruitlessness of this movement by stating that the States of Mind, the Farewells is “arguably the one great Futurist painting” (Britt 188). I’d speculate that only having one great painting is a sign of a movement’s failure.

Modern art

In Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism, Nash discusses the relative importance that each artistic movement had upon the development of modern art.  Cubism recoiled against traditional art by portraying images in an abstract manner, consisting of geometric forms where the subject is shown in several different perspectives.  This gives the image an esoteric feel with recognizable figures giving way to a whole other set of shapes that were not visible a moment before.  Additionally, Cubism returns to a more primitive perception of figures and is not characterized by colourful paintings.  Futurism, attempted to show the world as it was experienced and focused on the representation of movement.  Despite the tension between Futurism and Cubism, the most famous two Futurism paintings were completed by a Cubist.  Personally, I feel that Constructivism more closely resembles modern art as it is today because it introduced the element of architecture into art, which is a dominant theme in many exhibits today.

As is expected with successive movement, they did not occur overnight.  Picasso and his buddy Braque progressively increased the conceptual framework of Cubism, which received several innovations by other artists.  One can see that history is not easily fragmented into separable periods defined by a particular artistic phenomenon but rather the culmination of opposing artistic traditions which collectively paved the way to modern day society.

With these three artistic movements, the foundation of modern art as it is today was established.  Throughout history with each successive "revolution" of art, the degree of abstraction seems to progressively increase.  Perhaps this is due to human nature's natural tendency to continually push the limits of our existence, delving further and further into intangible concepts. 

The Artists of Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism

Within 40 years, the art world was presented with works of art that ranged from Bouguereau’s “The Birth of Venus” (1879) to Malevich’s white square on a white canvas (1918). This rapid change was largely driven by a new emphasis on the importance of The Artist; the artist is no longer just a medium that represents the world, but a source that creates it. During this time, there was a belief among many that artists occupied a special place in society, that they were somehow “different” and superior to other people, and had a “loftier spiritual vision.” The artists were therefore given a special type of power (or perceived power) to affect more than just the art world, and so we see the artist’s persona as well as his moral and social values become almost as important as the art itself. For example, Futurism was not only an art movement but an ideological movement as well (complete with numerous manifestos), so the artists sought to use art to further their ideology. The artist’s persona also adds to the appeal of the art. Nash mentions how Picasso’s image as unpredictable, indifferent, and original was carefully promoted through journalism while the Futurist painters “lived on publicity.”

Rivalries between the artists and the various movements were also a major factor that influenced the surge in innovations in the early 20th Century. Each of the artists of these movements sought to be as original as possible, to be the true “inventors” of their art. However, as Picasso said, “There is no abstract art. You must always start with something.” Nevertheless, the artists continued to strive towards originality and in the process were both influenced by and competed with each other. Through friendship and rivalry, Picasso and Braque took cubism to its greatest heights. Cubism then went on to influence and challenge the Futurists and Constructivists to push the limits and redefine not only art’s aesthetics, but also its value and purpose as well.

picasso, source, and philosophy

What interests me about this article is where Nash reveals where Picasso was drawing his inspiration from in developing his new revolutionary art. First, allow me to digress to express my romanticization of Picasso and his "Picasso gang" in Paris. I just want to reflect on that incredible moment of like-minded and not-so like-minded artists and writers in each other company, being influenced, moved, and shaped by each other, ultimately allowing them substantial growth as artists. I imagine a place so fulndividuals with raw talent and communication allows for such a a development of ideas and a rapid movement and evolution of their respective arts.
Nash reveals that Picasso drew his inspiration from that were considered beasts, savage artists of the avant-garde, painting the ugly and the aggressive. It was through this medium that Picasso believed he could find the path to something new, as opposed to a path of perfecting the old, the Renaissance. It seemed rather that he was inspired to attack it – in its perspective, its depth and orientation, coloration and also, the most untouched variable, female beauty.
From the reading it is as if Picasso took contemporary art in a new direction such that it was difficult and indecipherable to the critics. In order to help with navigation through his art, “Braque, then Picasso, used lettering to clarify his meaning”
I also want to comment on the relative importance of Braque and Picasso and I wonder why Braque, who, through the readings, is exemplified to have contributed as much originality and thought to cubism as Picasso, however is given far less popular credit.
Philosophy in art. I am beginning to view artists as visual philosophers. In this reading, heavy on the influence of philosophers on the artists, I began to think how much of the artists work is in his mind, giving color to his philosophies by advancing current philosophical issues.

Cubes, Futures, Constructs, Karls

These new movements seem to reek of a teenage boy, sporting a green mohawk and spiky leather clothing in an attempt to be unique and different. On the other hand, each of them have their ideals. Cubism sought truth that doesn't exist, Futurism sought to reject all current ideals and morals, and Constructivism sought to reject resemblance to anything. Actually, on second thought I'm going to stick with the insecure teenager.

These modern movements seem to be the culmination of what has been happening to art since Perspectivism. Perspectivism was the last step in the direct of representing the world. From then on, everything became more and more about "feelings" and "sensations", and vibrating dogs, and people that are cube-like, and cubes. It is here that the definition of art really begins to be questioned. Should art be the best imitation of life, the most aesthetically pleasing, or the best at expressing things? But I suppose this is no longer about comparing things to other types of art, despite the amount of cross influence between these, and is more about the art as it was intended to be viewed.

Cubism sought to reveal truth, which the artists claim doesn't exist. It also sought to remain a mystery and just continue to confuse people. It fails to do much of anything other than present things in a stark manner, extremely direct and not very pleasing to the eye.

Futurism sought to reject current ideals and morals. It embraced things like war and destruction. At least, that's what the movement in general was, the art itself seemed to be about representing motion and sensations on paper. If rejecting current traditions is what Futurism is really about, I think Constructivism would be better.

Constructivism sought to have each work be based off nothing and simply be something in itself. This resulting in paintings of cubes and stuff, amongst some more complex setups that were nonetheless geometric.

In my opinion, constructivism does the best at being a full on movement, being a leap away from what has previously been made. Cubism and Futurism were more like little experimental projects, messing with the aspects of painting but nonetheless still doing the same thing as movements prior. I suppose the way I look at these new movements is something that it brings about art that is amusing to look at and think about, rather than art that is nice to hang up on the wall.

Cubism, Futurism & Constructivism

By the early 20th Century, a new era of colonialism -- Imperialism --was in full swing. The colonization of the Americas was a thing of the past, especially since most of the continent had become independent sometime in the 19th century. Spain had for a long time lost its luster, and lost what little remained of its empire at the end of the 19th Century; Russia underwent a sort of Westernization which culminated in the 1917 revolution; Italy, as did Germany, unified but its industrialization/modernization was concentrated in the north, thereby creating a north/south rift; and then there was World War I.

Such was the context in which Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism found themselves in.
Given Cubisms' esotericity, can we really claim this as a movement? What constitutes a movement? Could we not say that most high art is elitist? And as such, is that not in a sense, esoteric (in a looser meaning of the word) and therefore not a movement if 'openness' were a requirement for the labeling of something as a movement?

These three movements were certainly quite different from one another. Yet at the same time, given the fact that they emerged in the early 20th century, they informed one another at least minimally. What each had in common was their 'rawness', constructed differently of course in each one: Cubism sought to deconstruct the traditional notion of reality and beauty; Futurism sought to glorify violence and speed, as though to foreshadow what was to come later that century; and Constructivism sought to shed the past by starting anew.

Nash: Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism

In “Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism” J.M. Nash explains the history behind all the art movements, as well as the main art contributors. Each movement had its own characteristics that set them apart, but they also had many similarities. Each movement evolved from the ideas and style of the previous movement, yet each was willing to criticize their predecessors.
The paintings Demoiselles d’ Avignon and Nude, by Picasso and Braque, defined the characteristics of Cubism. Both took on the human form and defied the nature contours and shape that had previously been seen. “It was the ugliness of the faces that froze with horror the half-converted.” (Nash 12). Like some previous work the raw sexual aspect of the figures disturbed audiences, Picasso paints a woman with her legs wide open, invited anyone to her. Braque’s painting has a woman looking over her shoulder almost invitingly, this is odd because the eyes are hollow yet her stance looks inviting. With these new disfigured models art began to take a more abstract form moving into the 20th century. Although this new style emerged it has influence from Cézanne, Cubism had a geometric aspect to it. It formed rigid lines that broke down shapes and had obvious outlines, unlike the Impressionists who strove to get rid of lines. Cubism began with a very private circle; it was not for the public. Picasso was not setting out to change art for the world nor find “eternal truth”, his art was for him to just express. Cubism evolved into making fake textures, that eventually as adapted into the Futurism style. Futurist painters emphasized the change in moods in every painting, often trying to capture opposite moods. The Futurists movement lived off of publicity that ended with WWI; they owed much more to the Cubists than they ever wanted to admit, but were still able to make themselves original. The Constructivist movement began after the Russian Revolution, by Tatlin who became inspired by Picasso’s collage style. They wanted to change the old art world, as Picasso’s art became much more known the original purpose and intended meaning were lost. The preceding movements were not meant to be private; they were in fact very public. Lissitsky’s geometrical layouts and typography were seen as revolutionary that created “new types of spatial relationships, new inventions of forms, new visual laws” (Nash 201). As the time periods shifted each became much more geometrical, mechanized and abstract.

Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism

J.M Nash stated that Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism were the three most important movements in early twentieth-century art. While they all fell under the umbrella of "modern art," they still opposed each other strongly.
The birth of Cubism, according to Nash, was private. It is interesting that while we see Cubism as a completely revolutionary form of art, it really was not conceived as a movement because it was not public. This is almost a counterintuitive idea because to us, the general public, Cubism (especially that of Picasso) truly exhibits the departure from the concept of "art" to what we see as "modern art." There were two major Cubists, Picasso and Braque, who played off of each other to develop their arts, but it is puzzling to note that while Picasso is so well-known, Braque is not. What about Picasso's paintings that made him stand-out so much in the course of art history?
Nash's discussion on Demoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso brings about an interesting idea that initial reactions to the painting were mainly disgust, uneasiness and shock because of its "newness" which translated to "ugliness." People who have been conditioned to view traditional art, such as Renaissance art, as "beautiful" were not used to this new type of art; the "Medusa-masks" in Demoiselles d'Avignon were simply hideous because they screamed primitive, grotesque art. This idea of rejecting things that we are not used to as simply "gross" or "weird" seems to be true not only in art, but in other aspects of life, like how some people react to same-sex marriage. This fear and uneasiness with being confronted with new ideas are a natural response programmed into human brains. But why did Picasso choose to paint in a style that is characterized as bold, harsh, distorted and primitive? What values did he see in this, or in other words, what was he really trying to do? Speaking of primitive, it is interesting to note that after long periods of perfecting beauty, representation the realistic, perspective in art, we go all the way back to primitive art. What contributed to this tracing-back of artistic style?
The discussions on Futurism and Constructivism were not as lucid as the one about Cubism was. Futurism seemed to be mainly focused on human action, violence and anarchism as a response to WWI, which is well illustrated by Marinetti's Manifesto of Futurism. This almost seems like "scary" art, or even pessimistic, which some people argue is realistic. Why it is called Futurism, I am still not entirely certain.
Overall, I get the impression that the three movements were a bold step away from traditional art, which conveyed beauty in ways people were generally comfortable with (for example, even though Impressionism was criticized initially, people didn't see it as something grotesque or obscene) and completely threw people off balance, forcing them to confront new ideas that made some uncomfortable.

Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism

Of the artistic movements that we have studied, Cubism is by far the most confrontational. Cubism challenges not only the form and techniques used to create art, but what art is suppose to do to the viewer and the artist. Like the other movements, Cubism created a new technique that it could be identified with. Whereas the other movements used tiny dots, large thick brush strokes, or mathematically calculated lines, Cubism used the “facet” and rigid geometric shapes to create a certain aesthetic. However, where the other movements generally follow or attempt to mimic three-dimensionality, Cubism intentionally distorts shape, three dimenensionality, and space into something that is almost unrecognizable. A key aspect of Cubism is its aggressive dissonance and ambiguity. Picasso and Braque often took fairly ordinary objects, disassembled them, and then put them back together in a way that was challenging and “structured in a baffling paradoxical system that defines immediate identification”. (209) Cubism did not attempt to create an inevitably false depiction of reality but instead created a representation of their own reality, which was contestable, subjective, and in their opinion was closer to the truth than the former. The viewer is forced to wrestle with the often uncomfortable, difficult subjects and images. Picasso’s use of African influence in his works also aided in their ambiguity, and created an element of foreignness and diverged from what was considered Western art. The cubist’s art did not attempt to explore or depict the world around them, but was a direct challenge to its contentions and standardizations. For example, Braque’s depiction of the brothel not only depicts a brothel in a fairly controversial manner, but also grossly distorts the bodies and faces of the women in the painting. Some of the body parts and directions of the subjects are unidentifiable, and the artist distorts their eyes and faces, making it nearly impossible to rely on the subject’s gaze or eye-line to interpret the meaning of the painting. The viewer must now rely on other aspects of the work, such as the title, to gain some understanding as to the artist’s intention.

The Beginnings of Modern Art

J.M. Nash introduces Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism not as revolutionary artistic movements, but rather as the extension of previous movements that were also shaped by their historical context. Cubism originated in Paris, Futurism in Milan, and Constructivism in Russia. The three movements differed in values but were similar in their aesthetic presentation.
The beginning of modern art was represented by French artists in the form of Cubism, and was led by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. Cubism was a transformation rather than a revolution; early Cubism was similar to Post-Impressionist paintings, like the works of Cezanne, while later paintings were more abstract and employed more aggressive and bold brushstrokes, over-lapping structures, and intuitive interpretation.
Futurism, which followed Cubism, was almost identical to Cubism, except in the way it tended to reflect the violence of WWI. Marinetti, the leader of the Futurist movement, created a Manifesto of Futurism in which he defined his art form as illustrating the world as it was really experienced. Artists often manifested sounds and movement as images.
Constructivism began in Russia was influenced by its predecessors, but was considered by the Russians who originated the art form as a rejection of interpretation. Constructivists considered themselves revolutionary, but hardly deviated from the abstract and interpretive techniques developed by the French and Italians. Much of Constructivist art looks like modern collages or graphic design.

These three different genres of art are distinctly different from the ones that preceded it. Art ceases to be representational and started to move towards being abstract or absolutely expressional. For example, Futurism sought to represent the nature of experience. One very interesting idea brought up was the being original is modern concept. As such, one wonders what the intention of these artists are in defying tradition. While the study of art developed to enable such bold advances to be made, the social revolutions that are occurring in these periods have to be considered in thinking about the these changes in our perspective towards art. Without dismissing the philosophy behind these genres, there is a need to question if the defining factor of these genres is simply a need to rebel against what they thought was normative. Art has also further evolved since then, and one question I wonder about is why the art today has deviated further and further away from that of the past? Is this simply a reflection of how society has changed, or a result of the need to be original. Is this need to be original stopping us from understanding art? Although I appreciate the beauty and the concept behind these movements, I find the need to rebel against the traditional very unnecessary. This is more clearly reflected in art today. It seems almost as if it is only to prove a point. Perhaps, we need to keep in mind that there is also value in art that doesn’t have a grand philosophy behind it.

Cubism, Futurism, Constructivism

After about a century of critical revolutions in art ranging from Neoclassicism to Post-Impressionism, the twentieth century gave birth to yet another heap of reform located all throughout Europe. Three prevalent movements in art during this time period were Cubism, which localized in Paris, Futurism which emerged in Milan, and Constructivism which grew up in Moscow all relatively at the same time. There lies great debate as to which movement was more original, however, there is no doubt that all three styles were—and still are—physical representations of the modern era.

J.M. Nash’s essay, Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism, provides information about each of the major artists of the movements in adequate detail. He beings with Pablo Picasso, who not only was “every inch a chief” with is intimate group of friends who happened to be artists also, but the perhaps the chief of Cubism as well (160). Cubism set out to break objects apart and are reassembled together, this time using different view points to give the object a whole different meaning. A man who stood up against as well as beside Picasso was known by the name of Georges Braque. Described as “’two mountaineers roped together’” the two artists competed against each other as well as complemented one another by simply challenging the other artist to do better in technique and style. It was very interesting and to be honest, quite odd to observe how similar the works off the two artists were however. The subject matter, the composition and also the style were almost identical in that it makes me wonder if one just simply copied whoever created a piece first and then just tweaked a few details here and there. If this were true however, originality for one or both of these Cubists is thrown out the window and almost contradicts the essence of the movement being something “new.”

Now travelling to Italy, Futurism tried to rebel against everything and anything pertaining to the past. Unlike the other movements, it thrived on publicity. Futurism had a way of ironically promoting itself, such as using the Romantic style of metaphors and images to describe itself while at the same time dismissing it in value because it was part of the past ( 179). By looking at some of the Futurist paintings, I can see why their title fits them well. For instance, the image of the dog with many legs to indicate that the dog is walking seems like an image that could be on one of the walls one looks at in Disney's Tomorrowland while waiting for one of the rides. What it also reminds me of is one of those flip books that one would have to flip several pages of the same image to make it seem like its actually moving, kind of like how a regular movie—or a “moving picture”—works today. Today, people don’t really thing anything of how a digital image actually works, but I could imagine that back then in the 20^th century, Futurist paintings were shockingly new innovations that possibly gave birth to a whole bunch of new scientific ideas involving digital media.

Constructivism in the essay was a bit confusing to me and I didn’t really get what th movement was truly about. The revolution seemed to be more about the social events occurring during its time and place rather than a new technique and style of art.