Trip to the BMA

Gino Severini | Italian, 1883 - 1966
Dancer at Pigalle's, 1912

 I chose this piece as my number one because the longer I look it, the more that I am able to take away from it. The piece is supposed to show the movements of a dancer in motion and I think it does a wonderful job of that. Initially, I did not realize what the picture was trying to portray, but now when I look at it, that is all I can see. It is interesting how my perception changed after I was opened up to a new way of thinking. I liked the colors and excitement of the painting. It reminds me of confetti at a celebration. I think the composition of this picture is probably centered around a focal point. There is an implied circle and then lines that lead you to the center of the piece. You can see a head of the dancer near the top, but it is in very subtle colors. I think we are more called to look at the piece from the center out to get the bigger picture.

Matta | Chilean, 1911 - 2002
Rocks, 1940

This piece struck me because of its ambiguity. I
am not really sure what it is supposed to be, or the story behind it. The piece is titled Rocks and if I look hard enough, it is almost as if there is another painting going on in the background through the melted wholes. That is the first place my eye went and pretty much stayed, trying to figure out what was being shown between the cracks. I think the composition of this piece is hard to pinpoint, but I can see a clear distinction between the landscape in the picture and the sky. It may be thirds because of this distinction, but looking across the painting horizontally it is hard to break it up.

Susan Rothenberg | American, born 1945
Siena dos Equis, 1975

I selected this final piece because I was attracted to its simplicity and symmetry. The painting shows a horse in the middle and 3 lines crisscrossing across the canvas. The painting itself is huge. If you look at the picture that I took, I purposely left a person in the shot just so you could get a better idea of its actual size. That is something that I am glad I got to experience in person because it definitely changes the impact of the piece. One other thing that was much easier to tell in person is the distinction of the lines. They all seem to be rope tying the piece down to the page. Where the lines lay there was almost an imprint like a rope tied to a bed or a sponge. I thought that was very interesting. The composition of this piece is simply thirds. It is broken up clearly.

Ways of Seeing Response

After watching, "Ways of Seeing" I find myself considering the way that I view images and the influences that may cause me to perceive them in certain way. It is interesting to think that we all interpret things differently based on our own unique experiences. I can't help but think now that none of us share the same exact story, so every single image that we see is interpreted differently. Perceptions might be similar, but never identical. What is even more interesting is that the painter had their own idea when painting or creating a piece. The way the painter saw it or meant for it to be seen may be completely different from the way viewers receive it. Being aware of these differences almost takes a little bit of the experience away, but also adds to it. I can now look at a picture let my initial reactions come, but then take a minute to think of how else the image can be interpreted. The possibilities are endless. This adds a new dimension to art for me.

The effects of music on images and how they are interpreted also struck me. This point could not be any closer to truth, yet it is so often overlooked. Music is such a subtle influencer that our opinion and perception can be shifted and we don't even realize it. This video may be a couple decades old, but this concept is still being utilized in advertisements, marketing, movies, and tv shows. The human mind is so open to influence and with the use of technology, it is becoming easier to manipulate viewers and consumers. It may sound dishonest or unethical, but art has many uses and taking advantage of its versatility is only right. In the video, they asked the question if this new system of art and viewing takes away from art or if it gives it more power. It may take away from the original meaning, but it definitely gives it the power to be able to touch more people and invoke new emotion. Keeping this in mind, I will be more aware of the way I view things, and they way I create art. My pieces can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and it is a good feeling to know that my art can touch people in ways that I had not even considered. My interest to create art is now increased due to fact that the reach is endless.

Response to "Visibility"

When reading this article I observed 2 main topics: 

1. the source of imagination

2. the distinction between the "visual to word" imagery and the "word to vision" imagery

When I think of imagination I think of an abstract idea that we bring to life in our heads. Calvino suggests that imagination has great power to bring us anywhere and create whatever we desire. But these thoughts cannot stem from thin air, could they? Is it possible for us to think up something that has never been thought or created before? or are we constricted to the limitations of our visual experience? Can we only imagine what we have seen? Dante would say we can imagine new things that are divinely inspired. These thoughts rain down from heaven and it is up to us to interpret them and turn them into images. I personally would have to agree to a certain extent. I think that we have the ability to think up the unthinkable. How else could the innovation that we see today have been created? Someone had to conceive the idea and find a way to bring it out of imagination and into the physical. Whether the idea was divinely inspired or not is another question, but I do think that it is possible for it to have come from somewhere other than our visual bank, which we add to every day.

I found it both interesting and eye opening the idea of where and how the imagery we see in our heads is born. I had never really thought of this idea in the past although it is a part of my everyday life. Calvino references Dante's point of view which brings a religious aspect to the discussion. I have a strong religious background, and the part of the article that references the believer's vision of the characters and stories in the Bible really hit home. All of the images that I associate with the Bible and the stories that I read come from what has been presented to me from the church all my life. When I read, I can see images and scenes painted out based on what I have been taught to believe as the truth, but the truth is that nobody really knows what an accurate depiction of characters and stories in the Bible would look like. Historians can try to put together a logical picture, but it is impossible to really tell. This can be an example of a "vision to word" or a word to vision" process. I see images and then am able to form my own understanding and narrative. At the same time, the images that I am seeing would not be there if it was not for the words that influenced them. 

Vision is a strange thing. What we see and how that translates to imagination is an interesting process. The way imagination can be formed from our own creativity is also a strange, but amazing process. We have the power to make something out of nothing. We all have the potential to create and change the game with the power of our minds and the visions that we can bring to life. Whether that inspiration comes from above or just within ourselves, it can make the world of difference if we embrace it and see where our minds can take us.

Response to "The Whole Ball of Wax"

I found the ideas brought forward in this article to be interesting and thought provoking. Above all else, Saltz's ideas were debatable, or at least the way he broke down his viewpoint. The idea that really stuck with me was presented early on in the first paragraph: "Can art change the world?" Saltz says that in terms of curing illnesses and changing political climates, probably not. He does acknowledge the weight that art can carry and how it can be compared to the likes of science, religion and philosophy. From a literal standpoint, I can see where he is coming from, but from an abstract standpoint, I would have to disagree. I believe that art can cure illness and sway politicians. I think art is the only thing that has ever made any of those advancements possible. If Saltz believes that "art is a bridge to new vision and vision itself, a medium or matrix through which one sees the world," then he must acknowledge that art has power. Art has the power of influence and that gives it immense weight. Now when I say art in this case, I do not necessarily mean a painting. Saltz suggests that art is everything and can be found in everything. I agree with this view. I know that art can be found in words, actions, images, and even circumstances. If you think of life and the way that our morals and motivating forces are developed in individuals, it stems from our experiences. These are the things we hear, see, feel and live through. If that is the case, then art shapes and influences all the change that has ever been made. Asking the question why puts this into perspective. We form our "why's" based on our view of what is important and necessary. The process to develop these beliefs is a work of art in itself. Art is in everything we do and everything we do influences who we are. So can art cure illness and persuade dictators? If not art, then what else?