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?