FILM 20: Haring

What factors in Haring's life play a role in his artwork?
I think his sexuality and family play an important role in his artwork. I think his originality comes out through his art and it was a way for him to express his sexuality. He used all the pictures of penises to show that he was gay at the very beginning. Also, his family was what pushed him to pursue his dream and move to New York. They allowed him to follow his passion and they supported everything he did. The home videos of his family showed me that they were very close and extremely supportive of his artwork.

What are the differences and similarities between Baquiat and Haring's stories? Did they have similar hardships?
The differences between their stories is that Baquiat was very much influenced by music and his African American culture. He was brought up in New York city, rather than Haring just moving there. Baquiat had a rough upbringing and was very much influenced by race and also criticized for it as well. Haring is similar in that he was judged for being gay. They both had similar hardships with being accepted throughout their careers. However, once they were accepted, they both became very popular and well-liked.

Why was Haring referred to as a "phenomenon" in the film?
It was said in the film that he was referred to as this because when he painted, he used no sketches. He simply just painted and it came out right. Even when he didn't have a project or concept, he would start something and be done 2 hours later. He mixed the colors perfectly each time. It came effortlessly to him and it amazed those that watched him do his work.

What are your favorite qualities about Haring? How do those qualities translate into his work?

FILM 19: Basquiat

What was special about the band Basquiat was in?
What was special is that Basquiat had no musical background or talent. He was playing the clarinet, yet had no idea how to. His friend was also on the drums, but simply just making noise. This is important because it is Basquiat's first public work. He was not known for any type of artistry yet.

What makes people so confident in Basquiat's work? Why did people give him a chance when he had nothing?
One of the curators in the movie, Diego Cortez, said that when he ran into Basquiat he was "down and out." Cortez told him to pick up a pen and paper and draw because he had a talent for it. This little push was what Basquiat needed. I think that Cortez had faith in him because he saw how original Basquiat was. He had this unique individuality that no one at that time possessed. People were interested in him and curious to see what  he would do next. This originality and spunk that Basquiat had was what intrigued curators and other artists to learn about him.

Basquiat dealt with a lot of racism during his career. What does the film say the art world did to him?
The film says that the art world made him a representation of all black people. His artwork became what white people just assumed that all blacks were like. The mentality was that he became what those people thought of him. The racism really affected Basquiat and he felt that most of the criticism he received was for his race and actions rather than the artwork itself. It was said in the film that this had a huge affect on him and really bothered him.

Why do you think people were drawn to Basquiat? What qualities do you admire in him?

FILM 18: Minimalism/Collings/Nothing

What do you think is the most interesting thing about Rothko's chapel?
I think it is all pretty interesting in itself. This is the perfect place to demonstrate that something can be made out of nothing. I like that it is so simple, and in some ways boring, yet the underlying concept has a lot of meaning. This chapel could be anything one wants to make of it. The affect the chapel has is simple, modest, and makes one feel like there should be more like this. I really enjoyed learning about it in this film.


Why is minimalism not as loved as other types of art?
I think it is not as loved because people do not know what to make of this type of art. People always want something that has a meaning, image, or concept. With minimalism, that doesn't always happen. It is often what you make of it and audiences have a hard time not being told what they should think. If a movie came on with a blank screen, people would be angry that there was nothing to look at. This is similar to minimalism. They get bored or frustrated that there is nothing being thrown at them.


"The Void" is another example of making something out of nothing. What should the audience get out of this room? What should they feel?
I think the audience should feel a little bit of loneliness, frustration, and understanding from "The Void." I say loneliness because there really is nothing in it. The walls are so white and so bland that it would make me feel alone standing in there. But I don't think this is a negative reaction. It should put in perspective that sometimes being alone is okay and gives you clarity. They should feel frustration because of the nothingness. When one is looking at art or enters a room, they are automatically searching for something to look at or focus on. With this room, there is nothing. That would be frustrating to me. To walk in somewhere and have there literally be nothing to do or focus on would drive me nuts. Lastly, understanding. This room would give me the understanding that something can be made out of nothing. That room could allow someone to think, have some time to themselves, and also understand that there doesn't always have to be something to look at in order to be art.

Do you enjoy minimalism? Why or why not?

FILM 17: Lichtenstein/Bragg

The source material for his first pop painting was a bubble gum wrapper. He was inspired by the cartoons on the wrapper and it started as just an idea, nothing for him to continue. Roy used a projector to sketch his paintings onto canvas, similar to Warhol. However, they differ in that Warhol used a silkscreen rather than sketching like Roy did. I prefer Warhol’s method because I feel like he got a more realistic image than Lichtenstein. Warhol’s paintings kept me interested, where Lichtenstein’s did not.

He projects the image up against a wall to see how big the painting would be. He enlarges the exact same image onto the canvas. When he reuses the comic books, he changes the colors and lines to make it its own. He changes the image to fit what he thinks he should look like and what will satisfy him. With the famous paintings, he wanted to see how they looked in different contexts. You can tell the differences between reusing the two because the comic book paintings look a lot like the actual comic books. Where with the famous paintings, it is harder to tell that he used the original image. I prefer Lichtenstein’s comic book use because I think they’re entertaining and fun. I like the comic book aspect because it has a carefree feel to it. Painting always seems so serious and this makes me feel like it’s not. I think it is acceptable to “copy” other artists because I don’t see it as copying. He doesn’t do them exactly the same, he simply makes them his own. He makes the image larger, adds color and lines, and makes them mean something completely different. This is not copying at all and I think it’s an ingenious way of painting.

Fine artists make art in order to develop a concept or establish a meaning behind it. It is so that they can relay an idea onto its viewer. Commercial artists are different in that they make art for distribution or advertisements. They are the same in that money is a motivation. Every artist wants their art to be bought or liked by its audience. They make it for a reason other than their own enjoyment. Fine artists do not have many rules to follow. They paint pretty much what they want and how they want it. Commercial artists have to follow what is going on in the media, business world, etc. They have to adapt to what the person buying their art wants. The client controls what and how an image is painted or made. The curator can also influence the artist by telling them what would fit in their museum as well.

Which type of artist do you think has more success? Commercial or fine? 

FILM 16: Warhol/PBS

One Coke painting was referred to as messy and the other one as tight. I prefer the tighter version because it looks better to me. I don't like the brush marks that are used in the messy version. I think that the cleaner one gives off a more professional look as well. Warhol used a projector to trace the images. 


It was Muriel Latow's first idea to paint the cans of soup. He wanted Warhol to paint the cans in different ways and in different views. They were first shown in California. I don't think that they are worth that amount of money, like 100s of millions of dollars, but I'm sure they are worth a lot. I definitely think they were revolutionary as well because it changed the way people looked at soup cans forever. It takes a very boring, ordinary object and makes it something special. 

Henry Geldzahler is the one who suggested Warhol paint Marilyn Monroe. These paintings were made differently because he used a photograph of Monroe on top of the paint. He left spaces open where her face would be and used the actual photographs of her on his painting. This makes each Marilyn different because the ink clogged after each use. She then looks a little bit different in each one. The timing of these paintings is significant because he started these on the day Monroe died. I think this is still considered a painting because he is still using paint. He just uses another source to help make the painting what it is. 


What do you think of the Monroe paintings? Was it still painting even if he used the photograph in his paintings?

FILM 15: Pollock/Evans

This film was different in that we saw Pollock painting a lot himself. We never got to see that with the other films. The 5 best ways that Evans delivered information were the video clips, narration, pictures, interviews, and the paintings themselves. The most effective was (1) video clips, (2) interviews, (3) pictures, (4) narration, and (5) the paintings.

The “Macho Modernist” was a man who thought that he was less of one because of his painting. Instead of marrying a wife and raising a family, they were doing their artwork. This was looked down upon and seen as weird during this time so they overcompensated by drinking a lot of alcohol and going out all the time. They became vulgar and often spent many nights getting in trouble or fights. It affected their lives in that they would often become depressed. This also affected their art in that a lot of that built up emotion was put into their paintings. I kind of understand where this mentality comes from. I think it makes sense that others would look down upon a man who was an artist. It is not the typical “macho” role. However, I think Pollock’s paintings would not have been the same without the “Macho Modernist” problem.

Clement Greenberg was an art critic, Lee Krasner was an artist who later became Pollock’s wife, Peggy Guggenheim was one of the first to show Pollock’s art, and Hans Namuth filmed Pollock. The film eventually ended up causing Pollock to drink again and his art was never the same. It took a negative turn and he lost a lot of inspiration. He was limited in his style at this time and could not move forward.

Which video of Polluck painting did you find the most interesting?

FILM 14: Dali/Low

This film is different than any other films we have seen so far because Dali himself is featured in it. There are actual interviews from the artist, which is unlike anything we have seen so far. It is also different in that it is set up like an actual documentary. With the other films, I felt like they were more of movies. This one made me feel like I was watching an actual documentary for class. I originally thought it was boring in that sense, but it got better as it went on. The 5 best ways that Low delivered information were interviews, narration, the news, books, and paintings. The most effective was (1) interviews, (2) books, (3) narration, (4) news, (5) paintings.

One of the most interesting paintings from this film was “The Soft Construction with Boiled Beans.” As if the title isn’t interesting enough, the painting represents the Spanish Civil War, before the war had happened. According to Wikipedia, Dali painted this 6 months before the war had even begun. It was made with oil on canvas. The first thing that catches my eye is the monster-like figure in the middle. It is attached to another monster-like figure and it seems to be fighting itself. This painting represents the repercussions and devastation of the Spanish Civil War. There were many horrors and tragedies during the war and Dali is representing those through this monster. Dali is quoted saying that the reason the beans are included is, “one could not imagine swallowing all that unconscious meat without the presence of some mealy and melancholy vegetable.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_Construction_with_Boiled_Beans_(Premonition_of_Civil_War)

I think living surreally changes the relationship between the art, artists, and audience in the sense that the artists may have all been inspired by a certain thing for a painting, yet the audience does not pick up on its purpose. It creates an avenue for misunderstanding this way. I think it is acceptable to paint in irrational ways. Art does not have to fit into a certain image or frame, it can be anything the artist feels it should be. Nothing about that is unacceptable. It is also acceptable to live in irrational ways. What is rational to one person, may be irrational to another. If living surreally worked for them then it is acceptable. 

What is the most interesting thing you learned about Dali?

FILM 13: Picasso/Braque/Glimcher

This film is a lot different than the ones we have seen so far. This film was set up more like a movie than a documentary. Instead of visiting the paintings, using dramatic elements, and one person explaining all the details, this film used media and interviews to compare the artists. The five best ways that Glimcher delivered information were film clips, personal interviews, comparisons of each artist, the paintings themselves, and work by other artists. The most effective was (1) personal interviews, (2) film clips, (3) comparisons of each artist, (4) the paintings themselves, and (5) work by other artists.

The “mountain climbers” are Picasso and Braque. A man named Guillame Apollinaire introduced them. These two artists worked together, rather than against one another. They never worked on the same painting; rather they used each other’s criticisms and ideas to finish their own. This is different than any other story we’ve heard because the films are usually putting two artists against each other instead of together. The films about Da Vinci and Michelangelo and David and Goya were about how different each was and the competition between the two. Picasso and Braque were paired together as a team rather than against each other as competitors.

All of these artists are interviewed in the film and have some sort of background in Cubism. Some of them have been involved in cinema, like Martin Scorsese, and others are artists themselves. Each one is successful as well. They are in the film to give a little bit of background knowledge about Cubism and also to show different aspects of it. Scorsese brings a unique look into the film-making aspect and Close explains how Cubism is artificial in artwork.

Chuck Close gave me the most insight to Cubism. He explained that he didn’t want color to get in the way of what the objects in his paintings were representing. He talks about the artificiality of Cubism. He says, “It is not about space, atmosphere, or the way we see things in nature. It is consistently flat and we are always aware that things are on a flat surface.” Emerging from this is Cubism. The pieces of imagery that begin to form in your mind is the notion behind Cubism. In the process of Cubism, it comes down to your experience and the art. This insight made a lot of sense to me and it gave me a little bit of insight as to what Cubism really is. It is more than just a bunch of random objects thrown together. The imagery represents something more allows the art to jump off the flat surfaces. 


What is your personal opinion of Cubism? Do you like it? 

FILM 11: Manet/Monet/Marlow

I chose Manet and Monet because aside from Van Gogh, they were the only two that I have heard of before. They are both very big impressionist artists and have a lot of similarities in their artwork. I did not watch one by Schama or Collings but these two artists were treated a lot differently compared to them. Rather than going into major details of their lives, the films went into details about many paintings that they had done. However, I don’t think Marlow treated them differently at all. Both films were very similar and went about explaining the paintings in the same way. As for past films, he went into much more detail about Michelangelo and even included the histories of the locations they were at.

The Spanish Singer.  I thought this was interesting because he looks as if he is falling off the bench. It seems impossible for him to be playing that guitar. In the film, they point out that he’s playing with the opposite hand that is supposed to be and that it is a fusion of realism and theatrical. It is a combination of a man who has had too much to drink and realism of Spanish subject matter. This painting is attacking the typical views of Italian domination in the South.  

The Women in the Garden. The first thing I noticed with this painting was the woman on the right. Her back is to the viewer and the other women’s faces are kind of hidden. I like the brush strokes with this painting. I thought it was really soft and pretty. These two paintings are different in that The Spanish Singer was focused on a single man and this one was on 4 different women. There was a lot of hidden messages in the Spanish Singer, where the Women in the Garden was very straight forward. They controlled my eye differently as well. I first looked at the woman on the right in the second painting, while I was focused on the man in the Spanish Singer. Their construction was similar, ye the colors in the Women in the Garden were brighter and lighter. More dark shades were used in the Spanish Singer. 

The storytelling approaches were very different with this week. Instead of reenactments, theatre, and history, these films were more to the point. They displayed a painting and then went into detail about them. It was a very dry method, but got the job of explaining the artists done. Schama, Greenaway, and Hockney all have very similar storytelling methods. They include theater and dramatic elements to draw attention. However, Marlow was more simple and to the point.

What two artists did you find most interesting this week? 

FILM 10: Van Gogh/Schama

The biggest difference is that no reenactments were used in this film, like with David and Caravaggio. The only parts of reenactment that were seen were those with the actual Van Gogh. I personally like the reenactments in the film so I thought that Caravaggio’s video was more interesting. The similarities were that Schama made the artist interesting and went throughout details of their life. He explained why certain events in his life affected the paintings he made. It was also similar in that Schama used lighting and mood to make you feel a certain way. I felt bad for Van Gogh at points and sympathized for his sanity. I think Schama has made me like Caravaggio the most. And not because of Caravaggio himself, but because of the way he made that film. I was interested the entire time and I liked the way Schama portrayed Caravaggio, regardless of how dangerous or crazy. The reenactments really helped put myself in that time period with the artist.

I thought the most interesting painting was “The Potato Eaters.” Schama explains that this painting is the very beginning of what made him a revolutionary artist. His “resume” of all the good things he has is located in this painting. There are really dark colors and bold, thick lines. He chose to pick really ugly and dark models on purpose to portray what the peasants were really like. It controls my eye simply by being so dark. The first thing I saw was the woman on the left looking at the other. She looks lost and almost monotone. They appear as though they have nothing to live for. The little shack and eating only potatoes gives off the impression that they are extremely poor.

I thought the most interesting painting was “The Potato Eaters.” Schama explains that this painting is the very beginning of what made him a revolutionary artist. His “resume” of all the good things he has is located in this painting. There are really dark colors and bold, thick lines. He chose to pick really ugly and dark models on purpose to portray what the peasants were really like. It controls my eye simply by being so dark. The first thing I saw was the woman on the left looking at the other. She looks lost and almost monotone. They appear as though they have nothing to live for. The little shack and eating only potatoes gives off the impression that they are extremely poor. 

What is your favorite thing about Van Gogh?

FILM 12: Impressionism/Collings

I personally liked last weeks video more because it kept me interested for longer. I liked having the previous knowledge of the other videos and then hearing Collings compare and contrast them. That was the major difference between the films. What was the same is that he went into detail about a lot of the paintings and he did mention the similarities and differences of Monet and Manet. I just thought that was last weeks was more interesting than this one and the way Collings presented it last week was better. One thing he said that I liked was, “Impressionism  is political, but in a deep way.” He explains that impressionists weren’t under the illusion of politics, but they were modifying the relationship between society and art. Impressionism had been despised for years and as the popularity grew, society began to accept it more. This has a political connection. I thought this was interesting because I don’t think of art as being political at all. However, Impressionism definitely had an impact on society.

“The Lunch in the Studio.” It is made with oil on canvas by Edouard Monet. Collings first points out the black jacket of the guy in the center of the painting. This caught my eye immediately because it is such a dominant color and location on the canvas. He also says that as a scene, nothing really makes sense. I thought this was interesting because usually there is a commonalty or a theme to the paintings. However, there is no relationship between the three people in this painting. The second thing I looked at was the woman and Collings points out that we have no idea who she is or what she represents. The third is the man in the corner and he has said to be Monet himself, but could not be. The guy in the center could also possibly be his illegitimate son. I thought this whole concept was interesting because there is so much unknown and it is kind of random. The viewer can make what they want of the painting instead of being told exactly what it means.   

Impressionism is distinctly different to those before them, such as realism, because of the way it is painted and the pictures themselves that are depicted. Realism is very straightforward and right to the point. Everything has an exact location and the colors are clearly defined in the places they need to be. With impressionism, the strokes of the paint are almost all over the place and really quick. Impressionists tend to make paintings with a lot of color, but what looks to be in a messy way. I think this is a step in the right direction because when one looks at an impressionist painting compared to a realistic one, the impressionist tends gets more discussion out of it. There could be so many meanings and so many different techniques to the painting. With realism, it is the way it is. I really like the Impressionism era of painting and think that the more you can interpret on your own from a painting, the better. Collings is definitely a fan of the impressionist paintings as well. He often commented on the beautiful scenery and colors in the impressionist paintings.

Do you prefer realism of impressionism? Why? 

FILM 9: Civilization/Collings

Collings discussed a wide range of art history so that each of Goya’s and David’s paintings could be given a proper background and meaning. Each of these artists was heavily influenced by the time period they were a part of. Collings uses this to create a comparison of the two and how their art was influenced by their surroundings. I also think using the wide range of art helped give a better understanding of why the artists painted what they did. His point was to explain why each piece of art was painted and what emotion or event in history sparked that inspiration.

Collings used a little bit of comparing and contrasting, as well as history to tell his story. His film travels through the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and French Revolution. This allowed the viewer to understand what was going on behind the artwork. He went into detail about why David painted the images he did and how Goya differentiated from that. This was different from any other story teller because none of them compared and contrasted two different artists. Collings did not use reenactment, which was a first for the films as well. All of the films that used reenactments seemed to put me in the right mind frame for the paintings, which I liked, as opposed to Collings’ film. I thought the best story teller so far was Greenaway. I liked the way he picked one film and went into great detail what mysteries were behind it. I also liked his use of reenactments the best. He mock-interviewed the people in Rembrandt’s life and it really made the painting come to life for me.

I think the image from my generation would be something depicting the use of technology. I believe technology dictates our everyday lives. People rely on their cell phones and computers more so than they do on their personal relationships with others. I think it would say that our current civilization is dominated by the images people put up of themselves on social media and also that our civilization could not live without the use of technology. It would not be a good message and I feel that it is only going to get worse. Although there are certain technologies that are being put to good use, i.e. medical advancements, pollution control, etc. there are more that are simply being overused.

Was Collings use of compare and contrast effective? Why or why not? 

FILM 8: Goya/Hughes

According to PBS, Robert Hughes is “by far the best-known, most esteemed, and widely read art critic writing in English today.” He has been acknowledged as Writer of the Year and has won many other awards throughout his career. He appears on many TV shows/documentaries and has written 16 books total to date. His books have even made the best-seller list. I think we should believe his stories because of all the success he has had. He is a very well-known and reputable source.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/australia/bio.html 

This painting is called, La Familia de Carlos IV and is made with oils. The first thing I noticed was Fernando VII because of the lighting around him. It hits him in a way that draws attention to his face. I thought his posture was a little weird too, but it fit the painting. The next thing I noticed was Charles IV because of the way he is standing as well. Last, I noticed his wife. Her face is slightly turned and she is holding the hand of the little boy. She is at the center of the photo and if the lighting didn't draw me to Fernando VII, I think I would've noticed her first. 

What I liked most about Hughes is that he didn’t use all of the reenactments and theatrical elements to tell Goya’s story. He simply stated the facts and details of his life and paintings. Compared to the others, such as Hockney and Greenaway, his film was a lot simpler, yet I feel as though it got the point across just as well. It was not as dramatic as the others and I think this was extremely effective for him. I still believe that Greenaway was the best story teller though. I liked his approach and his film kept me more entertained than all the others. Hughes does a really good job of keeping things simple, but as far as telling a story, Greenaway was better with his dramatic elements and “solving a mystery” theme. 

What was your favorite part of this film? Did you find it boring because there were no reenactments? What role do the reenactments play?

FILM 7: David/Schama

The main difference that I picked up on was that David’s film was more about the history during the time period. There was a heavy emphasis on the French Revolution and how that affected David’s paintings. Caravaggio’s video was very dark and more about the events in Caravaggio’s life rather than history. That film gave the impression that Caravaggio had a dark approach to his art. This film about David was the opposite. Schama used reenactment again but it was not portraying David as a troubled man. I actually had sympathy for David from this film rather than Caravaggio, who I had no sympathy for whatsoever. There were paintings that had dark meaning or imagery, but that was not the overall theme. I also thought that this film about David was more of a telling of his life, where with Caravaggio it was to give the viewer an impression of him. The films were the same in the sense that Schama went through the major events in their lives and gave insight as to how this affected their art. Schama had used a lot of reenactment in both films as well.  

I thought the most interesting painting was the one with the execution of Brutus’s sons. I thought it was surprising that the only form of remorse that Brutus had shown was through his feet. Schama said that his right foot being over his left was the only sign of his “repressed emotion.” I also thought the lighting was interesting because it is pointed out that the light is on his wife, who is suffering from the execution of her sons. When I first looked at the painting as a whole, she is the first person I saw. This controlled my eye because she is showing such visual signs of remorse in her face and arm movement that I felt sympathy for her. Yet her husband, who ordered the execution, has no visible sign of suffering except his feet, which does not catch one’s eye at all. Schama describes the painting as “chilling,” like other paintings by David. Schama also explains that there is a knife in the middle of the painting, which portrays the severing of the family. David was marked by a knife and this family in the painting has been marked by one as well. I really liked how this painting was dark, yet intriguing and reflected David’s life as well.  

I thought David was a pretty good guy. I didn’t think he did anything exceptionally wrong throughout his life. His paintings seemed to tell the truth to the extent that he believed it. If you think about it, this is what all artists do. They paint what they feel is truth and that is exactly what David did. I believe because of the time period and the French Revolution, people were doing much worse things than David’s art. For example, Brutus ordering his sons to be murdered. It does matter whether or not paintings tell truth, but I also think truth is relative when it comes to art. An artist can paint whatever they believe and that is truth to them. Whether or not others believe or buy into it is their own prerogative.

Which film (Caravaggio or David) do you believe did a better job of explaining the background of the paintings? Did Schama portray each of them fairly?

FILM 6: Rembrandt/Greenaway

Peter Greenaway is a respected British film director who originally started out as a painter. He has made 12 films and over 50 documentaries. He is an established film maker throughout the world and has a good reputation for the work he has done. We should definitely believe his stories because of the success he has had and the evidence he developed in the film. His knowledge covers a wide range of topics and time periods, which is evident in his work.

Greenaway chooses to discuss the image, “Nightwatch,” by Rembrandt. Greenaway suggests that the painting represents murder and conspiracy. Throughout the film, he sheds light on the mysteries of the painting and what evidence there is of murder. He was very effective in describing this painting. He knew exactly what aspects of the artwork would lead to different events in the time period and went into detail about them. The multitude of evidence he presented definitely got the job of convincing his audience done. I think he decided to only talk about this painting because there is so much to it. It is not a painting that can be described in a couple minutes. There are so many aspects such as the lighting, 34 characters, expressions, historical context and background, that an entire film needed to be dedicated to this piece of art.

The location used in this film was Amsterdam. Greenaway chose this because it is where the setting of the painting takes place. This was the most effective because it gave insight to the culture and time period of the painting.

Greenaway chose to use theatrical reenactments because it let the viewer get inside the painting and the time period. I really liked this film because of the reenactments. I think it helped me understand exactly what was going on and the reasons behind different aspects of the painting, such as the interview with Rembrandt’s wife or the height difference between the two men in the artwork. I liked the dramatic way in which the painting came to life and how Greenaway went into detail through the reenactments. This was definitely his most effective strategy, in my opinion. For someone who does not know a lot about paintings and artists, I thought it was helpful to get his point across and also give me a better look into the meaning of the painting.

What was your favorite part of the film?

FILM 5: Caravaggio/Schama

According to Columbia University's website, Simon Schama is a British art historian and a Professor of Art and Art History at Columbia University. He is also an art and cultural critic for The New Yorker. He has written many books and appeared throughout the United States and United Kingdom as well. He won over fifteen prizes and honors including those of New York Times Best Books of the Year, and National Book Critics Circle Award. He’s kind of a big deal. I definitely think we should believe his stories.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/faculty/Schama.html

One of the paintings that I liked the most was, “The Death of Mary.” Because of the belief that the Son of Mary was not born by flesh, Caravaggio’s painting represented that Mary’s death was not by flesh. The first thing I saw was Mary laid dead, kind of sprawled out. The lighting on Mary’s body is very light, her skin is green. The next thing that drew my attention was the apostles all gathered around her body. They look distraught and upset by this sight. They’re bodies are in darker lighting, with a dark background as well. The belief is that Mary is asleep in the painting because she is leaving not in flesh but in soul. They are so upset because she is living the mortal world, which is reason enough to mourn. This painting controls my eye simply by color. I was drawn by the lighter colors and the sight of Mary laying there dead. Caravaggio used this lighting to draw the viewers’ attention to her body. He made this painting to merge together the ideas of past and present. It was rejected, which made his life spiral into a bunch of disastrous events thereafter.

The storyteller chose to use such dramatic lighting and theatrical reenactments because it gave Caravaggio the image that he was trying to portray. He wanted the light to be used to get the viewers into the moment rather than just looking at it. The dramatic lighting and the way we saw Caravaggio interact with others and his paintings gave me an eerie feeling. I think this was effective in the sense that I understood his art better. The light and dark in his paintings illuminates the focal point and how we should view Caravaggio’s life as well. His life was full of disorder and dark times, which are brought through in his paintings. This makes the story a lot more believable. It gives distinct images and sheds light on the feelings that went into the paintings. I also liked the theatrical moments, especially when they reenacted what’s going on in Caravaggio’s life as well as some of the paintings. I could feel the emotion and it gave a better insight as to what was going on in his life at the time.

What is your opinion of Caravaggio's life?

FILM 4: Hockney/Knowledge

David Hockney is considered one of the most celebrated and influential British artists of the 21^st century. He is a painter, printmaker, stage designer, and photographer. He has designed covers of Vogue, worked with computer painting programs, and had large displays in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I believe his stories because he has had so much success and accolades. According to a David Hockney website, there are numerous awards awarded to him throughout his entire life. Awards such as “Distinguished Honoree,” and the 5^th Annual Governor’s Award, to name a few. While watching the video, I thought the things he was saying made sense as well. There was science behind his findings and I think the use of lenses was a solid conclusion for him.
http://www.hockneypictures.com/awards/edu_awards_1.php

The secret knowledge was that artists used lenses in order to paint their portraits and paintings. Hockney suggested that artists used the lenses to capture the folds in a curtain or a curving of an object. After looking at the scientific evidence, it seems apparent that an artist would need the different angles in order to paint. I don’t think it changes the way I look at painting because either way, the artistry and talent behind the painting is still there. The use of a lens doesn’t change anything for me because I still believe that what an artist sees and paints is their own creation, regardless of what they use.

Hockney used interviews, scientific experiments, and personal encounters with paintings and lenses to tell his story. The most effective for me was the chandelier demonstration. This showed that other sources were used to make the painting and that mirrors played a large role in it. I thought this was the most effective because he clearly showed how they were used and what this did for the image itself. He then went further and demonstrated more with the mirrors and cameras.The details he used and the knowledge he has about the topic made it that more convincing for me. I also think that the paintings looked closer to real life with the use of lenses and mirrors. They came to life more so than just a 2D looking image on paper.


What does Hockney's secret knowledge change about your views of painting?

FILM 3: Michelangelo/Marlow

Tim Marlow is a British writer and art historian. He has his own shown where he looks at current art exhibitions. I think we should believe his story because he has researched Michelangelo for years and has many credible publications.

The painting I liked most was the Doni Tondo. The first thing that was brought to my attention was the background with the young naked men. Tim says this represents a classical world divided by the Christian world. John the Baptist is almost present. The second thing is the holy family themselves. He skews the traditional format of the family and puts flesh on them. Joseph and Mary hold their young son, him almost pulling at Mary. Then I noticed Mary’s body, slightly muscular. Everything is an overall vision of the drama of the painting itself. It was made with the look of more of a sculpture feel than a painting. This was one of the only paintings Michelangelo did not use assistants for. His technique includes shading with bright colors to lighter ones on top.

I think the most effective location was the statue of David in the middle of the square. The sculpture was so huge and dominating that people could not help but stop and admire it. Although having a naked man in such a public place was controversial, it certainly got the point across. The storyteller used significant locations to tell parts of the story because the sculptures were placed in locations that stood out and should be seen. Going to see the sculptures do them justice rather than just seeing a picture of them. It really made them feel more important and show the significance of Michelangelo’s work.

Which paintings do you like more, Michelangelo or DaVinci? Why?

FILM 2: DaVinci/Bruce

Fiona Bruce is a British journalist and has made many appearances throughout the BBC. She researches DaVinci and has connections all over the world leading her to his paintings. We should believe her because she interviews professionals and gets the research she needs to tell people the history and mysteries of DaVinci.

The painting that I liked the most was the painting with Mary and baby Jesus at the center. It's the one that is unfinished. I like this one because it appears to be out of order, dark, and chaotic, but there is a ton of meaning and clarity within it. I especially liked it because it is not one that I would normally look twice at. I don't particularly enjoy the darker paintings, but this one interested me. What I saw first was dark colors, scary and almost creepy faces pointed towards Mary, and a lot going on. I didn't like the images of the people in the background because they were leering and scowling. What I focused on second was the image of Mary herself. She looked serene and calm although all of this was going on around her. Third, the camera focused on the image of a young man looking away from everything else going on. It is rumored that this is DaVinci himself in the painting. I thought this was interesting because the religious symbolism is that he is turning away from Mary and baby Jesus, as well as the dark images around them. This, to me, represented that his views are not obscured by the negative images around and is also not particularly religious. I like the idea that this could be his only self-image in any of his paintings.

She uses expert interviews to tell parts of her story because this gives it authenticity and credit for her findings. It shows that her opinions are not unfounded and other people have investigated DaVinci’s paintings as well. The most effective interviews were with the curator at the Louvre, Vincent Deleuvin, and Martin Kemp about Mona Lisa. Vincent described the painting as what the viewer sees and gives it meaning. He says that there is mystery all over the world about this painting and I liked how he described how important it is. Martin explained the actual physical painting aspect really well and how the pigment affects how one views the portrait overall. He also explained how the light affected his painting, which was interesting to me because when one looks at Mona Lisa, they don’t necessarily think of how the light and/or pigment influenced DaVinci but his interview made me think about that. Martin Kemp also had a wide knowledge of DaVinci on many paintings. I thought this was effective because it showed that Fiona used people who really know DaVinci’s paintings inside and out.

Discussion Question:

What do you think the significance of DaVinci’s paintings being unfinished is? Is that important to know?

FILM 1: Paint/History

"Paint is a pigmented liquid that dries to form a solid protective film."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paint
The components are: resin/binder - the binder or glue that holds the paint to the surface
pigment: the color, mostly solid. Can be anything from ground-up minerals to complex carbon based chemicals
solvent: helps flow and smooth out the liquid on it's surface

I think the most significant evolution in paint is the use of latex paint. Prior to this, the paints that were used were solvent paints. They were hazards of flamability and took a really long time to dry. Latex launched the "do it yourself" painting methods. It also dries really quickly because the water evaporates and the particles move closer and closer together. Latex paint is now widely used and has made making/applying paint a much easier process.

"A painting is applying paint, pigment, or color to a surface."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting
It is important that a painting lasts for 500, 30,000 years because this can tell us about their lives and painting techniques during that time period. The very first records of human life were because of paintings on cave walls. This is so important because without it, we would not have known about evolution or human life in general. The cave paintings show a keen eye for creating pigments and allow today's painters and scientists to study color over time. Colors like red and black were made from the minerals and coal that the people of the time had. This gives us insight as to how colors are made and how to make more colors as well.

What role do you think paint plays in today's society?

Amanda Werniak
Elementary Education
I chose this course because I need to meet my Fine Arts requirement and paintings have always been something I have interest in.