Art Lovers discussion
Questions from the Met
I have often greatly admired the sculptural works of artists such as Michelangelo, Rodin, Bernini just to name a few. I mean, check out Apollo and Daphne by Gian Lorenzo Bernini.
The details are incredible! It makes one want to reach out a touch it.
How about Michelangelo's Pieta:
On to painting...I love Pointillism, like works of Georges Seurat:
I also appreciate some of the interesting perspectives contrived by M.C. Escher:
As you walk through the Museum, are you drawn to large-scale works or tiny ones?Carrie Rebora Barratt
I don't really know how I would answer this question. I guess it depends on the artist or painting itself. For example, I would love to see Guernica by Picasso, or Dance by Matisse as I've heard that these are enormous. Then again, I am always amazed at the talent some artists have to display such detail into the tiny ones.
As an artist, I know that one way to get people to come in close and really look at your work, is to work small.
Good point, Ruth! But then, what if the public cannot get really close, they can't relish in the whole experience.
Right. But it's hard to imagine a gallery or a museum hanging a small work so it can't be seen well.
I believe that for most of us, winter is on the prowl, white snow being prevalent in many areas. Which work of art that features the color white best describes your mood? And Is the color white bold or bashful?Andrew Bolton
Long's Peak, Rocky Mountain National Park Ansel Adams
I know a lot of Adam's work is in black and white due to his choice of photography. It is hard for me to pinpoint a specific photograph of his that best fits my mood. I love snow covered mountains. I live at the base of the nearby Rocky Mountains which are full of snow right now. If I could find a painting of this beautiful scene outside my window, that would describe my mood...amazed, awe-struck, bold and a bit cold!
Winter is here!The snow storm set a record in Hartford, CT of 22 1/2", in Staffordville 29". The snow was falling at 2 1/2" to 3" an hour and the winds made huge snow drifts. We are just trying to dig out. We live at the end of the cul de sac so we have 2 huge mountains of snow on each side of our driveway. We haven't found the mailbox yet. Temperature right now is 9 degrees.
T'ain't white in Southern California!But white is a great area to explore. I used to collect those styrofoam shapes that come in packages, pile them up, light them, then tell my advanced drawing students to draw them so they looked white, but using only colored pencils.
just a few photos in CT regarding storm "Benedict" -
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
Is black the absence of color or is it full of color? Which work of art best supports your view?Aimee Dixon
It depends on whether you're talking about pigment or about light.
Good point, Ruth. I guess we could talk about both. What do you think?
I can't think of a work of art offhand that exemplifies black. But I know I never dip my brush into black pigment without feeling guilty. My grandmother, who was an artist, always told me when I was a kid, "Never use black from the tube. Always mix your color."
That's interesting, Ruth. Is it because black is so...black? Final? or why is that? I have noticed in reading about van Gogh's techniques, he always seemed to mix the black.
My painting teachers would never let us buy black paint -- always make your own black.
Mark Rothko, No. 2, mixed media on canvas
Clyfford Still, 1944-N No. 2, 1944. Oil on canvas, 8' 8 1/4" x 7' 3 1/4", MoMA
Robert Motherwell, Elegy to the Spanish Republic, 108, 1965-67. Oil on canvas, 6' 10" x 11' 6 1/4".
Robert Motherwell, Elegy to the Spanish Republic, 35, 1954-58. Oil on canvas
Franz Kline, Laureline, oil on canvas
Franz Kline, Turbine, 1959, oil and enamel on canvas
Ellsworth Kelly, Dark Grey and white panels, 1977, oil on canvas
Heather wrote: "That's interesting, Ruth. Is it because black is so...black? Final? or why is that?"Because plain black is so uninteresting. Black is more than just black. There are as many shades of black as there are of other colors.
Thanks for the black paintings, Carol.
When you encounter a work originally created for religious use do you first think of its aesthetic merits or its religious message? George Goldner
and Melanie Holcomb
Coming from outside any centralized, institutional religious practice, I generally just consider the aesthetic merits. To the extent that the two can be separated. My little Russian Orthodox icons are some of the most beautiful things that I have. There are even a few replicas of some Andrei Rublev which I especially admire.
Aesthetic. Hands down. While I recognize the influence of religion on art (how could I not?) I'm not a religious person.
Personally I first think of its religious message. That may be because religion has importance to me and I am moved by the messages that different artists can portray. For example:[image error]
The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci
Case in point.
John wrote: "Coming from outside any centralized, institutional religious practice, I generally just consider the aesthetic merits. To the extent that the two can be separated. My little Russian Orthodox ic..."
You have some icons? Lucky you. I love them, and also Medieval illuminated manuscripts.
Nothing expensive or extravagant, and nothing original. We have a local Greek festival with an artist who copies old Byzantine icons, and I bought a few from her. I couldn't resist.
Do you think secular institutions have an obligation to be sensitive to believers in their presentation of religious works of art?George Goldner
and Melanie Holcomb
It depends on what you mean by "sensitive."
I just found this article on the net, it's dated 2008 by the Associated Press but I think it makes an example of this particular question. What do you think of this situation?Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawing
MADISON, Wis. — A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference.
The lawsuit alleges other students were allowed to draw "demonic" images and asks a judge to declare a class policy prohibiting religion in art unconstitutional.
"We hear so much today about tolerance," said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student. "But where is the tolerance for religious beliefs? The whole purpose of art is to reflect your own personal experience. To tell a student his religious beliefs can legally be censored sends the wrong message."
Tomah School District Business Manager Greg Gaarder said the district hadn't seen the lawsuit and declined to comment.
According to the lawsuit, the student's art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., added a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of love" in his drawing.
His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.
Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.
The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights.
Jackson told the boy, his stepfather and his pastor at a meeting a week later that religious expression could be legally censored in class assignments. Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students' rights.
The boy received two detentions for tearing up the policy. Jackson referred questions about the lawsuit to Gaarder.
Sometime after that meeting, the boy's metals teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross, telling him it was religious and could offend someone, the lawsuit claims. The boy decided in March to shelve plans to make a pin with the words "pray" and "praise" on it because he was afraid he'd get a zero for a grade.
The lawsuit also alleges school officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.
A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.
In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.
Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.
A.P. suffered unequal treatment because of his religion even though student expression is protected by the First Amendment, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Friday.
"Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate," the lawsuit said. "No compelling state interest exists to justify the censorship of A.P.'s religious expression."
There's really no debate here. If he signed a policy prohibiting any showing of "religious belief," then he was wrong in drawing it. Stupid policy, but you don't go to school to break the rules.
This is true, John. Too bad he signed it, I personally like the drawing. I think it's a stupid policy, too.
I'm not sure it's a stupid policy, but that may be my antipathy towards religion in general speaking. That said, it's not a very good drawing.
Ruth, you don't think it's silly? I've always had difficulty buying the "religious images infringe on other students' rights" argument, which is apparently why this clause made it into the policy. I'm not sure why my admiration for, or defilement of for that matter, a crucifix, statue of Ganesha or star of David makes anyone else less able to do anything.
As I said, John, I'm not sure. I do know I have a sort of kneejerk reaction against anything religious, but that's just me.I do understand where the school's coming from though. There's been so much dissension over the issue of religion in the schools, they probably just want to opt out of anything that could be construed in that way.
That makes sense, but consistency should be aimed for. According to the article, "Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom."
John wrote: "That makes sense, but consistency should be aimed for. According to the article, "Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom.""Good point.
It's interesting that the teacher "passionately teaches Hindu principles to students." Is this a Hindu school? Or is this the teacher's faith? If the school's entrance has a replica of "The creation of man" why would an art teacher feel the need to make her students sign a paper that would not let them express their religious beliefs? With all the images up on their school walls, they seem to be exposed to many different belief systems.
I'm guessing the adverb "passionately" was just a little bit of convincing rhetoric on the part of the boy's attorney. That's a good question, though, Carol. Even though usually many people read religious art, like "The Creation of Man," outside of its religious context. I think it's just as beautiful that way myself.
A few words:I hope that nobody was offended by the previous thread discussing religion and art. If so, I am truly sorry. I copy these questions from the Met website and the last two just happened to be the most recent posts. The line of conversation which ensued was not meant to be offensive in any way.
I can only speak for myself, Heather, but to offend me, you'll have to try a lot harder than that. Even some sort of postmodern combination of David Wojnarowicz and Andres Serrano might not do it.
No offense here, either, nor did I mean to give any offense.
I'm not offended and didn't mean to offend anyone.I just found it interesting that a teacher would feel the need to have students sign a policy that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in a student's artwork. We live in a diverse city and my kids went to public schools. My kids never had to sign anything in thier art classes before making an artwork. But I agree that since the student signed the paper, he should have chosen a different subject matter.
I was surprised that the teacher only asked him to remove the reference to the Bible. She was ok with the cross?
What would of happened if the student handed in his landscape similar to the one above but instead had his John 3:16 message on a billboard within the landscape. (We have many of these along the highway.) Would that be consider a religious artwork?
I think the central religious intent is the cross, with all lines leading to it.However, without the cross, and with the biblical reference presented as a billboard, the drawing would have been a great deal more interesting. And less overtly religious.
I wonder if he would had any trouble with bringing pictures of "Piss Christ" to school.
I doubt that as a Christian (who felt compelled to quote on his drawing that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life) he would find a photo of Christ crucified on the cross submerged in urine as an artwork he would value.
As a Christian how do you interpret it?
New question (from Yale Art Gallery) -- What is art and why does it matter?
Tricky one. Um, OK. Art consists of sentient productions in which the significance exceeds that due to their functional value. By function, I don't just mean material function, but I am including things like communication and religion. A painting of a martyr would have a religious function, but a painting of artistic quality would also have artistic value--it might enhance its religious function, but that is secondary. An ancient Egyptian chair in a royal tomb (making the culture's assumptions) would be a place on which the arisen could sit, but the aesthetic value of that chair is not required for the physical support it supplies.
Now an amazing woman, Mary Holmes, from whom I took several classes in art history, used to say that everything humans do is art.
I think what she meant was not that it was fully art, nor that it was even good art, but, rather, that we tend to take care of things in ways that communicate significantly with us beyond that needed for survival.
I know that seems to needlessly complicate things, but this is a complicated subject.
Anyway, I think that because we express this productive need for significance, we also long to receive it. I think that receiving such productions (I have to use double-speak here to cover all possible media) is important to us.
As a rather subversive exercise, let me include a particular work (Don't peek at the image URL). And the question is--not is this the finest piece of art that you have ever seen-- nor, is this your favorite style. It is simply, is this art?
And here is another, a line drawing:
Art Lovers
Books mentioned in this topic
Leaving Van Gogh (other topics)Point and Line to Plane (other topics)
Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling (other topics)
Virtuoso artists have the ability to “transform” materials, such as solid white marble into flowing drapery. Which artist’s skills most astound you?
Michael Gallagher