While most of the work done by Bruce Nauman did not appeal to me initially, this piece sparked my interest in his work. The neon light display is eye-catching and meaningful. One of his first works, the neon piece was displayed in a grocery store window and was inspired by a beer sign. Even tho the sign does not necessarily look like art, it was placed in a public venue and made a statement pertaining to art. That, in itself I think makes the work artistic. I would also agree with the statement made as true artists should pursue truth in their pieces, Art, like anything else, has purpose and I do think that it's purpose is not solely aesthetic splendor but giving meaning to the world and ordinary things that are a part of it.
I think that this piece of art entitled "Booker T. Washington Ladder" done by Martin Puryear is one of the most interesting pieces of art I have ever seen. What makes this piece so appealing is its so called artificial perspective, making the ladder appear to go into space faster and more so than it actually does. The actual ladder is about 36 feet long but in its appearance to the eye seems as though it is much taller than that. The reasoning for the name of the ladder being the "Booker T. Washington ladder" is due to the the gradual route and upward progress that blacks undertook in the 19th century which Booker T. Washington strongly encouraged, and is symbolically reflected with the ladder.
Jeff Koons is an "artist" who essentially makes larger versions of certain objects, including balloon animals and other enlarged animals. For this reason, Jeff Koons is seen as a somewhat polarizing "artist" in the respect that some view his work as incredible while others don't consider him an artist at all. Some view him as an entrepreneur of art, who simply has a factory where all of the work is done for him. He develops the ideas and then rest of the "true" artists bring these ideas to life. Is simply developing these ideas enough to be considered an artist? If you yourself cannot create your vision, does that deem you incapable of being an artist? In my opinion, I believe so. In my eyes Jeff Koons is not an artist, but rather a creative business man, or an entrepreneur if you will. He comes up with interesting and creative ideas that are considered art, however he cannot bring them to life and I feel for an artist that is the biggest challenge to accomplish. Anyone can develop great ideas for art, but it takes a true artist with talent to bring their ideas to life. One work that is definitely a piece of art is entitled "Puppy", but again he was not responsible for physically creating this piece, and therefor I do not consider him the artist of this piece.
This painting by Picasso, called Garcon a la Pipe, was recently the most expensive piece of artwork sold at an auction. This changed when The Walking Man, by Alberto Giacometti, sold for a tenth of a million dollars more, at $104.3 million. So what makes The Walking Man just as impressive, if not more impressive, than Picasso's famous Garcon a la Pipe? It is difficult for me to see the beauty in The Walking Man. It does not seem like a piece of artwork that deserves such an enormous sum of money. It is interesting, but not so much that it seems reasonable to spend $104.3 million. Looking at Picasso's Garcon a la Pipe, it is much easier to see why this artwork sold at such a high price. Picasso is one of the most famous artists in the world, and this painting is not only beautiful but is also historic. It is clear to see that not your everyday person would have been able to paint this. The painting is interesting but also visually pleasing. In my opinion, this reaction is not as easy to find in The Walking Man, and it will be interesting to learn about different pieces of contemporary art and how so many people find so much beauty in them.
This 6 foot high sculpture by Alberto Giacometti sold for a record amount of $104.3 million at an auction in London. This work seems more like science to me, than art. I don't see how this is any different from the real human skeletons that are preserved at the Bodies Exhibit in NYC. Is it fair for such works to be sold at such a high price, especially in the kind of economic condition the world is in? As innovative and inspiring as Alberto Giacometti's work is, I find it hard to understand how someone could justify spending this large a sum on such artwork when even a small portion of this money could help much nobler causes... that survivors of the Haiti earthquake perhaps? As important as art is to our society, I am not sure what to think of think of this kind of auction.
Upon first glance, this painting by Josef Albers comes off as anything but art. In High School, I took a class called World Culture/World Literature and in this class, we had a text book entitled, Art of the Western World. During this course, we often used this text to scrutinize and study the art work of each time period as we studied the history of Europe.I was truly fascinated by the paintings and other artwork until contemporary works, when I became disappointed upon first glances.The minimalist, dada, and other contemporary artworks looked nothing like art to me.It was only after studying the meaning behind each movement that the works began to look like things I would be proud to frame on my wall.If I were to look at this painting before I took that class, all I would have seen would have been a big, ugly brown square and I would not help but be annoyed by the fact that the squares are not drawn in precise center of each other.
The simplicity of the painting can be a huge turn off to those seeking grandeur in art. But, is simplicity not a form of beauty?As it turns out, the work is actually an example of the Geometric Abstraction movement of art history, of which Josef Albers was a large influence.Albers painted a series of works under the name, Homage to the Square. In actuality, the painting is not merely a random collection of stalked squares but rather Albers’ ode to color.He was focused on exploring the different effects of color.Thus, each of the paintings in this collection looked like a stalk of squares, but the color pattern differed from one work to the next.The line graphics caused by the squares further demonstrated the dramatic geometric effect he intended to convey.The canvases displayed precision, succinct forms, and creative use of space, color and line. Are not these all aspects of art?Once the painting is looked at carefully, one can find all the elements of art embedded in it.His work was not only part of a large movement but also a platform of knowledge with regards to several important facets of art.His work not only taught his contemporaries but inspired later artists due to the advanced abstract qualities that he presented.
While the painting looks so simple, it is actually mind boggling once it is scrutinized.The superimposed squares are not merely stacked but rather painted in a manner that draws the eye in and out of the work repeatedly, almost to a hypnotizing effect.The colors are meticulously calculated such that each square seems to be altering in size to the observer’s eye.The hues of other squares are fascinating once you stare at the work for a period of time and it is amazing how his keen calculation of color and line leads the observer to see the spatial relationships to other squares as in constant alteration.
The contemporary art piece that I chose to look at was a piece done by John Olsen in 1987. The title of the piece is “Mundoo”. The reason that I chose this piece of art was because for me it stuck out as somewhat different than the rest of his pieces. I think one of the main reasons for this was because their was far less of a variation of color
All of his pieces of art are extremely appealing to the eye and are incredible with their layout and design. As I look at a majority of his other pieces of art I can actually vaugely see what he is attempting to portray in a somewhat abstract sense, for instance with his piece entitled “Startled Emus” from 1928:
However, when I look at his work with “Mundoo” I have absolutely no idea what he is attempting to portray or any sort of emotion, vision, or communication of what he has displayed. I really do enjoy this piece of art, I think that I simply find it somewhat confusing in the respect that I have absolutely no idea what is going on within the painting. If I were to initially guess what this painting were portraying without any background information I would guess that it was a simply design of curved lines with various widths that the artist just simply started with and just kind of went with resulting in “Mundoo”.
After researching about John Olsen, I found that he is infact an Australian artist who really started getting involved into the nature aspect within his paintings throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. This was mainly accomplished by his travels all across Australia and included but was not limited to lanscapes, plants, birds and animals. After further research I found that John Olsen painted the lanscape of “Mundoo Island” which is a location in Australia. Given this information and further analysis of the painting I think that this information definitely brings light to the painting. Looking at this painting now I can kind of make out some muddy or merky waters and rivers with several tributaries which make up for a landscape picture which was absolutely unclear to me before.
In conclusion I think that having some information about certain works of art is not necisarily imperitive but hepful nontheless. I think with such information as where the artist was from and what their interests are and small facts such as these can definitely make for a better understanding of these works of art. A better understanding can also lead to a greater appreciation for the artist, their work, and what they are trying to display or communicate through their masterpiece.
The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, by Damien Hirst, is a piece of artwork that is a real shark preserved in formaldehyde.It is one of the most expensive pieces of artwork in the world. At first, this artwork confuses me.It does not seem like something special and it is confusing that this is such a famous piece of artwork.I feel as though it is something that many different individuals would be able to create if given the proper materials. Taxidermists often complete similar works, and they are not recognized in such an extreme way for what they do. The fact that this is a real shark being preserved is interesting, but to me it does not necessarily seem like extremely impressive art, even though that’s how it is perceived by it’s fans all over the world.
The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living was created in 1992.The original shark was replaced after it deteriorated in 2006 and most recently the artwork has been displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.It is one of the most famous pieces of art in the world.Damien Hirst is an English artist, born in Bristol in 1965.He took courses at Leeds School of Art and then attended Goldsmiths College where he graduated in 1988 with a BA in Fine Art.His major starting point was an exhibition called “Freeze” that he organized while he was still a student at Goldsmiths College.
Hirst is internationally known and is known to be the richest artist up to current day.Death is a theme in many of his pieces of artwork, as it is in The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.He has also completed many other works that include preserved animals.His artwork is known to be very controversial.Even his fans often make controversial statements about his works, and say that it is hard to understand unless you have an art degree. It is believed that part of this is because his artwork is very hard to understand unless you experience it in person, and people are too quick to believe things said in the media.Viewing the artwork in pictures does not give you the full affect.
After researching Damien Hirst and looking further into The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, it is interesting to see that there is much more to this artwork then what immediately meets the eye.It is a piece of artwork that says a lot about life and death.This fierce looking shark gives an impression that speaks about death in a way that is hard to understand but emotional at the same time.The New York Times in 2007 states that “the shark is simultaneously life and death incarnate in a way you don’t quite grasp until you see it, suspended and silent, in its tank. It gives the innately demonic urge to live a demonic, deathlike form”.It is now easier to understand why this piece of artwork is so famous, even if I do not agree with the fact that he is killing animals for artwork.This work is striking and emotive, and will likely impress people as an amazing work for many years to come.
