I first found out about Jerry Uelsmann during photo class the other day and I immediately fell in love with his work. My teacher explained his work perfectly by saying that he created photoshop before it even existed. Uelsmann would take multiple pictures and after developing the film he would cut up the negatives and put them together seamlessly to create a flawless surrealist image. His photographs are so complex that he sometimes uses multiple enlargers just to get each photo perfectly the way he wants them to be. He approached photography with a completely different mindset and took photographs, which are already works of art, and made them into even better works of art. His photos have a sort of painterly feel to them because he reflects a lot of aspects that are characteristic to Surrealist paintings. The detail of his work is the most captivating part because I understand that making perfect prints is difficult enough without merging multiple negatives together.
Guayasamin is an Ecuadorian artist my friend recently showed me. He paints a lot of Picasso-esque people but he puts his own spin on them. As for his background, he graduated from a School of Fine Arts in Quito as a painter and a sculptor but he also studied architecture while he was there. He dedicated his life to art. He was also a supported the communist Cuban Revolution, especially Fidel Castro. He was given a prize for "an entire life of work for peace" and he is still considered a national treasure. Going back to his art, Guayasamin was inspired by different cultures. He even made jewelry that was inspired by pre-Colombian art. My personal favorite thing about his work is his use of color and how he borders the line between realism and abstraction. I appreciate his work even more knowing about the cool things he did with his life.
This quarter, I visited the Jasper Johns and Edvard Munch exhibit at the VMFA. I had heard of both artists before but had never really seen their work except pictures of The Scream (1893) by Munch online. Each artist had a completely different body of work so it was really interesting to see how the curator chose to present the pieces together in one show. Jasper Johns repeated the same subject matter frequently in his paintings and focused on the same patterns. I admired this repetition because it clearly allowed him to perfect his body of work and really tune in to his use of color and mark. However, I did prefer Munch's work a little more. His body of work was more varied and I especially liked his self portraits. He explored numerous mediums and subjects but there was always an underlying theme of sadness. He was the definition of the "troubled artist" and this shone through a lot of his work. I was not incredibly in love with either artists' work but I really enjoyed the exhibit.
This quarter’s topic was public art. I had no clue what this even was and I kind of mixed it up with social practice art. I was hoping to get a definite answer as to what social practice art is from either one of these articles but neither completely explained what it is. Both the articles written by Brooke Kamin Rapaport and Rachel Cooke expressed each author’s love for the art form. They only really explain how public art is a good thing, not what it entails. From what I’ve read, public art is art that is in a public space, as opposed to a gallery, and is funded by the government. All aspects of public art are controversial because not everyone is happy with every decision made about it. One of the biggest debates is that some people claim that the money could have been better spent elsewhere. There is no right or wrong answer in this situation because it is tricky--there will be people complaining no matter where money goes towards. Another controversy regarding public art is why the art cannot just be in a gallery. Cooke writes “ Its great virtue – its chief virtue – is that it is just there: you do not have to choose to see it; you must wander no hushed gallery to find it.” Public art is a difference experience than “private” art. It is intended to be within a public space for a reason. Sometimes, it is created to specifically compliment the space. Cooke also argues that “Like points on a compass, they were a way of seeing your city.” From how I interpreted it, she is talking about these public art pieces as if they are monuments. They are similar to murals, however they take up space. People also argue about what the art looks like. Someone always has something negative to say about a piece after it is created and the money is spent. John Willenbecher, a man who responded to Rapaport’s article, says that “Art intended to be permanent is another matter entirely and great care ought be taken before it is approved.” I agree with this, especially because the art is in an open area. I think these pieces can be more strictly regulated because everyone will see them whether they want to or not. I like the idea of art causing an impact on the community like this but it is very hard to manage and plan.
|
AuthorGrace Barron Archives
June 2018
Categories |