Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Feeder 3.1
For most people, the term artist conjures such names as Vincent van Gogh, Pablo Picasso and maybe the more recent, Andy Warhol. While these classic artists are widely known, often the artistic talent around us is ignored. A prime example of this is known as street art, a growing movement including artists such as Banksy, Shepard Fairey, K47 and many more. Their art isn’t found hanging in galleries, but instead pasted, stenciled and stuck to our everyday surroundings. Large metropolises have traditionally been in the forefront of this new movement but more recently the Middle Eastern city of Tel Aviv in Israel has been targeted. The article Bursting the Bubble: Street Art in Tel Aviv is an insiders look at the cause and effect of street art in such a conflicted and restricted society, especially following the artist K47.
Mya Guarnieri is a writer who is based out of Tel Aviv, which allows her insight into the appearance of K47’s art in the bubble of Tel Aviv that an outsider could not possess. Her article is based around the thesis, “If Israel’s mainstream art is a creative result of the Arab-Israeli conflict then its street art is a more urgent product of this same environment” (Guarnieri). She goes on to further say that street art is a more raw version of Israeli art. It allows a peek into the “complicated psyche” of Israel much more than the gallery art (Guarnieri).
The article centers on the art of K47 and his most notable work in Tel Aviv, the Kiss of Death. This is an image of two men face to face, one with a Palestinian flag and the other with an Israeli flag covering their heads. The two men are almost kissing but cannot due to surgical masks covering their noses and mouths. She includes quotes from K47 explaining that an impenetrable but removable barrier separates the two. The article explains that this centers on the most obvious political issue in Tel Aviv, the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Although the author does fairly well being impartial towards either side in this conflict, she fails at being completely impartial. Through out the article there are small snippets of pro-Israel propaganda. The most obvious is towards the end when she is describing another street artist’s work on the same wall as the Kiss of Death, and says “hopeful- like Israel” (Guarnieri). Although her position on the Palestine conflict is subtle, it can be felt by a reader.
The author also enters another, larger conflict with in the article, which is the separation of politics from art. Obviously much of art has some sort of political root or message but sometimes art is simply that, art. It is apparent that Guarnieri feels that all the street art in Tel Aviv has some sort of political message. She includes quotes from the artists featured in the article that say the exact opposite: that their work is not political, but simply to brighten the very grey landscape of the city.
Another Israeli street artist, AME72, paints whimsical images on dilapidated buildings through out the city purely to beautify it. As the artist said, “the setting affects the art” (Guarnieri). The author feels that the intention was not just beautification because some of the whimsical scenes are on buildings that were bombed or on buildings that were next to bombed buildings. She feels that these scenes are statements against the struggling Israel, and this opinion comes through with in the article. An example is when she turns the artist’s words around saying, “the artist impacts the setting” (Guarnieri). She continues to say that these unexpected images make the viewer question their world and what is around them.
Although Guarnieri’s evidence and arguments are convincing, the direct quotes from K47 and the other artists that basically contradict her, derail her position on the totality of politics in street art. Her acumen of Israel and its problems strengthens her article, but her opinion on the dispute between Israel and Palestine weakens it. Overall, she brings an interesting view of street art in such a closed society, but her article is conflicted.
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwilsonid=LHODDCRURIZJDQA3DINCFF4ADUNGIIV0
Mya Guarnieri is a writer who is based out of Tel Aviv, which allows her insight into the appearance of K47’s art in the bubble of Tel Aviv that an outsider could not possess. Her article is based around the thesis, “If Israel’s mainstream art is a creative result of the Arab-Israeli conflict then its street art is a more urgent product of this same environment” (Guarnieri). She goes on to further say that street art is a more raw version of Israeli art. It allows a peek into the “complicated psyche” of Israel much more than the gallery art (Guarnieri).
The article centers on the art of K47 and his most notable work in Tel Aviv, the Kiss of Death. This is an image of two men face to face, one with a Palestinian flag and the other with an Israeli flag covering their heads. The two men are almost kissing but cannot due to surgical masks covering their noses and mouths. She includes quotes from K47 explaining that an impenetrable but removable barrier separates the two. The article explains that this centers on the most obvious political issue in Tel Aviv, the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Although the author does fairly well being impartial towards either side in this conflict, she fails at being completely impartial. Through out the article there are small snippets of pro-Israel propaganda. The most obvious is towards the end when she is describing another street artist’s work on the same wall as the Kiss of Death, and says “hopeful- like Israel” (Guarnieri). Although her position on the Palestine conflict is subtle, it can be felt by a reader.
The author also enters another, larger conflict with in the article, which is the separation of politics from art. Obviously much of art has some sort of political root or message but sometimes art is simply that, art. It is apparent that Guarnieri feels that all the street art in Tel Aviv has some sort of political message. She includes quotes from the artists featured in the article that say the exact opposite: that their work is not political, but simply to brighten the very grey landscape of the city.
Another Israeli street artist, AME72, paints whimsical images on dilapidated buildings through out the city purely to beautify it. As the artist said, “the setting affects the art” (Guarnieri). The author feels that the intention was not just beautification because some of the whimsical scenes are on buildings that were bombed or on buildings that were next to bombed buildings. She feels that these scenes are statements against the struggling Israel, and this opinion comes through with in the article. An example is when she turns the artist’s words around saying, “the artist impacts the setting” (Guarnieri). She continues to say that these unexpected images make the viewer question their world and what is around them.
Although Guarnieri’s evidence and arguments are convincing, the direct quotes from K47 and the other artists that basically contradict her, derail her position on the totality of politics in street art. Her acumen of Israel and its problems strengthens her article, but her opinion on the dispute between Israel and Palestine weakens it. Overall, she brings an interesting view of street art in such a closed society, but her article is conflicted.
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwilsonid=LHODDCRURIZJDQA3DINCFF4ADUNGIIV0
Monday, December 6, 2010
Diego Rivera: A True Artist for His People
By: Ashley Contreras
Diego Rivera was a very influential Mexican artist that graced the world with large murals and his art. According to Bertram D. Wolfe, in his article Diego Rivera—People’s Artist, “Diego Rivera is one of those monsters of fecundity such as occur only infrequently in the history of mankind.” His art spoke to people; Wolfe repeatedly compared Rivera’s art to the literature of Lope de Vega, who was a very important playwright and poet that shared the similar fruitfulness. Even as a young child Rivera had shown a keen interest in art, but little did he know that he was going to have such an impact on the world. Wolfe describes that art in the Western World was isolated from the public life, the beauty of art had “withered” and the private patronage had also reached its lowest point. Due to Rivera’s fruitfulness, Wolfe states that Rivera was a significant example of “cultural interchange” in the Good Neighbor Era. Rivera showed America that there was much to learn from Mexico.
Rivera was born an artist and from an early age showed the immense talent that he had possessed. As the years passed by his interest grew and his art had granted him a scholarship to work abroad in Spain. He had learned from great artists while in Europe like El Greco and Goya, Pissarro and Manet, Henri Rousseu, Renoir and Picasso, among others. He had transitioned his paintings from being impressionist; with small, thin, but visible brush strokes with an emphasis on the accurate depiction of light, to cubism where objects were broken up, analyzed and re-assembled in an abstract form. These different styles of art had given him the skills to accomplish his own spirit.
On his return to Mexico was when he truly found his calling, frescoes. Frescoes are mural paintings done on plaster on walls and ceilings. Rivera used this form of painting to depict a very important event in Mexico’s history, the revolution. According to Wolfe, Rivera’s services of the Mexican Revolution was to make it aware of the Mexican people, of the subterranean but still living currents of indigenous popular taste and to help painters in breaking the circle of private patronage. His Mexican Communist political views inclined him to celebrate his nation’s victory and influenced him to adapt his own native style. He based his style on large, simplified figures and bold colors with portraying the Aztec influence.
His murals became popular around the world and were the inspiration that the United States need to open their eyes to that style of painting. Rivera was invited to the US to paint his murals first in California then his work was known and wanted throughout the United States. Wolfe sums up Rivera’s success by stating that the “ ‘politics’ of Diego Rivera will be seen to lie in this: that he learned from and painted for his people.”
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Feeder 3.1
Kelsey Kolojejchick
Feeder 3.1
Vincent van Gogh was a very accomplished Dutch post-Impressionist artist who created many masterpieces that are now known worldwide. Van Gogh’s influence on expressionism and early abstraction made a large impact in the world of art and can be seen in many other aspects of 20th century. Although van Gogh has had countless amounts of success through his artwork, this success did not happen during his lifetime. In the article, “The Illness of Vincent Van Gogh”, Wilfred Arnold acknowledges how van Gogh suffered from a debilitating illness. He mentions that his productivity was remarkable under these tough circumstances because his medical crisis was devastating. The highlights of van Gogh's life and artwork are reviewed and discussed in an effort toward better understanding of the complexity of his illness.
Vincent van Gogh’s roller coaster of a life was marked by episodes of self-mutilation and crises of hindering illness. His ailment was separated by periods of lucidity and creativity that were created by episodes of acute mental derangement and disability. He also had periods of harmful depression and physical discomfort that were so serious they provoked self mutilation and his eventual suicide. He complained of frequent gastrointestinal problems that caused fits with hallucinations and stirred up seizures. Arnold mentions conditions that have potential to be associated with his sickness. He states, “His ailment was exacerbated by overwork (letter 173), malnutrition and fasting (letters 440, 571), environmental exposure (letter B15), excessive ingestion of alcoholic beverages (letter 581, etc.), especially absinthe (letter A16), and a proclivity for camphor and other terpenes.” Arnold argues that these problems associated with van Gogh’s illness did not have proper diagnoses.
Vincent van Gogh was a patient at Saint Paul de Mausole Asylum at St. Remy for a little over a year with increasing neurologic problems. During his stay, Arnold writes that he was conversing freely and moving around the hospital which sent him home to work on his artwork. He created a famous painting “The Yellow House” but told his family there would be nothing wrong with him for a long time to come which showed a period marked by complete lucidity and impressive productivity. Arnold mentions van Gogh’s developed “affinity” for absinthe. The mood-alternating chemicals involved with this alcoholic drink are reasons of van Gogh’ use of large amounts of camphor to try and fight his insomnia. It was also an attempt to drink essence of turpentine and gives reason to his nibbling at oil colors which help explain his illness. Although he was battling alcohol, it obviously did not stop his productivity because he painted “The Night Café”, staying up for 3 nights in a row and sleep during the day. Arnold states he had a few glasses during this painting process.
Arnold argues that van Gogh’s was diagnosed with epilepsy. This is a sudden and recurring disturbance in brain function that has episodic impairment and allows someone to lose consciousness, have psychic or sensory disturbances or problems with the nervous system. Van Gogh recovered from this psychotic state and was able to paint a “Self-Portrait with Bandage Ear and Pipe” which actually shows him in calm composure. Although he was bouncing in and out of these episodes he managed to create hundreds of works of art. “Starry Night” was a masterpiece during this time period that started the recognition of his artwork. Arnold mentions this was also the start of his brother’s severe illness that put even a bigger burden on van Gogh. This made him work even more and faster creating different paintings and drawings during his stay at St. Remy. These paintings expressed his sadness and loneliness which describes one of his last paintings. Van Gogh painted “Wheat Field with Crows” which has black birds flying in a starless sky with three paths that lead nowhere. His illness is highlighted when he asked to borrow a gun to “scare the crows away” when he was painting but rather used that gun to shoot himself in the lower chest. The illnesses had reached an all time high and he could not take it anymore. “Field with Stacks of Wheat” can be argued that it is his last painting because it’s a bright picture that is a symbol of work completed.
Vincent van Gogh was not a “mad” artist but rather a brilliant man who suffered from illnesses. He was creative because of intelligence, talent and great productivity. He was a smart man in spite of his illness and proved that these complex illnesses would not affect his creative side toward his now famous artwork.
Feeder 3.1
Vincent van Gogh was a very accomplished Dutch post-Impressionist artist who created many masterpieces that are now known worldwide. Van Gogh’s influence on expressionism and early abstraction made a large impact in the world of art and can be seen in many other aspects of 20th century. Although van Gogh has had countless amounts of success through his artwork, this success did not happen during his lifetime. In the article, “The Illness of Vincent Van Gogh”, Wilfred Arnold acknowledges how van Gogh suffered from a debilitating illness. He mentions that his productivity was remarkable under these tough circumstances because his medical crisis was devastating. The highlights of van Gogh's life and artwork are reviewed and discussed in an effort toward better understanding of the complexity of his illness.
Vincent van Gogh’s roller coaster of a life was marked by episodes of self-mutilation and crises of hindering illness. His ailment was separated by periods of lucidity and creativity that were created by episodes of acute mental derangement and disability. He also had periods of harmful depression and physical discomfort that were so serious they provoked self mutilation and his eventual suicide. He complained of frequent gastrointestinal problems that caused fits with hallucinations and stirred up seizures. Arnold mentions conditions that have potential to be associated with his sickness. He states, “His ailment was exacerbated by overwork (letter 173), malnutrition and fasting (letters 440, 571), environmental exposure (letter B15), excessive ingestion of alcoholic beverages (letter 581, etc.), especially absinthe (letter A16), and a proclivity for camphor and other terpenes.” Arnold argues that these problems associated with van Gogh’s illness did not have proper diagnoses.
Vincent van Gogh was a patient at Saint Paul de Mausole Asylum at St. Remy for a little over a year with increasing neurologic problems. During his stay, Arnold writes that he was conversing freely and moving around the hospital which sent him home to work on his artwork. He created a famous painting “The Yellow House” but told his family there would be nothing wrong with him for a long time to come which showed a period marked by complete lucidity and impressive productivity. Arnold mentions van Gogh’s developed “affinity” for absinthe. The mood-alternating chemicals involved with this alcoholic drink are reasons of van Gogh’ use of large amounts of camphor to try and fight his insomnia. It was also an attempt to drink essence of turpentine and gives reason to his nibbling at oil colors which help explain his illness. Although he was battling alcohol, it obviously did not stop his productivity because he painted “The Night Café”, staying up for 3 nights in a row and sleep during the day. Arnold states he had a few glasses during this painting process.
Arnold argues that van Gogh’s was diagnosed with epilepsy. This is a sudden and recurring disturbance in brain function that has episodic impairment and allows someone to lose consciousness, have psychic or sensory disturbances or problems with the nervous system. Van Gogh recovered from this psychotic state and was able to paint a “Self-Portrait with Bandage Ear and Pipe” which actually shows him in calm composure. Although he was bouncing in and out of these episodes he managed to create hundreds of works of art. “Starry Night” was a masterpiece during this time period that started the recognition of his artwork. Arnold mentions this was also the start of his brother’s severe illness that put even a bigger burden on van Gogh. This made him work even more and faster creating different paintings and drawings during his stay at St. Remy. These paintings expressed his sadness and loneliness which describes one of his last paintings. Van Gogh painted “Wheat Field with Crows” which has black birds flying in a starless sky with three paths that lead nowhere. His illness is highlighted when he asked to borrow a gun to “scare the crows away” when he was painting but rather used that gun to shoot himself in the lower chest. The illnesses had reached an all time high and he could not take it anymore. “Field with Stacks of Wheat” can be argued that it is his last painting because it’s a bright picture that is a symbol of work completed.
Vincent van Gogh was not a “mad” artist but rather a brilliant man who suffered from illnesses. He was creative because of intelligence, talent and great productivity. He was a smart man in spite of his illness and proved that these complex illnesses would not affect his creative side toward his now famous artwork.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)