Art Appreciation is a course designed to introduce the forms, processes, and styles of the visual arts with discussions and writing about artworks. This course aims to develop in the student a basic and practical critical methodology for looking at, analyzing, and discussing works of art. Weekly lectures of artworks are chosen to provoke class discussion and highlight a core set of terms and issues. Multiple readings and actively participatory group discussions will be emphasized.
I was inspired today to write my own journal entry
and thought it might be a good idea to show you guys what I am looking
for (for those of you who have not already turned in and received my
comments on your journal entries).
So, here it goes:
While
in the bathroom today, my eye was drawn to the floor drain. Normally I
would not have even noticed it; and, in fact, I have never noticed it
until now. I think the reason it caught my eye today was because I had
lines on the brain. Immediately I was drawn to the use of lines. Now, I
know that these lines probably had everything to do with functionality
and nothing to do with aesthetics. The open, concentric lines allow the
water to drain in the event of a flooded toilette (ew) or a running
sink. The radiating lines which cut through the concentric lines provide
anchor points for the concentric circles. Without the former, the drain
would have just become a large hole with a metal ring in the bathroom
floor and scraps of solid, unattached rings left on the floor of the
workshop. Now, with that being said, perhaps there is a degree of
aesthetic consideration here. For, the designer of the drain cover (and
yes, someone had to design this) could have easily gone with a grid
pattern, like this one:
or even more decorative like this one:
But
no, the designer went with concentric circles connected by radiating
straight lines. Now, I find this particularly appropriate even if the
designer did not realize it. I find the use of the concentric lines
recall the concentric ripples which are created with something gets
dropped into water. The radiating straight lines reinforce the direction
of the water flow, coming in from all areas but coming together at the
center of the drain. On a purely aesthetic, not symbolic or iconic,
level, it is quite beautiful in the symmetry and order of the drain, the
perfectly spaced out rings, the screws positioned in every fourth
radiating line. There is a calmness in the order but at the same time a
balancing energy about the design created by the curved lines of the
concentric rings.
I think I have spent too much time looking at and thinking about this drain, perhaps more time than the designer did...
Continuation of the issues discussed this week regarding the work of Hanson and Basquiat:
I wanted to share this article from The Atlanticwhich
discusses the artificial Eurocentricity of Art History and the art
world and the steps which are being taken to rewrite the discipline
which favors artwork from Europeans and men and holds other cultures,
races, and genders to the standards which were created to honor that
small group.
While Art Appreciation is much better than
other art history classes (think Renaissance art history) at doing
justice to non-western artwork and non-male artists, the conventional
foundations for analyzing art: line, color, space, etc. are all founded
on western notions of art and beauty. While these fundamental elements
of art can and are applied to non-western art, they may not be
the fundamentals of the culture which produces the work. Those, what we
call fundamental, elements, may not be, in fact, 'fundamental' for that
culture. Art Appreciation, though there has been a push to include works
from non-western, non-male artists, is inherently western biased.
This
article not only highlights what is being done to counter this bias, it
also brings to light the larger problem of the bias itself. It
reinforces systemic racism, sexism, parochialism,
etc. By creating a standard of art upon the artwork of a limited few
and placing that artwork on a pedestal (metaphorically), we
disenfranchise everyone else. We make everyone else think that their
culture, their voice, their feelings, their work is not valid, is not
worth being honored unto itself, unless it is able to meet the requirements of a culture, race, or gender not of its own. This is an extremely interesting,
important, and relevant topic around art and art appreciation. I
strongly encourage you to read it and if you feel so inclined, use it as
a topic for discussion for one of your journal entries. I would love to
hear your thoughts on it.
I wanted to follow up on our conversation about the Basquiat interview that we will continue next week. Please read and consider the following for the discussion of how things like race, ethnicity, mental/physical/emotional health, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, economic situation, age, housing situation, education (added; the fact that I didn't even think to to include age, housing situation, and education is a testament to how unaddressed the issues are!) etc. are reflected in, inform, and factors of conversations around visual culture as these are the conversations we will be having through the semester.
An excellent comment was made about how the media is interested in finding that "exciting," "interesting" aspect of someone, something that sets you apart, something that is the 'anomaly.' (that was the word I was looking for)
We discussed how this is the case with Basquiat's race, Francis Ford Coppola's ethnicity, and Ernest Hemingway's alcoholism. This is also the case with women artists, as well as gay or lesbian artists. Many times interviewers, writers, scholars, journalists, critics, viewers, etc. want to focus on those aspects.
But let us think about the idea of how exactly does one's race, ethnicity, mental/physical/emotional health, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, economic situation, age, housing situation, education, etc. set one apart, why it is considered an 'anomaly' that is in need of pointing out, addressing, sensationalizing, and the factor which dominates the conversation. In order to be set apart there needs to be a thing the be apart from. If these aspects are what makes you 'different,' 'other,' 'stand out,' what are these qualities standing out from? Why are these things the 'exciting/interesting' aspect that interviewers want to focus on, why are these things 'other'? "Other" to what? "Apart" from what? What is the "normal?" What is the "boring?" What is the thing that makes someone's race, ethnicity, mental/physical/emotional health, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, economic situation, age, housing situation, education, etc. something worthy of sensationalizing?
But most importantly for this course, what about material culture (especially the media in this case) reinforces the idea that one's race, ethnicity, mental/physical/emotional health, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, economic situation, age, housing situation, education, etc. somehow makes that person 'different' and, again, 'different' than what? These factors have been made to be the 'anomaly,' they have been made such on a systematic level, but as the interviewer of Basquiat demonstrated, they are also made such by individuals, individuals who reinforce the anomalization of things such as race, ethnicity, mental/physical/emotional health, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, economic situation, age, housing situation, education, etc.
For those of you interested, here is the link to a statement by the woman who was photographed falling out of her cart trying to get a case of soda: https://www.quora.com/Have-you-already-had-your-%E2%80%9C15-minutes-of-fame-%E2%80%9D-and-if-yes-would-you-tell-us-what-was-it/answer/Jennifer-Knapp-Wilkinson
I wanted to open up a discuss on Duane
Hanson, since visually his art work is quite striking, provocative, and
there seemed to be a lot of interest in his work and what he was trying
to accomplish with it.
House Painter I, 1984/88, epoxy resin, colored with oil, mixed technique, accessories (photo by Toby Melville/Reuters)
I
would love to know your thoughts on Duane Hanson. Do you think that he
is accomplishing his goals of bringing awareness to the contributions of
those who have been marginalized in society; or, do you think he is
unknowingly further contributing to the marginalization of the
individuals represented in his work? Here is one of his detractors. Do you see any problems with what Duane Hanson is doing? Do your thoughts on House Painter I (above) change when you consider that the two figures of Lunch Break (below) have accompanied the one above and have been part of a single installation (three-dimensional
works that often are site-specific and designed to transform the
perception of a space). How about when you notice that most of his works
represent white men and women?
Lunch Break, 1985 (photop by Toby Melville/Reuters)
You
can write responses to these questions in the comment section of this
post or you can make it a topic of one of your journal entries. Even if
you do not end up actually writing down your thoughts, I would like you
to think about these things.
Read about and see more of
Duane Hanson's art here.
