Thursday we started by discussing "Futurist Art". It was a bit of a challenge at first trying to pinpoint specific features of the works, in attempt to determine what was going on. However, the more we looked at, the more they seemed to make sense (to me anyway)...by "make sense" I do not by any means, mean that they looked more realistic....I mean that it was easier to approach the works to "guess" at the subject, and so on. However, the car one kind of stumped me...it took me longer to see what was intended.
our reading from "Ways of Seeing". The article as a whole was very interesting, but a couple parts in particular spoke to me. I know we already talked about these points in class, but I suppose to "re-cap" my thoughts: The points about photography not being as mechanic as we think, how the photographer's choice of subject, among other things, can alter how we see the scene, how market value can affect a pieces popularity, and reproductions can alter a piece --I found these aspects most compelling. Again we also brought our questions up in the discussion, but I really liked the concept of how replicating a photo might differ from replicating a painting-how the quality/size may affect this, etc.
Next we played a few of the instrumental pieces the class had brought in, and experimented with Wacom Bamboo Tablet©. Listening and trying different colors and lines in Adobe Photoshop© we got used to drawing on a flat surface with a pen and it showing up on the screen...having never used one of tablets before, it took me a little while to get used to it, but once I did it was really cool to create on the computer without using a mouse.
For my research this week, I was still curious about "futurism" in general. My research took me across a variety of pieces, some of which we had seen in class. One that particularly grabbed my attention was Funeral of the Anarchist Galli (1911) by Carlo Carrà. This piece is described as Carrà's most famous work, and that it is a good example of futurism as it, "embodies Futurist ideals with its portrayal of dynamic action, power, and violence."
Resource 1 - Resource 2
For my two questions, I suppose it would help to point out that these ideas were affected by the beginning parts of the article we read last week:
-If the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe, would it be ideal for everyone to know and believe the same things to "guarantee" in a sense a universal reaction to something? Or could that be a dangerous thing to not have different interpretations? (Not for everyone to think the same way, but to evoke the same emotional reactions....)
-The article also states, "Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can also be seen." This made me think of little kids-'if I can't see you, you can't see me', and peek-a-boo, etc. What if we never developed the sense of being seen? Again, this requires explanation...What if we understood that we can be seen, but never got the sense that we could...would that change how we looked at others? I am not really sure if I can put this thought into very clear words...I will work on this one...
I thought the Carra painting you found was pretty interesting, and an intense image. While most Futurist works seems to celebrate industry, this one almost seems to be warning of something foreboding.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your questions, it certainly would make looking at art easier if everyone had the same background, and I think that some people become frustrated by the varying opinions on works of art. However, we may loose the diversity of styles and approaches if we all had the same background.