My Art, and This Quarter

Life
Oil On Canvas
Kelsee Franz

My work as an artist, And what I've been inspired by

The Sunsets Song
Photography
Kelsee Franz

This quarter I had alot more fun with all the surreal images, the realistic and the photography that was shown to us. There were artists such as Monet, Manet, Dali, and Warhol that really inspired me when I create my own artwork. I love the instant capture of impressionism and post-impressionism, the creative minds of Dali with his own interesting way to look at the world, and Warhol, that never bounced around what he wanted to create. All of these artists and more inspire my work, even though I may not practice to be exactly like them, I still enjoy creating art through the same concept ideas and techniques as they do. 

I feel that photography with sunsets and using a play on light is a lot more effective than painting a sunset with a glare. I love the wildness and crispness of the grass against the solar flare that seems to cut through the image. this to me is what impressionism is, instant, a moment in time that will never be again. A perfect day to relive over and over though a single photograph; that is what inspires me about impressionism. its beautiful in its instantaneous nature. 

Wave Dancer
animated digital painting
Kelsee Franz

Another art movement that really inspires me to create is the surrealist movement. they create strange and new creatures and environments that look like they could exist, but don't. Their use of their imaginations and their ability to replicate what they perceive within their own minds is fascinating, and I wish I could do the same as well as they do. However I guess because surrealism only slightly pops up in my work through fantasy characters, drawings and animations it can be considered surrealism since it seems to be something that isn't. or rather, something that could exist in this world along side us. I enjoy that aspect greatly and I relish any opportunity to create my own fantastical creature within an environment that may or may not look familiar. Although I really enjoy creating art traditionally (such as the painting above) I also truly find digital art to be fascinating as well. The freedom of color mixing and the unlimited amount of media look-a-likes, colors, and brushes that are all at your disposal is like a candy store to me. I grew up without much money so I had to earn my own money for art supplies and I learned very quickly how expensive that can all be. So in order to create more in depth worlds and characters I bought and taught myself how to draw using a tablet and Photoshop when i was 14. Its been a long process, but now I have almost complete freedom when working with this particular media.

Music
Alabaster and Steel rod
Kelsee Franz

Finally the last artist/movement that I've included in this is andy warhol and his take on pop culture through pop art. His bold use of color and  basic desire to create art non stop is inspiring to me. Also, he stood up for what he believed in, and created art based off of that idea. Basically I find it inspiring that he never created art for anyone but himself. I'm sure he did it for a living, but he was free to choose his subject matter and translate it into big bold statements with lots of color and extra lines. All in all, I'm not entirely sure where all of my different themes of art and techniques would be organized into movements or specific styles, but I'm okay with that. I create art because it allows me a means to express myself visually, and to communicate what my thoughts are through that means. 

Endangered Species: Artist

Andy Warhol

Endangered Artist

Andy Warhol
Endangered Species: Grevy's Zebra
1983

Andy Warhol has been known for many famous images such as his Campbell soup prints, Marilyn Monroe, and his disaster series. But even after researching Warhol himself, his series on endangered species never came to my attention until after I began searching through artstor for an interesting Warhol that I'd never seen before. I was shocked to discover that he's done 10 different animals for this series, which were to help conserve endangered animals, and to get attention to the fact that they are scarce in the wild and that we are the only ones that can do anything. I've included the ten other prints, just because I find them more interesting together than they would be on their own, however I am focusing on the Grevy's Zebra piece for this paper. 


This series on endangered animals began from a discussion Andy Warhol had with Ronald and Frayda Feldman about deteriorating coastlines and animals that were endangered. Some of the animals on this list (such as the bald eagle and the pine barrons tree frog) were taken off this list, so Warhol may have made a difference with that, however one of the                       animals on this list has completely died out... The black rhino. 


This image is interesting to me because Andy Warhol took a famous image of a Grevy's Zebra and then overlayed it with color and lines. these bright color spots and elegant lines that follow the image's curves are very beautiful to me because it really makes the animal beneath it stand out. Which in the long run is what Warhol wanted, to get peoples attention about these endangered animals. And he was able to do it in a way that allowed him to stay within his pop art. 

Andy warhol was a very secretive person, he told the media very little and wanted to give the cool impression that he didnt care about much; as to keep his private life his own. This is also the reason why alot of his art doesnt seem to mean much at first glance. If someone didnt know this zebra image was done by Andy Warhol, would they have stopped and truly looked at it? I would. But if it wasnt known that it was an Andy Warhol (when he was still alive and had his secrets) would people have read more into these images without the context of Andy Warhol's "No reason" artwork? Would people notice the way the animal's eyes stare into you, pleading against their fate? Or would they be hung right next to the soup cans, passed by for a more famous Andy Warhol work?


This series has to be my favorite by Andy Warhol, because of the bright use of color, bold use of line and just the overall depiction of how the animals fill the page make it hard to look away. In a way, its meaning behind it and the reason it was created makes it that much more important in my eyes. I think that because of the meaning behind these specific animals  (some more so then than now) helps to make them really look at you, instead of just being on a canvas in a gallery, soulless and gathering dust. 

I Love the use of contrasting colors in Grevy's Zebra, the light blue background resognates with the orange, yellows and reds within the stripes of the zebra. These colors help to emphasize and attract the eye, and the interesting use of line keeps the eye within the image itself. I also find it interesting how you can still see part of the original black and white image of the zebra. Almost as if Warhol wanted to leave a remnant of the real zebra underneath the bright neon colors that can detract from the overall sadness behind this image. I like how he immortalized these animals in pop art culture, so that they will never be forgotten, especially if nothing can be done for them. 


And yet again I feel as if these animals mean so much more because of the reason and intent that went into creating them. The fact that a small version of the Grevy's Zebra has a price tag estimated around 40-50,000$ is enough to say that people noticed this series, and perhaps he was able to get something done for them. 


Also something in this image that I find interesting, is how the zebra is balanced within the square format. the body of it comes out of the bottom right  of the image, but he balanced out the image by adding the yellow line of the ear outside of the image. this helps to pull your eye back into the piece and to keep it traveling around the page with the stripes and organic lines keeping the interest within the image. 

Information found at:
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/press/11-oct-dec/112111warhol.htm

&

http://www.warhols.com/endangeredspecies.html

Dadaism, is it Art?

How Dadaism and Surrealism Changed Art

World War I was a huge shocking conflict in the world. there were new weapons and rules of warfare, and hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in an attempt to do what they were told. Thus, I'm truly not surprised that because of the horrors of this war and the aftermath of all the death and destruction, it seems only natural that the artists of the time would want to speak out about such a dreadful topic. So how were the original Dadaists going to do this? Remind the world what it was like to go against what people tell you to do, what they tell you is right, and just do something outrageous and random. I  also found it amusing that you said in your lecture that its been said that dada ists needed a word so just flipped through the dictionary and picked something random to suit their needs. oddly enough it ended up being a perfect name to go along with their movement. Dadaists believed in doing something, creating something, just because you can. In this way I can agree that art was rattled, but I don't believe it actually changed the idea of art. Just modified it a little bit. 

Art-an expression of a concept. 

This definition is what art is, so thus it wasnt changed, it just had several new players. 

Surrealism wasnt much different. Artists decided it would be a good idea to take subconscious thoughts and imagery and form a series of these thoughts into art. This made an entirely new genre, and forced people to look at something so obscure, so strange, that it truly didnt make sense. But on the other hand, almost simultaneously it does make sense. Artists like Salvador Dali take something completely strange and create almost subconscious shapes and themes. Most of his paintings involve a hidden face or figure. The one on pg 248 of A-G is no different. There is an odd looking statue of a hand, and then what first appears to be the same figure but in a different color. 

This image is the pinnacle of Surrealism because of all the hidden meanings of sex and the deeper concepts of the subconscious mind. also because it stretches the mind to think that everything within it could have meaning other than whats there. for example, is the dog eating the bird that came out of the egg? and what does that type of flower mean? does it mean death or destruction? or simply beauty and peace? and why does it become a person's head in the statue next to it? all become interesting questions that cant always be answered with a simple yes or no, "its pretty" or "its ugly". Theres simply just more meaning than a "normal" piece of artwork. 

I for one really love surrealism, the odd things that happen within these images, helps to stretch the imagination, and hints that what you first see, isnt the only thing you get. 

I believe that "found objects" and "readymades" can be considered art because I believe  that art is an expression of a concept. I dont think it truly matters who creates the form, if someone else sees something within that form and changes it slightly to complete the concept that they saw in their mind, then that fulfills the definition of art for me. 

Primal Painting

Primal Painting

(a look at Primitivism) 

First off to answer the demand of why this nude is so different from the western art norm of the female nude is quite simple. Depicted above is a short haired, strong lined, and curvaceous woman lying in some sort of hole outside surrounded by foliage of different origin. Classically accepted as the norm in western culture, female nudes were usually inside, and surrounded by finery. They were painted with colors as contrast, and never used outlines for their figures. the women were also normally turned to not completely face the viewer, but usually had a 1/3 view of their breasts and abdomen. I believe that the only thing this nude has in common with the western nude is the fact that she isn't looking straight at the viewer. 

The fact that she is outlined with such ferocity and uses a lot of different colors on the skin is enough alone to consider this painting to be considered Avant-garde. However since this painting is done in a non-western style of a 'Savage' woman outside in the wilderness it is considered to be a primitivism styled painting. In the late 1800s this would have been seen as going back to the pureness of painting and art, because there wasn't modernistic views of buildings or trains in the background interrupting the ability for the work to be purely art. The woman in this painting is boldly painted, and doesn't really have much detail in her face or limbs, her feet seem too big and idealized for her body and don't get me started on her lumpy buttocks. 

This work has definatly been influenced greatly by primitivist paintings and teachings of Gauguin's opinions about primitivistic standards and painting 'savage' subjects in their natural surroundings, Which of course meant in the wilderness when it was referred to by Gauguin. The brush strokes are freer and reflect more feeling than the plain and boring realistic or impressionistic nonsense brushstrokes that didn't leave the viewer picking up on any emotion in the painting at all. This painting is easily comparable to Gauguin's work on the islands, since the color choices are similar as is the subject matter, the brushstrokes,and on top of all that there is an equal attention to blues and exotic color combinations surrounding the figure. 

The figure herself can also be purely primitivist on her own, just by the main fact that she is lying in such a way that doesn't leave much for the imagination, her hair is cropped short and her feet are largely disproportional to her body. This painting also has a very post-impressionistic feel to it that really captures the viewer and gives interest where if compared to her western nude counterparts, isn't necessarily always there. Her face is poorly detailed as well which I feel gives her a very anonymous feel, almost as if the artist is willing the viewer to not think of her as entirely human. but instead as a savage or primal woman resting in the wilderness. 

Her features are also very feminine in her face, however the rest of her body shows odd lumps and muscles that probably wouldnt be as defined in classically risen western young ladies. If this painting had come out in the 1800's like Gauguin's paintings, I assume it may have come as a blatent shock to the art world, to see a young lady reclining in such a way, completely nude, out in the wilderness. I can image mothers at the time covering their young daughters eyes at such a painting now, or perhaps speculating at the painting since it isnt entirely realistic, so it could the woman could be argued as not being real at all. 

As far as any of us know however, is the background of the young lady reclining. For all we know, she could be a professional model for painters and the artist chose to put her in such a setting, and perhaps wasnt raised in the environment depicted at all. But at this point, its purely speculation. 

Modernity

Modernity in Caillebotte's work

 Caillebotte is a prime example of modernity in French culture. He was slightly impressionistic, he painted mostly male figures, and many of his paintings give off the feeling of isolation and loneliness. Looking back at his paintings in our day and age, you wouldn't think that this artist's work would be considered controversial. All in all, his paintings are stunning and are a testimony to France in the late 1800's; and reflect a certain style to them that is so detailed and colorful you can see all sorts of shades in a wall painted cream. 

First off, Caillebotte was slightly impressionistic, meaning he painted with rough brushstrokes and sometimes painted outside, and enjoyed depicting spur of the moment paintings. However his work was usually considered to be too realistic and didn't quite conform to the main objective of impressionistic painters. In my opinion, it seems as if he was inspired by the great impressionistic painters of his day, and then created his own style loosely based on that concept. 

Secondly, Caillebotte painted mostly male models, which to paint male subjects in a common environment. this just wasn't done, and viewers of his art were outraged at a few of his works because of this. especially the painting of the floorscrapers, since this painting depicted poor men working on the floor of a rich person's house. It was almost as bad as painting a prostitute looking at the viewer, and yet again, he offended many people. Not only did he depict mostly clothed men, but his nudes were usually all male as well. The way he painted them gave a voyeuristic appeal, almost as if you had opened the bathroom door, saw what he painted, and as you shut the door as quickly as possible you apologize. It was crude and embarrassing of a sight to see, and he was the first one to do it. His art was even still accepted into shows and such, but it was put in side rooms so that no one could find his work to view it. Almost as if everyone was too self conscious of themselves to even be able to look at such a painting as the man at his bath without feeling the need to cover it up or hide it. 

Thirdly, Caillebotte painted a great deal of paintings that had the underlying theme of isolation from the modern world, or loneliness. These images are usually depicted darker and dont always give the viewer a good look at the face of the subject being subjugated to the isolation. In order to deal with all the sudden deaths in his family, it almost seemed as if his consciousness was telling him that he needed to isolate himself from the world in order to be happy. almost as if he believed that if he ventured into the real world outside of his paintings and made friends, they would also be taken away from him in such a fashion. Honestly I truly believe this is also the cause of his early death and need to depict himself through the male models he painted. His paintings all seem as if he needed to include someone else into his world, in order to be happy with the life that he chose to live after all the death he had to endure. 

Manet Vs. Monet

Claude Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil 

Option #1 Compare and Contrast...

For this weeks Blog I decided to write about option one, Compare and Contrast the two paintings by Monet and Manet. There are many things different within these two images, mostly on subject matter and only slightly on technique. however there are also a lot of things these two paintings have in common.

For example, in Manet's interpretation of the fair, the streets are practically empty, aside from only a few pedestrians. there are flags adorning the buildings however its mostly bare, and there is a lot of empty space. it doesnt seem like this fair is very popular, or rather, it seems as if the fair is over, or hasn't started yet. where as in Monet's painting the street is packed with people, so much so that its hard to see the ground. Along with this factor there are hundreds of flags everywhere, there seems to be naught a spot where the building is bare. this is what I think of when I think of a fair in this time period. Another thing different about these two images is that Claude Monet's depiction of the fair is as if he is floating high over head looking down, or in a building. far off in the distance buildings tower upwards into the light blue sky, and there is a sense of crowding going on even in the negative spaces in this image. On the other hand Manet's depiction of the fair is from a slightly higher angle, such as a second story window, or on the top of a sudden hill looking down a long street. There is no sky in Manet's painting, however we get a sense of how nice of a day it is by the shadows and light cast onto the ground and the flags in the foreground. Manet's image suggests to the viewer that he attended the fair (or what is left of it) while Monet's depiction makes it seem like he is above the fair, not willing to participate. 

As for what these two images have in common, they both are obvious depictions of the fair, they both have many of the same elements, and they are both painted in a impressionistic style. they were both painted outside, and they both have the element of spontaneity of a time in the day. Monet more than Manet, however since he literally has a flag being blown in the wind above the festival while Manet only has carriages waiting to pick up or drop off the people for the fair. also both of these paintings are painted with what appears to be quick brush strokes, nothing seems to be blended too much with the colors around it, and there isn't any small details such as facial features of the people on the ground, or writing on the buildings. 

Both of these paintings represent a major element that has yet to be discussed in this blog; they are both avant-gaurdeist paintings. they both depict a modern france after the war, and they both have a very un-salon worthy style of extreme amounts of unmixed color and no smooth brush strokes. they are both worthy of being called avant-garde paintings however because of these elements and more. 

all in all, both paintings are beautiful representations of the Rue Montorgueil and the Rue Mosnier, and are both a shining tribute to their home country of France. I believe both painters are very talented and that both of these paintings are very beautiful. However there were more differences between these two paintings than there were similarities and both would have been seen as sloppy or "impressionistic" in their time. 

Edouard Manet’s The Rue Mosnier with Flags

Mother and Child, Mary Cassatt

Mother and Child
Mary Cassatt
1890

The figures that Mary Cassatt paints can be considered to be impressionistic, for many reasons; and can be compared to the greats such as Monet, Renoir, and Degas. I believe that Mary Cassatt was extremely successful when creating her impressionistic paintings because she follows all if not most of the rules for the impressionistic style. And on top of all that, she did it as an american in a foreign country.
For example, Mary Cassatt uses very heavy brushstrokes and a thicker application of paint when working on her canvas' and her colors dont always blend perfectly to help illustrate the fact that it was indeed painted and not photographed. Although her figures are very 3 dimensional (for the most part) her paintings are flat and layered. this is another component of impressionistic style art.
One thing that drew me to this artist was her subject choice of the mother's with their children. they all seem like a split second in the lives of these hard working mothers, and their rambunctious children. especially since some of these children were painted at such a young age, its hard to sit still for any given amount of time, let alone to pose for a painting! Thats a major heads up to the fact that this was painted with spontaneity and speed to get the right look of the child relaxing in his/her mother's arms.
The use of color in this painting is very soft and relaxing as well, and the rosy colors of the mothers dress couple together nicely with the pink of the child's cheeks. this same pink is also seen in the table cloth behind them, as well as in the shadows of the dress, and in the child's toes. I also really love how she painted the light blue wash bucket and pitcher each on either side of the mothers head. it balances out the pinks in the image nicely and can coincide with the childhood cliche colors of light pink and light blue. the sense we get of the light streaming in through the windows is also rather lovely, as its so subtle we barely notice it.  the slight highlights on the blue's as well as on the child's white shirt and a bit more on the mother's bodice of her dress.
 I believe that Mary Cassatt is equal to the greats of her time because she is able to take a simple snapshot portrait painting of a mother and child, and turn it into an impressionistic painting which is lovely in its own right. Monet and Renoir were masters with light and environments, as well as creating scenes with bright colors and intense brush strokes, but I truly believe that Mary Cassatt's work is equal in quality to both of them, because she was able to do all of this in a mans world; and still be successful. Its also really interesting to see how many different emotions she can evoke with the subject matter of a child with its mother; even to the point of empathizing with the painting, or even in some cases pulling the viewer into the art piece to the point where it is the viewers mother, or it is the viewers child. In these instances the viewers are invited to interact more with the paintings, and can make them easier to attract a following.
I mentioned earlier that this work illustrates almost all of the aspects for a impressionistic painting, however there are a few that arent represented. such as the Plein air, and it doesnt quite represent urbanized paris, but I truly believe that this painting takes the cake with all of the other aspects depicted; such as speed and thick brushstrokes, experimenting with light and color, and extreme realism to make it an instant one of my favorite paintings in this era. I also find it interesting that she was an american in paris, that still became successful with the style of art that was popular in paris at the time. No one in america at this point painted in an impressionistic style, so this to me is another reason why she is truly a impressionistic painter to be remembered along with the greats of her time.