Picasso’s Adventure with Cubism and Las Meninas

In order to compare two things, they need to have a common element, a control, which takes away any room for error. While comparing the effectiveness two different styles of art is nearly impossible because rarely do artists paint the same thing, Las Meninas by Pablo Picasso and Diego Velasquez allows for this comparison. Velasquez’s original is a portrait from the Baroque Period of a young princess, and the relaxed court scene around her. Picasso copied this scene in 58 separate paintings, using the avant-garde style he created, Cubism. The two styles could not be more different in that Velasquez’s painting focused on the subjects if the image, while Picasso used his technique to convey his message through the emotions the painting provoked. Through these works, an old master and a new were drawn together through their innovation and connection over a single piece of art. By using Cubism, Picasso was able to convey an entirely new message by copying and old painting, Las Meninas, in a new style.

The Baroque Period

In order to understand the differences in style, one must first understand the styles. Baroque art began in the 16^th century during the Counter Reformation: a movement by the Catholic Church to reeducate the people on their faith in response to Luther’s Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century. The style started as a religious form of painting in a way that sought to glorify God and awe the public with dramatic and theatrical, but real, scenes. This new style was revolutionary in that the subjects were not idealized; they were shown in their true form. Before this movement, many figures in paintings, especially the religious, were embellished. Prior to the reformation, the Church was looked upon as greedy and power hungry. To ensure that the number of followers, and its power, remained strong, the Church used art, along with other means, to idealize biblical scenes. After the scandal of Luther’s movement, the Church needed to overcome this migration of followers; it turned inwards and looked to connect more with the people. The art was supposed to be “visually and emotionally appealing so that it could influence the largest possible audience” (Baroque: 1600-1750). The Baroque style allowed for just that: still dramatic and glorious, the subjects of the art were more real, making it easier for the common people to equate their sufferings and lives to those in the paintings.

The luxury of the Baroque period spread to royalty as monarchs rose to power over the Catholic Church throughout Europe; the richness of the paintings showed the world the opulent lifestyle of the royals, that they could and would spare no expense. In his article, “The Baroque Era in the Arts,” Guisepi describes the style of the time as a means to display “massiveness, power, and dramatic intensity” (Guisepi). The baroque style uses selective lighting along with well-placed shadows to draw attention to certain subjects in the painting. The shadows also help to give the paintings a three-dimensional feel. All these characteristics point towards the goal of Baroque art: to seem real and lifelike in order to connect with a large number of people, thereby transmitting the artist’s message, whatever that may be, more decisively.

Throughout his article “The Emergence of Baroque Mentality and Its Cultural Impact on Western Europe after 1550,” Miroslav Hanak explains his views on the effects of Baroque art. He describes it as a natural segue from the Renaissance era into one of new enlightenment (Hanak 316). Gone were the idealized images of happy, golden cherubs. In their place came a darker, shadowy depiction of life as it is, not as it is hoped to be. Hanak calls to mind the contradictions of the style, “life oscillating between reality and appearance…birth coalescing with death and immortality, light fusing with darkness, the illusion of the stage becoming inseparable from everyday reality… (Hanak 317). In here lies the essence of Baroque art: the delicate use of paradox to remind audiences of the fragility of life and the basis of human nature. Extreme cruelty is shown next to extreme love in depictions of the crucifixion, greed and hubris exist in coalition with the pure innocence of a young child in Velasquez’s “Meninas.” It is through these comparisons that the style is able to impact viewers in such a way that they do not readily forget the picture nor the message.

Cubism

Throughout much of the history of art, artists worked for someone else. They were employed to paint and told how and what to do. As art grew up, artists began to have more freedom; they could work for themselves and create how they saw fit. This marks the beginning of a new era, which bred styles such as cubism. Cubism, as Ladislas Segy describes it, recognizes reality for the artists. They draw not what they see with their eyes, but how they feel though their heart and how they think with their brain. The new technique strips art of the formality of designated objects and immobile potraits. Instead, a new genre is opened, one that gives people a chance to enter into the mindset of the artist and truly feel how he or she feels. In cubism, that artist matters more than the art.

Cubism is a relatively new style of art, developed by Picasso and Braque in the early 20^th century. The technique releases any hold on the conventional idea of beauty and focuses instead on a “geometric… approach to form and color” (Cubism: 1908). The movement shook the art world because of its revolutionary attempt to recreate an object in the way that a human brain, not a human eye, does (Cubism: 1908). Again the geometric nature comes into play as the angular shapes and lines seek to break down an object through different perspectives simultaneously, allowing viewers to see a work in many different ways. Because of this, some believe that the cubist style is more realistic because it tries to mimic what a brain does, skipping over the sense of sight, which can be misleading. Cubism is realistic in that it sends a message, not a picture. It requires contemplation and thought rather that simple sight. This is one of the main reasons that Cubism is effective in communicating an artist’s argument.

In their article “Cubism as a Catalyst in Design,” Roger Rothem and Ian Verstegen describe the essence of Cubism saying, “what distinguishes Cubism…is not it’s abandonment of iconic representation, but its unique commitment to exposing the iconic for what it really is- a structural condition in which “to represent” means “to correspond,” not “to copy”…” (Rothem and Verstegen 291). In here lies the idea that cubism does not seek to directly reproduce an image, but rather capture the artists’ thoughts and ideas about that object. As Plunkett describes it, “cubism is the result of the desire to create or describe visual reality without resorting to illusionistic painting” (Plunkett).

Las Meninas

When Diego Velasquez painted “Las Meninas” in 1656, he had no idea the impact it would have on another young artist, over three hundred years later. The original painting depicts a young girl being fitted for a dress in the home of the Spanish ruling family. The painting is considered to be an image of what the artist saw in the mirror; he included himself in the painting as a man holding a paintbrush standing on the left. Velasquez was commissioned to paint this work by King Phillip IV who was the ruling monarch at the time. Two centuries later, Picasso became fascinated with the painting and produced over 50 copies, each slightly different.

There are a number of explanations as to why Picasso, already a successful artist at the time, would do such a thing. For example, author Robert Miles sees Picasso’s copying of Las Meninas as a means of personal survival (Miles 177). I agree with Miles in this assessment. At the time of his rendition, Picasso was becoming elderly. Seeing the work of an old master that is still studied today made Picasso feel insignificant. Connecting his work to one of such value and magnitude was a means for Picasso to ensure that his art remained relevant. In his article, Miles also comments on the dissimilarities between Las Meninas and Guernica: Guernica was painted for the survival of the world, while Meninas was painted for the survival of a man (Miles 177). Picasso was painting this for no one but himself, unlike Velasquez who was employed to produce the portrait. The idea of this personal connection between artist and painting goes along with the Cubist style Picasso used. By freeing himself of the boundaries Baroque art places on the artist, Picasso was able to infuse this painting with how he saw and understood Velasquez’s original.

Another idea for Picasso’s motivation is found in Osherow’s “Variation on Variation (Picasso’s Las Meninas).” She speaks about Picasso’s rendition of the work as reverent, not hubristic; Osherow’s argument is that Picasso sees Valasquez’s work as one a Spain’s masterpieces and his copy was simply a restoration of something old and faded rather than a complete redo (Osherow 432). Evidence of this, she suggests, is the fact that Picasso completed over fifty paintings to Velasquez’s one; Picasso showed how he so revered the artist that not one of his paintings could equal one of Velasquez’s. Picasso redid the painting not detail by detail, but rather in his own style, cubism, because he admired it so much he wanted to bring it into the future with him.

Justin Erenkrantz also notes the importance of number of Picasso’s copies. Instead of claiming piety as the source, Erenkrantz cites Picasso’s portrayal of innocence through the infant in the white dress. He believes that by choosing to focus his work on such a broad subject, there was no way Picasso could cover all the meanings and implication of the idea in one painting. Erenkrantz also suggests that as the series progresses, Picasso’s use of different aspects of cubism is reminding the viewers that “it is futile to believe that this innocence can last” (Erenkrantz The Book of Secrets). As children grow, the purity that exists in them is lost. Picasso gave life and reality to his paintings by allowing the infant to grow, not physically, but in a sense that she is growing away from the virtuousness of a child. I agree with Erenkrantz in this assumption. Both aspects of his argument remind the audience of Picasso’s message: that life is fleeting and nothing lasts forever. While I can understand Osherow’s view on the matter, her analysis doesn’t fit with the state of min Picasso was in when he painted the works. While he was extremely reverent as a child when he first saw the painting, fifty years later when he put a brush to the canvas, Picasso was more concerned with the preservation of his legacy, his style and himself the acclamation of another artist’s work.

Moving away from that aspect, in his article, “Las Meninas (The Maids of Honor), James Harris chooses to focus on why Picasso reverted to painting copies after a life of original work. His main conclusion is that Picasso is fascinated with the young girl in the painting (Harris). When he first saw the painting with his father, Picasso’s young sister had just died of diphtheria (Harris). The connection between the infant the in painting, immortalized forever by Velasquez, and his sister, struck a chord with the mourning Picasso. Harris goes on to remark that while Picasso first viewed the painting early on in his childhood, it wasn’t until the mid 20^th century, not long after his father died, that Picasso began working on the copies (Harris). This connection Picasso makes between life, death, and immortality is fascinating, and here lies the connection between Harris, Osherow, Miles’s arguments. All agree that Picasso copied the painting in an effort to preserve something, whether that be a life or a legacy. He seeks this preservation through the use of Cubism, which takes away from the humanity of the subjects in the painting. Mortality and death are an inevitable part of humanity; by removing this aspect, Picasso renders his paintings immortal, frozen in time.

Not all critics agree that Picasso’s work on Las Meninas was a success. Erenkrantz, for example, argues that Picasso’s Cubist style accompanies a loss in detail that distances audiences from the painting. “[Audiences] can no longer relate to the infanta with all of the maids of honor surrounding her” (Erenkrantz The Mask and the Mirror). What Erenkrantz fails to account for is the other elements to Picasso’s painting, such as color scheme and the relationship between the figures, which can have just as profound an effect on the viewer as what is shown in the scene. Many times when people look at paintings they focus on the picture, the figures central to the image. However, their brains are aware of all the little pieces of the art, for example, the colors used or the way the light draws attention to a particular area of the work. Cubism grabs hold of this idea and inflates it until the focus of people’s scrutiny becomes less about the individual images and more about the painting as a whole. In Picasso’s Las Meninas, Picasso chooses a grey scale color palate that is so bleak and boring it forces viewers to contemplate other aspects of the painting, most specifically the painter, himself, situated on the left. Of all the figures in the work, the one that replaced Velazquez’s self portrait is the largest and the most chaotic. It is cry from the artist for recognition, a little piece of himself infused an unoriginal piece of art in order to try to make it his own.

Conclusion

Picasso’s work on Las Meninas opened up a channel for criticism of his work. The questions of why and to what end sprang into the minds of many art historians who studied Velasquez and his original. Picasso must have known the agitation in the art world it would cause and this added to his goal of building a legacy. The connection between his copies and the original draws together two artistic masters in a way that was nearly as revolutionary as the style used to create both paintings.

With the introduction of cubism into the art scene during the early twentieth century, modern art was revolutionized. The effect of authorities, such as Picasso, on the art world cannot be understated. He brought about a new style that is seen to be “the very definition of modern art, providing the contemporary artist with an entire range of available approaches” (The Case of  “Las Meninas” 1957). None of Picasso’s other works are truer to this statement than Las Meninas. The many different ways he painted the same painting showed the world how the message and feel of a work of art can be changed and enhanced by stepping away from reality and working with other elements of art.

Margo’s Comment

Eleanor, Great paper! For real. You utilized your sources really well…Joel should be pleased that you used so many. You did a good job of incorporating quotes into your paper, except at some points when there were many quotes from many different authors is on paragraph, it got hard to understand who said what and why. Quotes are great, but perhaps you could eliminate some in some areas and simply paraphrase. Also, Your beginning was great, but it could be even stronger if you organized it a little differently. If you began by having the same intro, then stating your argument (that you feel Picasso’s painting symbolizes something different than what other critics think), the reader would be able to pick up on your purpose a little quicker and understand it better. After you introduced this, you could incorporate your description of the Spanish history by using it as support for why the objects in the painting symbolize what you think they symbolize (i.e., “This painting is not of a Greek temple, dangit, its of [insert idea here] because the war was going on at this time and…etc). Other than that, woo hoo! Great job. Margaret

A Contemporary Analysis of Picasso’s Guernica

During the early to mid twentieth century, a rise in abstract and cubic art coincided with political and cultural turmoil throughout the world. One painter in particular, Pablo Picasso, exemplified the cohesion of these two aspects of art: style and message. As a respected and revered contemporary painter, many of Picasso’s works have been picked apart and analyzed to discover the arguments he intended to make. In one of his most famous paintings, Guernica, Picasso utilizes a number of symbolic images as well as a cubist style to create a lasting piece that demonstrates his own antiwar feelings to the audience. The work has been the subject of a number of different controversies over the past sixty years, as many scholars debate its subtleties and pick apart Picasso’s use of imagery. However, the one message that is never disputed is the artist’s demonstration against war and the reflection of his feelings in the painting.

 

During the 1930s, Spain, like the rest of the world was on the brink of major upheaval. Towards the end of the decade, a civil war broke out between the Nationalists and Republicans that encompassed the entire country and had disastrous effects on civilian life. The population divided, people supporting either side were brutally persecuted, tortured and murdered for their political and religious beliefs. In 1937, the fragile Spanish Republican government commissioned, Pablo Picasso, one of the most respected artists of that time to create a work for the Paris World Fair (Guernica: Testimony of War). Picasso, deeply disturbed by the atrocities committed in his country, painted a black and white depiction of the bombing of the Spanish town, Guernica, by German forces in1937 (“Picasso’s Life”). Guernica went on to become the centerpiece for the Spanish exhibit in Paris and one of the strongest expressions of antiwar sentiments of the early twenty first century (Guernica: Testimony of War).

 

“Since its unveiling in 1937 there has been endless debate about what Picasso’s Guernica represents…” (Brunner 80). In her article, “’Guernica’: The Apocalypse of Representation,” Kathleen Brunner discusses the longevity of controversies surrounding Picasso’s work. She goes on to say that the main controversy stems from the fact that the painting doesn’t show the “actual bombing in the Basque town…” and that this entices confusion and discussion (Brunner 80). While I agree with Brunner that this painting is still a contemporary issue, I have to disagree with her reasoning. The scene depicted in the painting is made clear by its title and leaves little room for discrepancies. What merits consideration is the symbolism of the work, most specifically of the animals. The debate that started from the painting’s first showing in 1937 remains alive today in the minds and words of scholars who choose to discuss the imagery. This adds to Guernica’s impact and contemporary worth by ensuring that the painting remains relevant and discussed.

 

Style is also a large component of the message in the painting. Picasso, along with Georges Braque, is considered to be the father of cubism (Picasso’s Life). Cubism is a style of art that displays many geometric shapes incorporated into abstract designs. One of Picasso’s most famous cubist works is Guernica. In the article, “Picasso’s Guernica”, by Eugene Cantelupe, the author focuses on the geometric structures found in the cubism of the painting. He makes a comparison of the lines in the work to that of a Grecian temple, saying, “the oblong-pyramidal scheme of Guernica fuses the two basic geometric shapes of a Greek temple façade” (Cantelop 18). While I see how the author came to this conclusion, he is reading the cubist style in the wrong way. The Greeks incorporated many geometric shapes into their places of worship, but they also utilized much detail into robust images of gods and goddesses. Where as in Guernica, the geometric figures lack detail and serve to add to the chaos and disembodiment of the terrors depicted in the painting. Picasso showed the world that “it was possible to make political statements using non-realist forms” (Held and Potts 33). The cubist abstractism in this case actually adds to the display of tumultuous panic and the argument against senseless war by appealing to the emotions of audiences. The chaotic shapes representing things from dismembered limbs to terrified livestock transfers the horror of the event to the viewer and allows him to understand the passion behind Picasso’s antiwar feelings.

 

Picasso was able to manifest his feelings so prominently because they were in line with those of the authorities, the Republican government of Spain. The Republicans wanted the world to see the atrocities of the Fascists, and Guernica, on display in Paris, did just that. According to W. J. H. B. Sandberg in his article, Picasso’s “Guernica,” the Spanish building at the world’s fair was “not to be a commercial pavilion, but a home for democracy” (Sandberg 246).  He goes on to state, “Hundreds of thousands of exhibition goers wandered by, looking upon it as a wall depiction, just a Europe wandered by the human drama of the Spanish Civil war…” (Sandberg 247). Sandberg is mistaken in his belief that people “wandered by” and took little notice of the suffering in the work. The painting’s goal of impacting those who viewed it was furthered by the fact that it was displayed in such a prominent setting. Also, his claim that “Europe wandered by” the Spanish Civil War is erroneous; while it is true that most Western governments ignored the scuffle, volunteers from both the United States and the Soviet Union came to the aid of the Republicans in Spain fighting the Nationalists.

 

Other crucial elements of Picasso’s Guernica are the nature and position of the subjects (most specifically the bull and horse). In “Picasso’s Guernica”, Cantelupe draws attention to the relationship between the two animals. Many art critics and contemporary writers seek to analyze and explain this link; along with Cantelupe Carla Gottlieb also comments on the symbolism in her article “The Meaning of Bull and Horse in Guernica.” Cantelupe sees the bull as the male principle and the horse as the female (Cantelupe 20). He draws on examples from Picasso’s past work to explain his conclusions, most importantly, Minotauromachy. This work is an etching done by Picasso only a few years before Guernica and one that also features prominent bull and horse imagery. Gottlieb sees the horse as the “massacred civilian population of the Basque town [Guernica]” (Gottlieb 11). She comments on the location and stance of the bull saying, “it stands at the Western end and turns its head away from the nightmarish event” (Gottlieb 12). In this way, Gottlieb seems to be saying that the bull represents the governments of Western Europe, who stood by and did nothing to help relieve Spain of their sufferings.

 

To each author, the bull symbolizes something different, and while one of them may be correct, it is also valid to say that neither is. The bull is not a well-known symbol of any of those groups, so disregarding claims to such is acceptable. However, the situation remains that the bull is the only character throughout the painting that is not a victim. Rather it stands towards the outside, looking in on the chaos that is unfolding around it, doing nothing to help the  After doing more research on Minotauromachy, I came to agree with the Cantelupe. The bull in both paintings, while portrayed in completely different styles, is the aggressor, the horse the victim. This goes along with Picasso’s own statement that “…the bull is…brutality and darkness…” (Cantelupe 20).

 

Guernica, a synthesis of pop culture and political statement, is a constant reminder of the horrors of war and destruction that is caused by it. Picasso draws upon both cubist style and obfuscatory symbolism to convey his antiwar message to audiences and ensure its relevance in to years to come. While the world may never understand every aspect of Picasso’s painting, his intention is effectively transmitted. As Sandberg puts it Guernica is a “pathetic symbol of the recent past and a warning for the future (Sandberg 247).

 

 

Works Cited

(Picasso’s Life). Picasso.com, 18 Oct 2011. Web. <http://www.picasso.com/life/index.php&gt;.

Guernica: Testimony of War. Treasures of the World. 18 Oct 2011. Web. < http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/guernica_nav/main_guerfrm.html&gt;

Cantelupe, Eugene. “Picasso’s Guernica.” Art Journal, 31.1 (1971): 18-21.

Held, Jutta, and Alex Potts. “How Do the Political Effects of Pictures Come About? the Case of Picasso’s ‘Guernica’.” Oxford Art Journal, 11.1 (1988): 33-39.

Sandberg, W. J. H. “Picasso’s ‘Guernica’.” Daedalus, 89.1 (1960): 245-252.

Gottlieb, Carla. “The Meaning of Bull and Horse in Guernica.” Art Journal, 24.2 (1964): 106-112.

Brunner, Kathleen. “‘Guernica’: The Apocalypse of Representation.” The Burlington Magazine, 143.1175 (2001): 80-85.

 

Painters (Are) Painting What?

Painters Painting, a 1973 film directed by Emile de Antonio, is an expose on the blossoming art scene that began to grow in New York during and after the Second World War.[1] The story unfolds through various interviews with different artists, some American some foreign, who contributed to the abstract expressionist movement that characterized the work of this time period. The interviews take no real shape; they flow in whatever way the artist chooses to answer the question. Sometimes this is very direct; sometimes the response has absolutely nothing to do with the prompt. Either way, the freedom of expression given to the artists encourages them to speak about their work in a way that leads to a detailed, though somewhat confusing, story of American art during the mid 20^th Century.

Throughout the movie, one thing I noticed was that there were many references to an artist named Jackson Pollock. Everyone seemed to be comparing himself or herself to him, somebody else to him, or simply giving a commentary on his work. One artist even went so far as to describe Pollock’s art as “bad,” saying that while he didn’t have much artistic skill, Pollock made up for this with a big personality. Painting during World War II and after, many of Pollock’s works show characteristics of a war torn world: chaotic, dark colors, angry brush strokes. The movie exemplifies how in this new movement of abstract expressionism, the thought and meaning behind a painting can have more importance than the skill or aesthetic value of the work.

Another thing I noticed about the film is that it portrayed art during this time as more of a theoretical experience. Most of the work was done inside the artist’s head and little on the actual canvas. For example, one artist painted a stripe down a piece of canvas; not a lot of work involved in that endeavor. However, when he went on to explain how the stripe was to represent light coming from inside the painting itself, the true message behind the art was revealed. This goes along with the idea the art during this period was beginning to be more intellectual; artists worked for themselves instead of in the past when they were hired for jobs like portraits or decoration.

Overall, the structure of the movie also benefits its goal: to promote the artistic style of the time period. The way in which the interviews take place seems to be a version of abstractism: no real structure but a whole lot of meaning. To me, a viewer not all that fond of this art, the movie seemed to drag on, the interviews didn’t really have a direction. However, I could understand the general idea behind the film and appreciate the ingenuity in some of the artists who truly care about what they are doing and hope to share their feelings and beliefs with audiences. This film helps to display much of the New York art scene to viewers in a way that is thorough and real. However, the choppy film and sound editing along with the narrow subject matter may leave some viewers confused and disinterested.

---

[1] IMDB, Painters Painting (1973), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207645/.

Wheatstacks

The Art Institute of Chicago is one of the biggest art museums in the United States and houses many different exhibits, from contemporary sculptures to classic masterpieces. The extensive collections offer a world tour of famous artists from Van Gogh to Rembrandt to El Greco to Picasso and everything around, in between, above and below. One style that is extensively displayed throughout the museum is impressionism. The Art Institute houses one of largest impressionist collections in the world. Inside this style, a particular painting stands out: Wheatstacks-End of Summer, by Claude Monet. This work uses rich colors and textures to create a simple, but memorable picture that resonates with audiences.
Impressionism has always been a popular style amongst audiences for the simple fact that it is often pretty. Bright, warm colors used to depict cheerful scenes fill people with a happy feeling; very little does one come across an impressionist painting focused on sadness or ugliness. Another way that artists create this pleasant atmosphere is by filling their paintings with light. They paint in the light, when the colors are best and show scenes focused on the outdoors, when their subjects are surrounded by the natural glow. These paintings make people feel happy, and happiness is a feeling that people do not want to forget.
Texture also is an important factor when considering Monet’s Wheatstacks. The combination of oil paints on canvas, paired with the impressionists’ style gives the painting a rugged look. What Monet loses in detail through his quick brushstrokes, the canvas makes up for by helping to make the piles of hay more lifelike, the grass more real. The texture gives the appearance of looking out a window into a field rather than at a painting on a wall. In this way, Wheatstacks goes against the popular opinion that impressionist paintings are not lifelike because the stroke style takes away from the fine details. It proves that there are more components to a painting than just the colors and picture.
Monet is one of the most famous impressionist painters, and my favorite artist. I enjoy much of his work and was very excited to see some of the originals at the Art Institute. I had seen Wheatstacks in some of the books I have read about Monet and impressionism, but it never really held my attention. After seeing it in person, however, my opinion changed. I loved the simplicity of the subject yet the beauty of the work. The way the setting sun plays with the light and throws the shadows adds something to the painting that holds my gaze. The shadows themselves are my favorite part of the picture. Even though they are shadows, literally absences of light, Monet adds color and brightness to them in a way that brings out the beauty and joy of a sunset.
Impressionism is not everyone’s favorite style. Some people believe that while it’s pretty, it lacks meaning and depth. I feel the opposite. I see the effort and love each artist puts into his or her work. This is why I feel such a strong connection to this specific style. The ability to use simple elements such as color and texture to create beautiful masterpieces is a skill I wish I possessed. For now, however, I must be content with enjoying the work of those who have truly mastered the technique.

Artists At Play

Connecting art to the 21^st century public is a challenging task. Art 21, a documentary produced by PBS, tries to do just that. In one episode entitled “Play” audiences get a look into specific artists’ inspiration and techniques as they work on museum and private collections. Two artists, Jessica Stockholder and Arturo Herrera, both use different styles when creating their work. The episode delves into the process behind their creations and looks to connect them to today’s viewers. Art, as a whole, is a free flowing expression of passion that artists build upon with style and purpose to create an effect on both themselves and their viewers.

Jessica and Arturo were both influenced as people and artists by their culture and upbringing in a way that is exemplified in their work. Arturo’s medium of choice is to work with collages. Coming from a South American background and since living in a variety of places, Arturo describes people as “made up of so many fragments of different cultures…a mixture of things.” In this way he connects himself to his work, slices coming together to create a whole. Jessica, too, connects her past to her present life. She speaks of how, growing up, her parents were very verbal. In turn, Jessica’s work tends to reflect feelings, emotions, and thoughts that can be seen using sight, instead of relying on spoken or written language. Both these artists show how their style has grown over the years and been influenced by the things around them in a way that is personal, yet they choose to share it with the world.

Art is a product of the artist and is made to be shared, or can be kept private. This does not dampen the effects of the work; rather, it speaks to each person differently. Jessica creates art to share. Her installation pieces are exhibited in different galleries to be viewed by a number of audiences. Arturo, on the other hand, considers some of his work to be “deeply personal,” and chooses to keep it to himself. This selective showcasing allows artists to express themselves in a way that is familiar to them and allows them to create their deepest work. If they do choose to exhibit it, audiences feel this raw connection.

The style of each artist reflects a part of themselves in a way that has an impact on the final outcome. Jessica plans her work ahead of time. She considers her drawings to be “recipes,” formulas for what she plans to create. Herrera is the opposite. He works with uncertainty in his collages. His workplace is shown as a mess of paper cutouts strewn across a table. From this chaos he creates beautiful works that help to broadcast his message: that everyone is a sum total of parts.

Art has no rules to hold it back. It is an extension of the artist; it brings forth a piece of them in a way that can influence the way others think and feel. By incorporating bits of themselves into their work, both Jessica and Arturo have created something more than just art. They infuse the world with their influence in the best way they know how: beautiful and meaningful creations on display for everyone to see.

http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/timage_f?object=61379&image=15634&c=

 

Simply Elegant

If everything is an argument than art can be considered one of the most controversial forms of media. There are no rules, no boundaries holding an artist back from expressing himself or herself fully. In his work “Her Morning Elegance,” Israeli artist Oren Lavie works to argue for the integrity of the music video as a form of art, rather than simply promotion.

Lavie defies the conventional form and purpose of the music video. He uses stop motion photography in a way that gathers people’s attention and draws them into the story, even though the story has nothing to do with the actual music in the video. The piece demonstrates how music videos have separated from their original purpose: to promote, or advertise, an artist’s music. Now, the video itself can be considered a work of art.

The artist also allows for a break from complacency, a break from the expectation that music videos feature bright lights, flashing colors, dancing and money. His simple style reflects the idea that beauty itself is not complicated. This argument seems to have resonated amongst people; in 2009, Lavie’s “Her Morning Elegance” video was nominated for a Grammy award the in category of Best Short Form Music Video. (Barnea). This fact represents a subjective conclusion drawn by a select group of people. The strength behind this piece of evidence is that the decision makers behind the awards are generally considered to be a reliable mouthpiece for the opinions of the masses. Without the popularity of the video, it would never have been nominated. This provides logos to the piece that is backed up with ethos.

Lavie brings in some of his own credibility. As well as being a singer and songwriter, Lavie also is a theatre director. The fact that he, himself, directed this video helps to ensure viewers that the content, that is, the argument taken from the work has not been diluted by outside influences, such as a different director. Lavie was able to transform his thoughts and message directly into the video without having to go through a middle man.

In a different way, Lavie is able to speak to the audiences’ emotions by appealing to their values of character.  In many instances, when people are buying products, they look for those that are grown or manufactured nearby, thus supporting the local economy and culture. Lavie chose to use an Israeli model named Shir Shomron in his video, thus sticking close to home and helping to promote someone from his own culture. Instead of buying products, viewers buy into Lavie’s character and thus are more likely to consider his argument.

Throughout history, artists have been pushing boundaries, challenging their audiences to see the world through a different set of eyes. Similarly, as the concept of the music video has evolved, the way artists use them have, also. Lavie builds on this, incorporating his style and his ideas into the message, allowing viewers to recognize and build on his argument.

 

Works Cited

Barnea, Or. “Israeli singer-songwriter nominated for Grammy.” 12 May 2009.           http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3814873,00.html