The chapter on the body had a painting by Chuck Close. The painting is name Fanny and it was finger painted. I find this painting interesting because it looks like a real picture. If it wasn’t for the description that states that it was finger painted I would have thought that it was just a picture. Chuck Close might have chosen this woman because you can see the way that someone looks after a life time of smoking. The way he painted this lady you can see every wrinkle on her face. The stoma on her neck tells us that she probably is or was a smoker. Is amazing how Chuck Close even manage to make the chain around her neck look like metal. This painting is a very well done painting that shows us how talented the artist is. Mario Mosqueda Ayon
Frida Kahlo has always been very interesting to me. I believe she was a very strong person, even since birth. Born with spina bifida, then Polio, the trolley accident and the emotional suffering her husband Diego Rivera caused her. What made her an even stronger individual was the ability to capture her horrific moments of her life through her paintings. Something I found very interesting about Frida was that she focused on painting only after she had her accident, while she was recovering. If it weren’t for her accident, would she have been the great painter that she was? G.Huerta
Cindy Sherman’s Untitled Film Still #35 ”is a picture of Sherman dressed as a socially prescribed poor woman who is hardened, trapped, sullen, and sexy.” (page 344) This was a reflection of myself I didn’t want to see: my loss of identity. In my attempt to improve myself, I lost my individuality and became “everybody else”.
After spending good portion of my life reading fashion magazines, starving myself and dreaming of fitting into size zero pants, I finally realize that’s not who I am. I love food too much, but I love my family more. Eating together with my family day after day is keeping us closer and tighter, meal after meal. I’m just grateful I finally learned what is most important in my life, thanks to Sherman’s photo. My family.
I won’t give this up, even if that means I won’t fit into size zero pants anytime soon.
In Frida Kahlo's Self Portrait with Monkey, I find the stoic gaze she has very intimidating and I noticed that the monkey seems to be mimicking her expression. She paints her head like she is turned away, yet all her features seem to be more straight on. I am curious if she used a mirror while she painted and how long she spent painting this piece. I am curious about her necklace as well. It seems to be wood? held together with red string, with a funny piece in the back by the monkeys arm. It may be mimicking the collar and leash around the monkey?? I understand why she used the monkey as a symbol of her alter ego, but why a monkey? Jessica
James Vander Zee's photograph "Couple in Raccoon Coats," stood out to me while we went briefly viewed it in class. The picture features a couple, a black man, and a white woman posing inside, and next to a mid 20's Cadillac. The background consists of dirty, old, and tasteless apartments which signify that the location that the picture was taken in was a poorer neighborhood. The car is big, its fancy, and really shiny. The couple in the picture are wearing very elegant, and large fur coats (Raccoon Fur), which seem to shine in the light, similarly to the car. Depending on which copy of the photo that you see, the picture is really clear and the forms are really crisp.
The first thing that came to my mind when I saw this picture is the large contrast in class. You have a wealthy BLACK MAN (controversial) with his WHITE WIFE, driving a seemingly brand new CADILLAC in a poor neighborhood. For its time, I can assume this was a very controversial photo for the time, but aside from that, the background really magnifies the wealthiness that this couple already radiates.
I have a slightly different opinion about James Van Der Zee's photograph "Couple in Raccoon Coats." I believe this photo was taken in a more upscale neighborhood of New York (specifically Harlem). There was a time in New York that many of the neighborhoods were nice and not rundown. The brownstone houses in the background have a lot intricate detail along the windows and stairs. There are also french doors , a poor neighbor would not have french doors for the entrance of the house. If you look at pictures of homes in New york today, one would see that these are still nice houses and still very expensive. I also think that the woman is a light skinned African American. The subjects of James Van Der Zee's photographs were African Americans, the whole point of this picture was to show white people that there could be upper class, happily married African Americans.
I assume that this photograph was taken durning winter because of the fur coats. The coats do symbolize wealth, but also keep the couple warm in their car (while driving); these cars were made mostly open (meaning no windows). Looking at the couple you can also tell that they were at the top of the fashion scene in the 1920's.
After seeing Cindy Sherman's "Untitled film still #35" in the book, I looked up the rest of her body of work. She has photographed herself for the last 30 years going through different phases from cinema, horror, sexuality and clowns. I find it interesting that she has always utilized wigs, costumes, and sometimes prosthetics in her work, never just simply photographing herself. This intrigues me because I too am a photographer but absolutely do not like to have my picture taken but when forced to do a self portrait I did it in costume. My feeling with Cindy Sherman's work is that she is only allowing us to see who she is or what she may be feeling in that moment with out really letting us "see" her. I believe she has effectively portrayed a loss of identity in her photographs. She also touches on the topic of self-esteem presented by the media and how we are so focused on how others look and trying to imitate what we see we can't truly be happy with ourselves while in that mind state.
I was really looking forward to this chapter since it was about the body. I am a nursing major and currently taking an anatomy course and I was hoping this chapter would be some what related to what I have been studying. I was a little disappointed, but after reading this chapter I found it all really interesting. Observing the pictures by their posture and facial expressions can tell the audience so much about what they are thinking and possibly what the artist was thinking too. The Handspring, a flying pigeon interfering was fun to look at. I used to take gymnastics so it reminded me of my old videos. It looks weird seeing the process of a handspring in different pictures and from the front point of view.
The first week of school when I read the syllabus Chapter 13 is what caught my eye. The first thing that came to mind was how is art portrayed in the body? My answer was Body art, Such as tattoos. After reading the the chapter i realized that, tattoos was the not the answer. In the intro of the chapter its says: "We study our bodies to communicate attitudes; the ways we dress and walk are meaningful to the group" This is when i realized that its not art ON the body that makes art but how we carry ourselves as an individual. Our own body is what makes art.
The subject of my blog is Doryphoros (Spear-bearer). My understanding is that Greek art portrayal of the body was all about the idealization of the human form. This to me says a lot about the culture. Because of their emphasis on the physical, their society must have been devoid of appreciation for what is truly spiritual. While it is true that their devotion to physical traits do train and develop charachter and aspiration, still, it does not truly develop anything beyond what we know and see, thus ignoring the spiritual, which is what is unknown and unseen. This work of art is good for what it represents. The body and shape are well built and near perfection; something probably most greeks were not, even with heavy training. Nudity adds to the effect of physical perfection. It is a perfect example of a society that gloridied human physical accomplishment and perfection.
The mathematical Doryphoros may be visually beautiful but Michelangelo’s statue of David has soul. Maybe this is due to the fact that Doryphoros is a self contained statue and David is not, he’s supposed to be seeing Goliath for the first time. It could also be because we are all familiar with the story and let our imaginations unconsciously add goliath into the scene, therefore completing the sculpture for us. Every feature has been thought out as opposed to calculated and I feel that all of these factors play a part in making David far more relatable than Doryphoros. Today if you compare the two sculptures and ask, “Which one of these figures is ideal?” I think David would be the overall choice. He wasn’t created to be ideal… Or was he? Michelangelo was replicating David as he felt God would have created him. I don’t know how he could do that without divine communication but Michelangelo was clearly a master of his subject and any aspiring artist would be foolish not to study his works to try to capture the brilliance he so effortlessly embodies in each of his pieces.
The chapter on the body had a painting by Chuck Close. The painting is name Fanny and it was finger painted. I find this painting interesting because it looks like a real picture. If it wasn’t for the description that states that it was finger painted I would have thought that it was just a picture. Chuck Close might have chosen this woman because you can see the way that someone looks after a life time of smoking. The way he painted this lady you can see every wrinkle on her face. The stoma on her neck tells us that she probably is or was a smoker. Is amazing how Chuck Close even manage to make the chain around her neck look like metal. This painting is a very well done painting that shows us how talented the artist is.
ReplyDeleteMario Mosqueda Ayon
Frida Kahlo has always been very interesting to me. I believe she was a very strong person, even since birth. Born with spina bifida, then Polio, the trolley accident and the emotional suffering her husband Diego Rivera caused her. What made her an even stronger individual was the ability to capture her horrific moments of her life through her paintings. Something I found very interesting about Frida was that she focused on painting only after she had her accident, while she was recovering. If it weren’t for her accident, would she have been the great painter that she was?
ReplyDeleteG.Huerta
Cindy Sherman’s Untitled Film Still #35 ”is a picture of Sherman dressed as a socially prescribed poor woman who is hardened, trapped, sullen, and sexy.” (page 344) This was a reflection of myself I didn’t want to see: my loss of identity. In my attempt to improve myself, I lost my individuality and became “everybody else”.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending good portion of my life reading fashion magazines, starving myself and dreaming of fitting into size zero pants, I finally realize that’s not who I am. I love food too much, but I love my family more. Eating together with my family day after day is keeping us closer and tighter, meal after meal. I’m just grateful I finally learned what is most important in my life, thanks to Sherman’s photo. My family.
I won’t give this up, even if that means I won’t fit into size zero pants anytime soon.
YQK
In Frida Kahlo's Self Portrait with Monkey, I find the stoic gaze she has very intimidating and I noticed that the monkey seems to be mimicking her expression. She paints her head like she is turned away, yet all her features seem to be more straight on. I am curious if she used a mirror while she painted and how long she spent painting this piece. I am curious about her necklace as well. It seems to be wood? held together with red string, with a funny piece in the back by the monkeys arm. It may be mimicking the collar and leash around the monkey?? I understand why she used the monkey as a symbol of her alter ego, but why a monkey?
ReplyDeleteJessica
James Vander Zee's photograph "Couple in Raccoon Coats," stood out to me while we went briefly viewed it in class. The picture features a couple, a black man, and a white woman posing inside, and next to a mid 20's Cadillac. The background consists of dirty, old, and tasteless apartments which signify that the location that the picture was taken in was a poorer neighborhood. The car is big, its fancy, and really shiny. The couple in the picture are wearing very elegant, and large fur coats (Raccoon Fur), which seem to shine in the light, similarly to the car. Depending on which copy of the photo that you see, the picture is really clear and the forms are really crisp.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that came to my mind when I saw this picture is the large contrast in class. You have a wealthy BLACK MAN (controversial) with his WHITE WIFE, driving a seemingly brand new CADILLAC in a poor neighborhood. For its time, I can assume this was a very controversial photo for the time, but aside from that, the background really magnifies the wealthiness that this couple already radiates.
David
I have a slightly different opinion about James Van Der Zee's photograph "Couple in Raccoon Coats." I believe this photo was taken in a more upscale neighborhood of New York (specifically Harlem). There was a time in New York that many of the neighborhoods were nice and not rundown. The brownstone houses in the background have a lot intricate detail along the windows and stairs. There are also french doors , a poor neighbor would not have french doors for the entrance of the house. If you look at pictures of homes in New york today, one would see that these are still nice houses and still very expensive. I also think that the woman is a light skinned African American. The subjects of James Van Der Zee's photographs were African Americans, the whole point of this picture was to show white people that there could be upper class, happily married African Americans.
ReplyDeleteI assume that this photograph was taken durning winter because of the fur coats. The coats do symbolize wealth, but also keep the couple warm in their car (while driving); these cars were made mostly open (meaning no windows). Looking at the couple you can also tell that they were at the top of the fashion scene in the 1920's.
-Michelle Douglas
After seeing Cindy Sherman's "Untitled film still #35" in the book, I looked up the rest of her body of work. She has photographed herself for the last 30 years going through different phases from cinema, horror, sexuality and clowns. I find it interesting that she has always utilized wigs, costumes, and sometimes prosthetics in her work, never just simply photographing herself. This intrigues me because I too am a photographer but absolutely do not like to have my picture taken but when forced to do a self portrait I did it in costume. My feeling with Cindy Sherman's work is that she is only allowing us to see who she is or what she may be feeling in that moment with out really letting us "see" her. I believe she has effectively portrayed a loss of identity in her photographs. She also touches on the topic of self-esteem presented by the media and how we are so focused on how others look and trying to imitate what we see we can't truly be happy with ourselves while in that mind state.
ReplyDeleteI was really looking forward to this chapter since it was about the body. I am a nursing major and currently taking an anatomy course and I was hoping this chapter would be some what related to what I have been studying. I was a little disappointed, but after reading this chapter I found it all really interesting. Observing the pictures by their posture and facial expressions can tell the audience so much about what they are thinking and possibly what the artist was thinking too. The Handspring, a flying pigeon interfering was fun to look at. I used to take gymnastics so it reminded me of my old videos. It looks weird seeing the process of a handspring in different pictures and from the front point of view.
ReplyDeleteThe first week of school when I read the syllabus Chapter 13 is what caught my eye. The first thing that came to mind was how is art portrayed in the body? My answer was Body art, Such as tattoos. After reading the the chapter i realized that, tattoos was the not the answer. In the intro of the chapter its says: "We study our bodies to communicate attitudes; the ways we dress and walk are meaningful to the group" This is when i realized that its not art ON the body that makes art but how we carry ourselves as an individual. Our own body is what makes art.
ReplyDeleteThe subject of my blog is Doryphoros (Spear-bearer). My understanding is that Greek art portrayal of the body was all about the idealization of the human form. This to me says a lot about the culture. Because of their emphasis on the physical, their society must have been devoid of appreciation for what is truly spiritual. While it is true that their devotion to physical traits do train and develop charachter and aspiration, still, it does not truly develop anything beyond what we know and see, thus ignoring the spiritual, which is what is unknown and unseen. This work of art is good for what it represents. The body and shape are well built and near perfection; something probably most greeks were not, even with heavy training. Nudity adds to the effect of physical perfection. It is a perfect example of a society that gloridied human physical accomplishment and perfection.
ReplyDeleteThe mathematical Doryphoros may be visually beautiful but Michelangelo’s statue of David has soul. Maybe this is due to the fact that Doryphoros is a self contained statue and David is not, he’s supposed to be seeing Goliath for the first time. It could also be because we are all familiar with the story and let our imaginations unconsciously add goliath into the scene, therefore completing the sculpture for us. Every feature has been thought out as opposed to calculated and I feel that all of these factors play a part in making David far more relatable than Doryphoros. Today if you compare the two sculptures and ask, “Which one of these figures is ideal?” I think David would be the overall choice. He wasn’t created to be ideal… Or was he? Michelangelo was replicating David as he felt God would have created him. I don’t know how he could do that without divine communication but Michelangelo was clearly a master of his subject and any aspiring artist would be foolish not to study his works to try to capture the brilliance he so effortlessly embodies in each of his pieces.
ReplyDeleteFin.