Final topic

Art work that inspires can change the way the world sees.

Diego Rivera
“  N/A”
Mural
NA

Painting vs Photography

                

              Trying to find out the Who, What, When, Where and Why? Isn't as easy as it sounds without the help of a keen eye. The skills needed to build a keen eyes would be, knowledge of what's being studied. Plus, the desire to focus your time and line of vision. While trying to focus your line of vision, the newly arrived use of photography comes in handy. The use of photography has changed the way we see and create  art exponentially.

                The use of photography in art is new to the scene, but from the looks of how dependent we've become by it, it'll be here for a while. Photography helped to spur Hollywood  The ideas that people of the 20 and 21st century take for granted would have sounded like unbelievable magic in the past. I would think the best way in the past to share art was by word of mouth. If you did not have the money or time to travel to the art it could not travel to you. The available of art sharing was changed by photography. 

                 Moving from the past to the present we see that our learning has only just begun. The introduction of photography to our lives is giving way to re-teaching the way we think of and share art. Now it's like everyone has a camera in their pockets, on their cell phones, and they are all trying to tell their story. Photography it possible to give old works of art not commonly seen available to everyone now and in the future.  

              This futuristic use of photography  to show and share paintings is powerful.  Photography has the power to copy and share images simultaneous around the world. This gives everyone a chance to see and judge rare pieces of art work for themselves. So the original meaning may be changed or even developed in to a new idea. With the development of photography the future of art looks like a peg in the right direction for a long future.

Diego Rivera
"Zapata"
Oil paint
1932

Arches

                         When architecture took a turn from using Roman style arches to using Greek style arches and had to be a reason. Why?  The need to build bigger and better churches became a necessity.  In France the cathedrals were built on a massive scale.  The structure itself was large, the ceilings were high and the introduction of large stained glass became popular.  In order to support these changes architects needed to improve on the function and use of roman style arches.  This is where we get the introduction to gothic arches that are pointed and extremely high which is totally different from styles used before.

                The basic desire was to build a cathedral that will be worthy of being occupied by god.  In order for the architects to reach this goal buildings had to be elevated.  Making these buildings higher required more cement being used.  These gothic churches were built higher than buildings previously built by roman architects.  Since the size and height of these new buildings were different than the way buildings were previously built new methods had to be introduced.  Adams tells us, “Unlike round arches, pointed arches can theoretically be raised to any height regardless of the distance between their supports. The pointed arch is thus a more flexible building element, with more potential for increased height. Dynamically and visually, the thrust is far more vertical than that of a round arch.” Once you see the end product that comes from gothic architecture compared to that and a product that comes from Romanesque architecture.  It’s clear that the pointed arches win, and this idea gives the parishioner the feeling of being in the house and god.

                The next idea used in making the church the home of god found a great way to not only use but show the space that’s been created.  Therefore lighting and decorating these cathedrals became more important.  The lighting of these cathedrals accomplished a few things.  It gave the feeling that god was in the building, depicted stories of everyday life and gave the large walls a grand purpose.  Adam writes, “This is consistent with the symbolic role of light as a divine presence in Christian churches.”

                So it seems the main difference between building techniques used by roman architects and Greek architects if the size of the buildings.  This elevation in building Heights was accomplished with the use of pointed arches.  Using the pointed archers aided in making the walls larger.  The large walls made it possible for the installation of beautifully stained glass windows.  The end result is a large cathedral with extremely high ceilings and stained glass windows aid in making a true house of god

                                                                Courtney

                                                               " get the point"

Ancient Greece

         Almost human  If the true nature of art is to share information with others then the work of our ancient forefathers have been doing the job, for over 4000 years. Some of which was done on a massive scale, and in our present day society we also have succeeded in creating art. With all the advancement of modern technology storytelling or information sharing has become easier to do creating a culture of artist. Using Facebook, Twitter, cell phones and blogs just to name a few, artistic forms are continuously being created.  The ancient Greeks learned that story telling in stone is not easy and trying to get your point across artistically must be done in several steps.

           This is a concept followed by the artist of ancient Greece they borrowed from the other cultures they encountered. It seams as if the pieces they created were trying to make art look more life like. I think it's odd because in labs all around the world in the 21st. century scientist have been trying to clone the body parts of humans and animals. In my opinion it's similar to the scientist slash sculptures of ancient Greece that tried to reproduce life like images.
              So, I'd have to say that because of the GOD like behavioral of the artist during the ancient Greek art period their work is the best.

Portrait

While working on an in-class drawing exercise we were asked to draw portraits of our classmates. I used a Venus drawing pencil # 2H to help sketch the outline of Arianel my classmates face then I used Berol Charcoal pencil, soft  to fill in what I sketched. I must say this was the first portrait I ever drew. While it doesn’t look anything like her it was a pretty good likeness for an amateur. The difficulties I came across were timing because while I was trying to draw her portrait she was trying to draw mine so we both spent time looking at the face and then trying to draw what we saw. By the time we were done we got into a great rhythm of give and take. Another thing I had trouble with was drawing the hair I think if I had more time and practice I would be able to do a better job. 

Ancient Art.

                I believe the fascination we have with the architecture of the ancient world will last for centuries to come and will only get stronger. It is due to the wow factor that can cause one to ask, how did they do that? Or Can I build it better? And how can I reproduce the inspiration I get from it? The wonders of the ancient world will always keep mankind intrigued until we are able to prove and know how these breath taking architectural master pieces were made.  

                How did they do that?  Architecturally speaking the canon work alone must have been a massive undertaking for a project like the "Great Pyramid."  The sheer weight and size of the stone blocks makes it seem almost impossible to move, with the technology used in ancient Egypt. The way a sculptor can carve a sculpture out of ivory with portrait like attention to detail. These are all examples of the skilled labor that gives a WOW, how did they do it? Or wow factor for short. 

                Some of the building and sculpting techniques used in the ancient world are duplicated in the present. "The Louvre", in Paris is an example of how inspirational the great pyramid is today. I think the Statue of liberty follows a template set by the construction of the great "Colossus of Rhodes." " Lincolns memorial" may have never been constructed if it wasn't for the large sculptures of Greek gods.

           When we look into ourselves we are always looking into the past because we live in the present. Looking into our future can only be looked at with ideas or dreams because we have no true idea of what it holds for us. In my opinion this is the approach we're taking when looking at art we try to learn what artist wanted to create and why. hopefully learning more about what we ask modern man what and or should be looking forward to.
                It could also be possible that the builders of the seven wonders of the ancient world took their building clues from their ancestors.  Which undoubtedly used what can be considered as primitive methods.  It is almost as if great ideas are being passed on and built off of.  I think it will be interesting to see how generations to come use our ideas but add a little twist incorporating technical advances from their era.

What is ART?

       While working for a second-hand clothing store, police car auction or garage sale, the words, “What you see is what you get” may be used. This should not be the case in the world of art. A piece of artwork has so many different facets that what you see is only a small part of what you get. The viewer must not only look at the Art work with their eyes they must also use their soul.  In order for a viewer or Art critic can lend keen observation they must be equally bold with their praise and criticism of a piece.  The artist and critic must put in an equal amount of effort to ensure that their work is of quality.

       I agree with Saltz when he says, “Dishearteningly, many critics have ideas but no eye. They rarely work outside of their comfort zone… ”. (¶ 3).  He seems to think, that critics writing about Art take a comfortable approach towards criticism and aren’t challenging themselves. I think if an artist pours his heart and soul into his work, so should the critic. However, if an artist does not give their work all they could it’s still up to the critic to let the readers know.

  

When it comes to works of art that can stand the test of time we go back in time to, Ancient Egypt, Old Kingdom Era to be exact. Since the pyramids have been around for thousands of years there have been countless critically written papers on them. While doing a class project I read some of what 21^st century writes had to say about the Egyptian architecture of the Old Kingdom Era. Most of what I read just gave facts about the pyramids like, who, what, when, where and why. It didn't look to me like much mention was giving about the soul of the work, by the critics.

Saltz believes, “Art is a way of thinking, a way of knowing yourself.” (¶ 4). I think he’s right and If more critics of Ancient Egyptian art and Art critics in general wrote from their soul their words would be more persuasive. Who knows maybe they can breathe new life into the study of Art. Someone reading an art column might start research of their own because of inspiration.

   

We see that inspiration, skill, love of work and a great eye are things needed by not only the artist but also by the art critic. I’m sure that after reading this article by Saltz I’ll find myself not only looking at the work of art.  I’ll be checking as to how the work is being criticized because they go hand and hand. Trying to make the viewer understand not only what they are being told to see but what they feel is difficult. It’s only a seasoned Artist and a seasoned critic that can make it look easy.  

Charles Burchfield

"Landscape with rain"

1917

Works cited:

        Adams, Laurie. A History of Western Art. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.