Museum Homework (blog #4)

I want to remind you all that for this week's homework you need to visit the Museum of Fine Arts Houston or your could also visit the Contemporary arts Museum across the street. Check their websites (in the links) for hours and locations- I know that if you show your student ID and tell them you are there for a homework assignment you will get in free to the Museum of Fine Arts- the Contemporary Arts museum is always free.

LSC –North Harris

Art Appreciation Spring 2012

Museum visit and Art review assignment

Instructions: Take as much time as you can to look around the museum until you find a work of art that you are drawn to or are most interested in to write about. You can pick absolutely any work of art in the museum.  It is extremely important that you complete this writing in the museum, DO NOT rely on your memory! If you can, take a photo of the art that you choose. In most cases they will let you shoot without a flash. Then post the photo on the blog where you will also turn in the review. This post is due by Monday 2/20.

Basic info:

Artist’s Name (if available):

Title:

Date:

Materials:

Size:

Part 1:

Formal (Visual) Analysis –Describe the piece visually and be as descriptive and detailed as possible. What are the size, colors, materials, or sounds?

Part 2 :

Finding Meaning- Use titles, text, symbols, how the subject matter represented (abstract, representational, nonrepresentational), role of the art, the cultural origin, or any other info you can to try to find the meaning of the work.

Jules Olitski "Beauty, Beauty"

After watching this video the first thing that comes to mind is the quote, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. That being said I truly believe “beauty” is still an important part of modern art. I am intrigued by an artist by the name of Jules Olitski. Even though Olitski states that beauty in art is now politically incorrect he still believes it has value and hopes art is beautiful. He began his career as an abstract and color fielding painter. He painted with a spray can and flatness technique; the video then portrays a man who had a distinctive change in the way he drew at the latter stages of his life. He began painting landscapes when he was in his late 70’s early 80’s. He stated he did this because “he wanted to paint landscapes.” He also quoted Oscar Wilde by stating that “nature imitates art”, his examples included that nobody used to admire a sunset, until they notice sunsets in Monet’s art.  He became one with nature and really brought out the beauty of it in his work. Even though his initial type of art (flatness) was pretty much exiled, he continued to do what he thought was beautiful. Whether that was continuing his colorful abstract pieces, his spray can paintings, or his landscape drawings, they were all beautiful in their own way. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  

Henri Matisse-colorful or without colourful

by Henri Matisse

Heart by Henri Matisse

 by Henri Matisse

Henri Matisse is a leader of modern art of beauty. His works focus on portraying the beauty of not only women but also very simple objects of the daily life. Many of his works are very colorful such as Heart. On the other hand, there are works less colorful but focusing on shape that Henri wanted to portray and emphasize. For example, the picture of a woman up there was colored with only blue, but the beauty of women's body was emphasized excellently.

In my opinion, Henri portrayed the beauty very specially in his own way. In the first picture that I uploaded there, the woman looks very fantastic and fit with the surroundings. He did not portray exactly how the woman looked like but her glory is still obvious and even better described with that setting.

Henri Matisse is worth being respected as the leader of modern art of beauty because he tried to find his own voice in his works. They are attractive and special.

Patrick Heron!

                                                                   "Azalea Garden"

                                                                     "Boats at Night"

Mr. Heron's painting are of great beauty. His paintings were decorative with meaning behind them. Heron's earlier work was abstract. You could see the "Boats at Night". Later his work became even more abstract, as you see in "Azalea Garden". I love the fact that Patrick Heron painted till the day he died. His work is very beautiful, as most of the times he was just painting the things he saw around him.

Henri, Mettise

 Henri-Émile-Benoît Matisse

December 12, 1869 – November 3, 1954

Henri Matisse. Large Seated Nude,1925-29. Bronze

     Henry Matisse was a well known painter and sculptor. Matisse is one of the artists who helped the developments in plastic arts.He also helped in the developments in painting and sculpture. For instance, in the sculpture large seating nude, Matisse sculpted a women but not just any women a large beautiful women. He worked on this sculpture for many years. To me Henri Matisse was a great painter and sculptur and

he also bwon a recognition as a leading figure in modern art.  

Contents  [hide]

Beauty in Art

in watching the videos i chose a man by the name of Chris Ofili. i chose ofili because i liked the way he approached art using tecniques and objects such as elephant dung to bring what he would call "beauty" to his paintings. i looked for a lot of ofili's artwork and when i saw a multitude of his pieces side by side it seemed like to me that they all had some sort of an african trible vibe. a lot of ofili's works are abstract an to me personally i feel that in escense the beauty of ofili's work truly comes from the colors that he chooses to use in some of his paintings. not only does the image itself have meaning but the color has meaning itself.

Horror! Shocking Art Assignment

A thought that comes to mind after watching “This is Modern Art: Shock! Horror!” would be bizarre. I wouldn’t consider this type of art to be horrifying or gruesome, but I do notice the shock. I believe these artists portray their lives to a certain extent. Their art consist of their beliefs, and lifestyles or fetishes. The video mentioned that Goya (the Father of shocks) probably suffered from a nervous breakdown, or some type of anxiety disorder. He was more of a realist and his work drastically changed towards the end of his life after he endured the loss of his wife, along with a disease that left him deaf. The video states Francis Bacon stated he “loved shocks because shocks were a part of life.” This just demonstrates that all these artists were portraying their own life, not creating a new genre for the sake of art. The role of art I would closely relate with Horror Art would be that it helps see the world in a new innovative way. There have always been unique people, but these artists actually brought attention to themselves and their types. It allowed normal people to experience what these artists see on a normal basis. Now as far as using public funds to purchasing this type of art, I don’t know. Art is meant to be debated, art is meant to be seen from different perspectives, so anyone can argue whether or not public funds should be used to purchase it. I believe the best question is to consider if the art is appropriate for each location. If it is then I see no reason to display it with public funds.

Ezekiel 20: 23

To be honest, I did not find this so called "Shock Art" very shocking at all, if anything, it was amusing. I think that there is very little now-a-days that will actually shock a normal person of this generation. With the invention of the internet and the largely uncensored flow of information and media that ricochets from one computer to another in every corner of the earth, there is very little a person with access to the world wide web hasn't seen. From grotesque to simply inappropriate, it can be found on the internet. However, I did especially appreciate the last work that was shown because it made me think of Ezekiel 20: 23. (:

SHOCK HORROR

What is shocking to me is the way each artists portray how thier derange minds are it was like walking into a timeline of nothing but killings ,incese , ponography, devil worshiping and this didnt look like art to methis looked like something out of the horror films.It was really horrific and shocking this is not something i would go out and see nowhere. the film with the chocalate dripping from someone asss was disgussing i wanted to throw up when i was looking at it and the nude scen of the little kids with thier mouths shape like asses and some had penis mouth portrayed to me that it is okay to let little kids be fundle with and the body parts that were amptated off was very disgusting also this is another side of art i didnt know exists and if i was introduce to that first i wouldnt be taking this class nw im a little open minde about what art is and now i truly know the meaning art is in the eye of the beholder because what you see is not always what the artists portrays

Shocking!!!!!!!

  Francis Bacon's Head VI, 1949

Diego Velázquez, Pope Innocent X, 1650

 To me Francis Bacon was an artist who portrayed violence in his work of art. For example, he used Diego Velazquez image of the Pope Innocent X, that was drawn in 1650 and played around with the image.The pope appears to be tortured inside a glass box, and he screams as if he was screaming for help. Also, his skin is stretched out and pulled from his face. It also looks like if the pope is sitting on his chair. The image looks scary and its schocking to me just to think that he used the image of the pope and self destructed the image. The pope means alot to many Catholics, just as it means to me. While, Diego Velasquez image portrayed a highly respected Pope who people looked up to, and he represents God.

Modern Art: Shocking and Scaring

These artists use their art to express the horrors and sexuality of life. It's because of their art that we are not shocked when exposed to horror or sexually explicit movies or videos. It's my opinion that this type of art will stay popular, because people will always want more and more. For example the art work used in the Nightmare on Elm Street movie was very scary which made it seem real. As a result, the movie was very popular and several sequels were released to give the audience more. Though some of the art was very sexually explicit, I actually found the art very interesting mainly because it not all pretty and beautiful. I believe the role of the type of art should be used in movies and horror themes, Public funds should support this art just as it support all others because this art is based on some of life's realities. It also allow us to use our imagination, while triggering other senses. 

Lovely! Lovely! (blog #3)

And now for something completely different.
What about beauty in art, is it still important? Does it still matter? Watch the final episode of "This is modern art" where Collings focuses on a few artists that embrace the power of beauty in their work. Choose one of the artists from the video to look up further and respond to.

PS
Remember that I have included links on the blog to help you find reputable sites for research. Be careful where you get info and pictures on the web, many of you are posting images of art that is not by the correct artist. If you do include images of art in your post, always include the artist's name and title.

Is It Shocking AND Offensive?

These images by Jake Chapman and Dinos is very offensive. ALL of their art in some way is offensive. First watching, I said this couldn't be art. It just had to be something terrible that they might think is funny. Further watching, I did notice however that it was art. Just as paintings suck as Picasso and Warlock get fundings so should art such as Dinos and Chapman. Artist don't make art to please a certain group, they do it to send a message and make the audience feel a certain way. If these artist choose to do it in this form or fashion, it shouldn't be any different. And you're right! Who gets to choose what is offensive of not?

Modern Art

The artist only express their thoughts and feelings. There are many others that feel that this is a way to express their most enter thoughts. These works of modern art is not excepted by the churches. Their work change over the years, because of freedom of speech and expression is one. They have the right to express their selves. I don't feel that public funds should support this kind of art. The people should choose for themselves if this modern art is offensive or not. This type of art is offensive to me. I would not have chosen to see this type of art. It really have no meaning or relate to anything to me. corathomas