Reflections in the Rear View Mirror

      What were you expectations for this course and were they met?

When I started this course I wanted to be able to recognize different kinds of art and also learn how to be descriptive when talking about art. I also wanted to be able to appreciate art for its own sake as a way to connect with my thoughts and my feelings. Lastly, I was hoping that by studying art I would be able to transfer the vocabulary I had learnt to other classes. Generally speaking, all my expectations were met.

Now that you've been through this course, what is art? How would you define it now compared to your initial posting?

Wikimedia

I initially described art as “anything that brings meaning to life on a level that only I can explain.” I believe that is still largely true, with the exception that I have learnt that although art is very subjective, there are also very many aspects of it that are universal and therefore objective. So my new definition of art has expanded from this to include those forms that we perceive with our senses and that appeal to us. For something to be art, it has to be attractive in such a way as to provoke contemplation. Art of course doesn’t have to be a physical manifestation. It can be a song, a poem or even a smell.

Who was your favorite artist in your original posting and who is your favorite visual artist now? If there is a difference, why do you think so? If you have the same favorite artist, why do you think so?

I originally described my favorite as visual artist as “that unnamed artist who sits on the street corner, looking at the world around him and imagining the universe as his canvas.” Too bad for him because I now have a new favorite artist. His name is Philip Burke. I saw some of his works at the Burchfield Penney Art Center during one of my gallery visits and I was really taken in by his caricatures. There was something I found charmingly playful about the whole experience. I suppose I have a new favorite artist now because at the beginning of class I really didn’t know what I was looking for and I was more open to suggestions.

Now that you've completed this course, how do you feel about taking an online course? Is your answer the same as it was in your first posting? How is it the same or different?

My original answer had me hoping that this class would be different than the other online classes I had taken before and it was in many ways. For starters, it was way more demanding than most of the traditional classes I have taken. In a way it allowed me to better practice time management and it also gave me a chance to explore and do things I would never have tried if this was a regular class. I learnt a lot from looking at my classmates’ blogs and I got to enjoy the diversity in their creativity so in that way, the hopes I had at the beginning of class did not change.

Reflections on Final Project

    I struggled for a long time trying to come up with a workable theme for my project. From the start, I wanted to tell a story, from beginning to logical conclusion but I felt that would be hard to do just in images, especially if I wanted to have a coherent narrative. But then something happened that was totally unexpected. I was flipping through the TV channels when I stumbled on a news report about some sort of commotion down in South Carolina concerning the flying of the Confederate battle flag. Why I wondered, was everybody getting so wound up over a flag that is not even the official flag of anything?

The Caning of Sumner
Retrieved from the Library Of Congress

     I knew, (I suppose like most people do), the rudimentary details of the South’s secession from the Union in the early 1860s but other than the occasional tour of an old fort -- something that always bored me to tears-- the topic was never of particular interest to me. So I did a quick Wikipedia search and one page led me to another until I was so totally engrossed in the subject I was left wondering why the whole thing is not a bigger deal than it already is. It is a pretty big deal, by the way, but only if you know where to look.

     Like all things momentous, there were significant and not so significant events during the war. And that is what I was trying to capture when I decided to do a pictorial project on the Civil War. Obviously, it would be impossible to tell the whole story with 15 images or less as the project required. However, I quickly found out that the war could be neatly divided into three almost equal parts and I also quickly discovered that is how it has always been done.  That was my starting point and so I started collecting images, rearranging them to fit a narrative until I finally thought I had what I wanted.

     I am trying to tell a story that’s been told thousands of times. It should be remembered that the American Civil War was one of the earliest industrial wars ever fought and it was fought at a time when record keeping was fairly advanced and fairly well understood, so the amount of material out there is enormous. I was not trying to come up with any new startling revelations. My aim was to tell the story as simply as I could, to an audience which has as minimum knowledge of the events of those years,  as I do. But most important, I wanted to be able to look at the presentation and want to know more. That’s why I picked the slides that I did, arranged them in sequence, and gave them a short story or a quote or two.  

The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
Retrieved from the Library of Congress

     Whether I succeeded in this endeavor or failed is not for me to say. All I know is that doing research on this project was great fun, illuminating and totally worth it. All the things that I learnt in the process I will probably never be able to use inside or outside a classroom but somehow it doesn’t matter at all. All I know is, those old forts don’t seem so boring after all.

A peculiar interview with Philip Burke

Selfie (2015)

Me (2015)
Pencil on paper

Philip Burke Self-portrait (1984)
Oil on canvas 

This is an excerpt of a conversation that may or may not have happened between me and the artist Philip Burke. 

Philip Burke: Why did you select the inspirational pieces?

I chose them because the three images were created one year apart and I could see the creative process you went through as an artist in those three years.

Burke: Cool. Tell me more.

In the 1982 piece, I could see the rush, the eagerness, the raw energy. You were getting ready for this journey. Know what I mean?

Burke: No. But keep going.

In 1983, you seem a little unsure about yourself. Maybe things weren't working out as you had planned. You look like you got stuff to say but you ain't got no voice. Make sense?

Burke: Nope. Tell me about '84.

You have finally made it and you know it. I can tell you are not running anymore. You seem confident, calm and ready to show the world what you got.

Burke: Whatever, dude. Why did you select the media to create your self-portrait?

I have never really worked with anything other than pencil and paper so I decided to stick with something am familiar with. 

      Burke: Not very adventurous, are we? What challenges did you face in creating your self-portrait and how did you overcome them?

Capturing my own essence was a bit of a struggle. It's pretty hard trying to step out of yourself to see what others see in you. In the end I decided to just give it my best shot and see where the whole process would take me. 

Philip Burke (1983)
Oil on panel

      

Philip Burke (1982)
Oil on panel

      Burke: How brave. How does this piece represent you?

It represents me because it is me made by me and nobody can say that except me. My workmanship gives it my soul and the end product is the body that holds that soul. So in that way this is more representative of me than anything that can ever be done by anybody else.

      Burke: Yeah, I know that feeling.What elements and principles of art did you apply in this work?

I used broad pencil lines to create form and shape. I decided not to use any color although I used dark markings to get some of the details. There isn’t much balance or symmetry in the portrait because I wanted to make it less of a frontal picture and more of a semi-profile of the face. I wanted to keep it as simple as I could. I ain't no Picasso.

Burke: You don't say. Did you enjoy working on this project?

This was my first ever self-portrait so it was pretty interesting. It took longer than I had planned for but it also gave me an opportunity for introspection.

Burke: That's deep. What do you think of your final artwork?

I think it is okay for an amateur. People who know me will be able to recognize me and people who don’t know me will immediately see it as a caricature of something. Either way that works for me.

Burke: I was under the impression both your picture and the drawing were caricatures. Anything else you would like to add?

Yeah. Can I get your autograph?

Burke: Sure. Give me a pen.

Darn. Can't find one.

Burke: Ah, well. Maybe next time. 

The man who reinvented how we view art; bad taste at the Tate and going low

In The Lowdown on Lowbrow: West Coast Pop Art, I learnt that this  art genre has been struggling to gain its own identity for a quite a while now. As one of its pioneers, Robert Williams states, it has no “manifesto” because nobody has been able or willing to string together an easily explainable

By Robert Williams (2000)

narrative. Lowbrow is influenced by what is “hip” at any particular time and it has its roots firmly planted in the antiwar, anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and probably has as its most visible moment that now very famous concert at Woodstock in 1969.

Its icons are cartoon characters from pop culture magazines like Mad and its models are skinny girls standing in front of customized cars. It’s a genre that cries out for acceptance at the same time as it seeks to remain a niche. Its artists are those kids who went to Disneyland and refused to leave.

From artattack.com

Like all art, Lowbrow wants to tell a story. But which story? The story of rebellion against the establishment? Or is it the story of the danger of the materialism that runs rampart in the society? Or maybe Lowbrow just wants to convince us that it is a push back against “highbrow” art that often condemns it for its lack of

supposed seriousness. Whatever it is, Lowbrow has a certain endurance that is hard to stop and
almost impossible to ignore.

Unlike other genres, one of the biggest strengths of Lowbrow is its inclusiveness and appeal to all artists, especially females, which is something highbrow art doesn’t seem to do willingly. Female artists, like the Pop Tarts, have made it accessible to all and its refusal to be pinned down is also a big draw for the quasi-marginalized of the society i.e. those with a rebellious bent who want to revolt against the rules without being bothered with the hard work that comes with this endeavor.

But at the end of the day, I think the most powerful aspect of this type of art is its flexibility, its inextricable links to pop culture and whatever street fashion of the day. For this reason it will never grow old because it has a ready pool of artists and audiences who will always pick up where the generation before it left off.

BBC Culture show: Tate Modern is 10! Is a documentary that focus on the London Tate Gallery of Modern Art which features artwork by modern artists making modern art. The Tate, probably one of the largest indoor galleries in the world, is exclusively dedicated to contemporary art some of which is as bizarre as can be. For example, in the video I saw a pile of bricks arranged on the floor that is supposed to be art. Whether it is or not, I don’t know. All I know is that someone sure thinks it is.

Bricks
From the Independent

“Look again, think again”, the operating motto of the gallery, is surely a testament to the confusion I felt while watching the documentary. If the original aim of the Tate Museum was to draw attention to contemporary art and modern artists as a counterpunch to the more glitzy and snobby galleries that would normally not exhibit their kind of art, then I boldly say it has failed to do so.  The Tate has become a place for jet setters and B-listers to see and be seen, a place where some people (especially those who would normally not be caught admiring art like this) go to get a feel for what regular folk are like. There was enough champagne in the video to drown a small elephant, which, I suppose, says it all.

Anselm Kiefer's Palm Sunday at Tate Modern
Photo from the Guardian

I started watching this series with the expectation that I would see something different, something unique. I didn’t. This so-called contemporary gallery for contemporary art is nothing more than an attempt by the establishment to pretend that they are interested in bringing art to the common people. The Tate experience would be dissatisfying, for me at least, if I ever visited the museum. There is something I find rather disconcerting about it. I can’t explain it but I know I can feel it. But the word “zoo” keeps repeating itself over and over again in my mind.

In An Acquiring Mind: Philippe de Montebello and The Metropolitan, the point is made very early on that a “museum is never finished. A museum should never allow itself to become a museum of itself.” This is the kind of thinking that has made the Met arguably one of the most important and most popular museums in the world. De Montebello’s 31 year tenure as the director of this iconic center of world culture is brought out in a celebration of his art acquiring prowess.

Philip de Montebello
Photo by Paul Hosefros/The New York Times

His keen eye for what moves us, what makes us pause and stare and what touches us is a true gift and he put this talent to great use that influenced how art was displayed, arranged and acquired. In the video he says objectivity in his line of work is impossible to achieve, the best one can do is try. The range of the art in the museum is mindboggling and sometimes even startling. His ability to recognize aesthetic appeal, even in artists and works that were previously unknown, is perhaps one of his greatest strengths. Even works that were never originally meant to be art he looked at and his approval turned those “non-arts” into art that would eventually end up at the Met.

                                                                  Thatlou.com

As director, de Montebello oversaw an eclectic group of experts, each battling for a share of the acquisition and restoration budget. What I found remarkable about him was his willingness to listen to his subordinates and his firmness in decision making. His ability to convince private art collectors to bequeath their art to the Met is truly invaluable. Whether this is something that goes on in all museums, I don’t know. But what I do know, and what I admire the most, is de Montebello’s love of art for the sake of art. For him the Met is sacred ground, a temple whose most important role is to capture time and keep it captured for the world. And for 31 years, de Montebello was the High Priest of that temple and today the Met is as important to art as the ancient ruins in Greek and the Pyramids in Egypt are to history.

2. Do the videos relate to the creation of your Art Exhibition project? If yes, explain how. If no, explain why not.

The videos, especially the documentary on the Met, better prepared me to get into a curator’s mindset. I learnt something about the process that one must go through in selecting art and deciding whether it should be included in an exhibit. The video on the Tate showed me what not to do, which is to create pretentious spaces that rely mostly on “buzz” than on anything else.

3. What is your opinion of the films? Do they add depth to understanding of the art concepts you practiced while creating your curation project?

The videos present different points of view on how to make an exhibit and this in itself creates great depth in how I went about the project. My curation project was definitely improved by watching the videos.  

Masked outrage

Explain how you used the Elements and Principles in your finished mask.

Final mask

I created balance by making sure both sides of the painting looked as similar as possible to each other. This symmetry was relatively easy to achieve because I used the nose in the mask as the line of symmetry. I tried to create contrast by using white color to offset the brown in the face and by coloring the eyes green. The eyes are also the focal point of the mask. I also wanted to use the head gear as a demarcation point between the upper part and the lower part of the mask. The white paint on the nose and the sticking ears which are grooved and mixed together with the uneven overall tone served to create a rough texture.

Sketch 1

Sketch 2

I did not have to use a lot of color on this mask because I wanted it to look as natural and as earthy as possible. The green eyes with their green stare give the mask an a unusual look that complements the exaggerated elongated face. I decided to top the head with a crystalline crown that would catch the light and draw attention to the overall features.

Share your opinion of your finished mask and 

what you thought about creating the mask.

3D angle

I wanted the mask to look ceremonial and frightening while also keeping it as simple as possible. I tried to use as little material as I could without affecting the overall feel of the whole mask. The creation process was not too hard because I based this on a mask I had seen (mask 2 below) so I had a pretty good idea of where I wanted to go from the start. I just had to give it a personal touch and I think overall the results were what I was looking for.

Mask 1

This is a traditional African mask made by the Mano people who live in Liberia. It seems to be a realistic presentation of a man’s face. It is black in color with cutouts for the eyes, and a closed mouth. It is mounted on a rod that appears to be a later addition, possibly used as a display stand.

Formal analysis

Mano Mask (19th Century)
Artist: Unknown from Liberia
Wood

This appears to be a realistic mask which was perhaps modeled from a real face. It is expressionless and doesn’t exhibit any emotion in its features. It is symmetrical in shape and form. It also appears to have had a highly polished surface which is now mostly gone due to its age. The smoothness and roundness of the face suggest that it may very well be a representation of a healthy and vibrant person. The mask is three dimensional, which adds depth and balance to it. It is not colorful in that it is entirely done in black which might just be a representation of the African people it represents.

Bracketing

The African features of the mask (the broad nose and lips) says to me that the carvers were from sub-Saharan Africa. The faded face paint that runs down the forehead could possibly denote a high ranking person within the community. The strong features suggests that this particular mask was made for a chief, a man who had distinguished himself in battle or some other person of substance.

Interpretation

The eye slits make it clear that this mask was meant to be practical. It is not a scary looking mask which tells me that it may have been used for something else other than religious or medicinal practices or rituals. I think the carver of the mask wanted to capture the youthful features of the person it was meant to represent.

Mask 2

Interpretation

This is a wooden mask of a female figure. The subject has an elaborate hairstyle and facial markings on the forehead. The eyes seem to be closed (or turned down) in submission. The subject also has her mouth open and her teeth can be seen.

Formal analysis

This is a traditional African mask that depicts a female figure. It looks very formal, symmetrical and well balanced with little or no exaggeration. This oval shaped mask seems to be made from one block of wood which gives it continuity and balance. The three dimensional quality of the art also gives it a great sense of balance and the open mouth makes it appear to be less static. It seems to have a very smooth texture and fine finish.

Bracketing

Female mask, Gu Guro (19th Century)
Artist: Unknown from Ivory Coast
Wood

This mask appears to have been made to capture the beauty of a young woman. Perhaps it was made to represent a young bride. The well done and elaborate hairstyle, the beauty marks on the forehead and the unsmiling expression of the face also suggest humility and purity. This mask reminds makes me think of a woman on the day of her wedding ceremony when she is formally presented to her future husband.

Interpretation

I think the artist was trying to represent a young woman who is about to be married, a bride who is shy and unsure. I say this based on the down turned eyes and the care that was taken make sure every feature of her face was as perfect as possible.

Mask 3

Description

This is a terracotta statue of a male head that is described as probably representing “one of the king’s servants.” It shows a half smiling, happy looking man. His face is coated in a brown looking substance. He has a broad forehead and seems to be wearing some sort of head covering.

Formal analysis

Ife head (12-14th Century)
Artist: Unknown from Yoruba, West Africa
Terracotta

The rough texture of the artwork is brought out by the uneven texture of the coating and the straight grooved lines that run down its face. The small size of the mask (height six inches) leads me to think this was made for representational purposes only and therefore did not have any practical value as a face mask that could be worn. This mask, like the others, is well-balanced, symmetrical and is also rendered in three dimensions.

Bracketing

This mask reminds me of an ordinary looking man, suggesting it may have been made for amusement. The natural earthy texture of the surface might also suggest somebody connected with farming or the soil in some way. The head covering may very well be the fashion of the day and may represent humility or perhaps servitude. I also suspect this could be a "self mask" in the fashion of a self-portrait. This mask, I suspect, represents a high ranking household slave or local artist.

Interpretation

It seems that the mask maker in this instance was trying to amuse himself. The mischievous half smile on the man’s face and the lack of jewelry or any other facial decorations may have been an attempt to capture a slave, servant or some other "working man" at his happiest. It is hard for me to tell what the artist was striving for other than a comical take on the life of an ordinary man.

The accidental genius of Andy Warhol and Sculpturing the Earth

Explain why you selected each of the TWO videos you choose from the selection listed above.
    I selected the video of Warhol because I have always wanted to know how different artists handle fame. I selected the video of Noguchi because I think that the use of natural space as a sculptural medium is something that is under appreciated.

2. For each video list/discuss the key concepts you learned.
Andy Warhol: Images of an Image

Campbell's Soup Cans (1962)

By Andy Warhol

Synthetic Polymer Paint on canvas

    I think Andy Warhol’s genius as an artist rested not so much on his ability to draw, paint or take pictures but more in his uncanny ability to turn realist artwork into an abstractness that, in the words of the documentary, “strips the face of its flesh and only leaves the bare bones of the image”. This accidental genius (who admits that his first love was tap dancing), thrived on dehumanizing his subjects and turning their images into objects that could be mass produced and sold. His game plan seems to have been rather simple. It largely involved taking the image of a famous person or object, then manipulating that image into something dramatically different from the original by changing its color, serializing it or making it out-sized and then emphasizing certain parts of the image. Lastly, by making sure it retained something of the original in it that his audience could recognize, he could sit back and watch them fall all over themselves as they tried to read his mind in their race to attach some deep meaning into the image.

Marilyn Diptych (1962)
By Andy Warhol
Acrylic on canvas

   This shameless commercialism (and frankly speaking, deceit) made Warhol so famous his artistic value became self-replicating: the more he deceived the world, the more the world loved him. He seems to have used his growing fame to ingratiate himself to famous people until he himself became a superstar at which point anything he touched, no matter how mundane and pedestrian, became a prized work of art: “a Warhol”, made by the great master himself. Never mind that he admitted, when speaking of his work ,that “…I don't have to work on the object I make at all. One of my assistants, or anybody else, could reproduce the motif just as well as I can.”

    I am not sure if Warhol set out to deliberately deceive the world. I am not even sure he knew he was deceiving the world. All I know is Warhol is a perfect storm of events: uninspired talent feeding on the carcass of public demand and in the process regurgitating bad art that everybody inexplicably wants a piece of. Just for this, I admire him for being part of this charade of mediocrity, for lending his superstar name to modern art while adding very little to it in terms of artistic value and, most importantly, making millions of dollars while doing it. Andy Warhol is proof that force of personality is as powerful as real talent. The value of his art is only in his name in much the same way (and I am mortified just saying this) a painting by Hitler would be valuable. That or I am completely missing the point.

Sculpture of Spaces
    In the Sculpture of Spaces, Isamu Noguchi says: “in looking for frontiers, you have to go to the ultimate.” The ultimate for him is the earth itself as a massive stone to be sculptured into a great work of art. Using this as his starting point, Noguchi sought to turn the open area around him into infinite space. Inspired by the theater stage which can create the illusion of a whole universe in a very small space, his greatest ambition, is in own words, was to “encompass the earth, if I had enough time.”

    Noguchi’s love for landscapes, architecture and outdoor space is obvious in some of the works he has done, in venues stretching from Japan to Manhattan in New York City. These kinds of projects don’t come easy and Noguchi had to cut through a lot of red tape for his projects to be approved.

Red Cube (1968)
By Isamu Noguchi 

    Noguchi’s projects, which he calls gardens, were meant to create spaces where everybody, adults and children alike, can come out to play. Their size is their strength and the bigger he could build them the more value they became. The scale of the sculpture, he said, should be the scale of man. His belief was that the relationship between the sculpture and man should be one of recognition and astonishment seems to be one of the qualities tat defines him best.

     By using te earth as the core element in his artwork, Noguchi brought nature closer to the people as much he brought the people closer to nature in what can only be called a mutually beneficial relationship.

2. How do the videos relate to the readings in the text?

    Both the text and the videos closely examine modern and postmodern art through the eyes of its most prominent and best known artists. However I found that the book is more detailed than the videos in this case because the book examines more than one artist as opposed to the videos which concentrates on one artist apiece. Also, the book tries to look at the future of art beyond the 1980's which is something the videos don't do. On Noguchi, the book only talks about him in the sense of one of his artworks, Red Cube, so in this instance the video I watched is much more detailed

3. What is your opinion of the films? How do they add depth to understanding of the readings and art concepts?

    The video on Warhol presents him in ways the book can't. In this way, it becomes easier to get a greater sense of the man and what he was all about. The video of Noguchi is particularly interesting because it follows him through by examining his influences all the way from childhood to the completion of his greatest accomplishments. In this way, both the videos I watched, although very different, were able to show me how different artists are able to use the environment around them to create art that reflects their greatest influences.

The artistic musings of one Philip Burke

1. Description- Dick Cheney and George W. Bush

     I decided to combine these two paintings because they go so well together and a discussion of one without the other just seems wrong.

     On the left is former Vice President  Dick Cheney. He is hunched over, his mouth open and drooping, his whole face twisted into a diabolical snarl. It looks like he is growling. He is dressed in a black jacket and a white shirt and he is doing something with his hands. On the right is his boss, President George W. Bush. He is dressed like a Hollywood cowboy, complete with a white shirt, white hat and a scarf around his neck. He is holding a tiny pistol in his right hand.

Dick Cheney and George W Bush (2005 and 2014 respectively)
By Philip Burke
Oil on canvas

Formal analysis 

     The use of caricature and exaggeration is very evident in the two paintings. Using bold lines and subtle tones, the artist manages to create vibrant and full characters that suffocate the canvas with nothing more than their physical presence. There is a coarseness and roughness in the overall texture of the paintings that makes the subjects jump out at the viewer as if they are silhouetted against a window or a doorway. However, that silhouette is so dominant it sucks away any depth that might otherwise be there. 

      As with most caricatures, there is hardly any sense of balance or symmetry in the paintings and whatever illusion of space may have been intended is quickly surpassed by the assertiveness of the subjects' poses. Any movement Cheney has seems to be that created by a nervous and tense energy, as if he is about to pound his fist against something while the wary twitchy look surrounding Bush is that of a coiled spring.

Bracketing

     On Cheney, the twisted snarly look, the hunched back, the head that pokes out of the shoulders like a stuffed bear's head mounted on a wall all remind me of an ogre. Or maybe a mean old man whose every other words are “get off my lawn!” I am also reminded of Jekyll and Hyde particular when I look at the wedding band on his finger. This small detail which can be easily lost in the overall picture, suggests that somewhere deep inside this character is capable of love and concern and is perhaps much more complex than is being let on.

     On the other hand, Bush reminds me of a character from a Saturday morning cartoon, an amiable gunslinger who fancies himself the fastest gun in the west. One Lucky Luke comes to mind. That this character is pretentious and naive (he is dressed to the nines but carries a peashooter) is a testament to his overall harmlessness.

Interpretation 

     Cheney is clearly intended to look as sinister and as evil as possible without having to draw a pair of pointy little horns on his head. The droop on his face suggests anger and a constant need to put forward an image of uncompromising viciousness. The ring on his finger could be speaking to his conservative family values. The lack of a tie and a suit could also be an attempt by the artist to project the kind of blue collar image that politicians are always to trying to project while the flag pin on his lapel is a shout-out to patriotism.

     Bush on the other hand is being mocked through the childish way he is dressed. He is depicted as a throwback to the lawless and bygone era of the wild west. Again, the size of that gun says it all. Here he is seen as a feckless idiot playing, perhaps, a game of cowboys and Indians.

     I don’t know if the two paintings are made to be displayed side by side but there is something about the way Bush seems to be looking over at Cheney as if to say “calm down, Dick old boy.”

     Seen together, the two paintings offer a fascinating glimpse of two men who forever changed the course of history, but they do so in a way that raises disturbing questions on whether this is an instance of life imitating art or the other way around.

2. Description- Andy Warhol 

     The subject is a blond man dressed in a green long-sleeved top with what appears to be a red scarf around his neck. He is looking directly in front of him and seems to be engaged in conversation with someone.

Andy Warhol (1984)
By Philip Burke
Oil on canvas

Formal analysis 

     This is a realistic painting that uses natural hues in a lively and convincing manner to bring out softness and even tenderness in the subject. The harmonious brush strokes coupled with the flatness and mellow feel of the green suggests a hint of informality and quiet calm that makes the man in the painting appear at once subdued and sharp all at the same time.      

     There is also a sense of balance in the background brought about by the dark shadow on the left and the yellowish tinge on the right. There is an overall brightness to the painting which is accentuated by the detailed features of the face. The form and shape of Warhol is well defined with just a tiny hint of caricature and exaggeration about him.

Bracketing 

     The painting says nothing else other than Andy Warhol. From the hair, which looks unkempt and yet is somehow exactly how it is supposed to look, to the quiet inner torture that seems to be burning behind the eyes, to the crossed arms that speak of the quiet confidence of a man who knows he has achieved immortality: there is nothing in the painting that calls out for any other interpretation. I see no symbols, no metaphors, no allegories. Just Andy Warhol. But if I try hard enough, I am tempted to say that maybe his hand does look a little too small, childlike perhaps, maybe even inconsequential.

Interpretation 

      I think all Philip Burke wanted to say was: “here is Andy, unpretentious and as real as real can be.” This is a homage presented by Burke, (who in 1982) was probably still trying to find his way in the world), to another great artist whose place in the world borders on the mythical. I very much doubt that Burke meant this to be anything other than a salute, a bow perhaps, to an icon who was so far beyond the reach of flattery. The best Burke could do was to depict Warhol in the same light he too would like to be depicted someday: as a giant painted by another giant.

3. Description- Philip Burke Self Portrait

     This is a painting of a young bespectacled man sitting on the ground with his arms clasped in front of him. He is wearing what appears to be blue jeans and a black long sleeved cardigan or tee shirt. His hair looks wild and he is spotting a thin mustache, He is staring intently to his right.

Formal analysis 

Self portrait (1982)
By Philip Burke
Oil on panel

     In this self portrait, Burke uses his usual caricature style to make a representational painting that is fairly devoid of bright colors or much movement. The tone is flat and even dull and lacks the garishness that accompanies many of his paintings. The portrait is dominated by the inquisitive look the subject, with his head and upper body tilted to the side in what appears to be an expression mild surprise. The brush strokes are broad, with contrast (especially on the face) brought out by the use of different brownish tones. The light is coming from the front and throws a small shadow behind the subject offering the suggestion that this painting is set in a smallish room.        
     The closeness of Burke to the viewer does offer a certain intimacy made more intense by the way he seems to be avoiding eye contact, and it is this look that draws the most attention. There is certainly very little movement suggested but the sense of distance, (not physical but emotional) in that pout and angular faraway look invites the viewer to turn their head in solidarity.

Bracketing 

     I see a whiff of rebelliousness, hesitation and that slight lack of confidence one can expect to see in a young man who is unsure of himself. This is exactly the type of portrait I would expect a budding genius to make because it is so reflective of its maker. In the lack of any meaningful exaggeration in this self examination, I see a person who wants to be taken seriously by those he meets and yet wants to retain a certain measure of informality about him. To me, this painting is the story of youth at a crossroads: on one side there is raw talent that screams to be exploited and on the other hand there looms a worry that things don’t always work out as planned.

Interpretation 

     It is not so much what Burke is trying to say in this self-portrait that I find fascinating. It is what he seems to be asking: who am I? In this painting he is clearly on a search for self-definition. So for example, the wild mop of hair on his head is certainly not there by accident, he meant for it to be look that way. When he poses himself on the floor with his arms clasped like they are, he just wants to appear cool, humble and unhurried. Those glasses may say I don’t always fit in but when I do I just take over.

Gallery Visit 2: Burchfield Penney

What is the title of the exhibit?

The Likeness of Being: Portraits by Philip Burke.

What is the theme of the exhibition?

Caricatures and abstract expressionism of famous people and celebrities.

What type of lighting is used?

Artificial ceiling lighting coming from multiple small bulbs and fluorescent tubes which are accentuated by the brown hardwood floor and the white walls. There is very little natural light inside the gallery.

What colors are used on the walls?

White

What materials are used in the interior architecture of the space?

Hardwood floors, soft board walls and ceilings and a minimum of glass.

How is the movement of the viewer through the gallery space?

Very linear. Everything is arranged in straight angular lines. The floor plan does not allow for any circular movement because the walls are at right angles to each other.

How are the artworks organized?

Most of the art features showbiz personalities and there doesn’t seem to be any discernible order in which these are arranged. There is no separation of subjects by date, name, occupation etc. However, the whole collection can be divided into three broad categories /sections: a) performers who constitute a vast majority of the featured paintings b) politicians c) a small section for a few sports stars and d) a section dedicated to self portraits

How are the artworks similar?

The most prominent artworks are caricatures, huge, oversized, mostly oil on canvas and very colorful. All of them are portraits.

How are the artworks different?

All the subjects look fairly neutral in their facial expressions with the exception of artworks depicting President Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney who both look comical (even for caricatures). Bush is seen holding a pistol and is dressed as a cowboy while Cheney looks positively sinister as he is portrayed with a very pronounced hunchback. The self-portraits of Philip Burke show a serious and thoughtful individual which is a marked contrast to his other works on display.

How are the artworks framed?

The paintings are all unframed

How are the artworks identified and labeled?

Small placards with name, date, media (almost all are oil on canvas) and what publication they were published in are the main identifiers used. The artworks also bear the artist's handwritten signature.

What is the proximity of the artwork to each other?

Most are about one foot from each other depending on the size of the wall and about two feet off the floor. On some walls, they are much closer (barely five inches part), depending, I suspect, on how many they wanted to fit on a particular wall.

Expressionism,Cubism and Subjective Reality

1. Explain why you selected each of the TWO videos you choose from the selection listed above.

     I selected Expressionism because it focuses on the works of one of my favorite artists, Munch. The video discusses some of his more famous works like The Scream and The Madonna. I also picked this video because I am interested in Expressionism and what it represents to the modern art movement.

2. For each video list/discuss the key concepts you learned.

     In Expressionism, I learnt that Edvard Munch often painted the same painting over and over again, each time giving the new painting a different theme and a different title. I also learnt that in Expressionism color is the most important feature that an artist uses to express himself. This, I think, allows the artist to be less concerned with detail and more with interpretation.

     Expressionism is very abstract in that it is less concerned with the physical form of its subjects and more with a desire to move away from what Osloo Franz Marc called “our wretched habit” of trying to place subjects in landscapes which mirrors our own vision instead of imagining perception from the viewpoint of the subjects. This dreamland-like quality is not only present in its clustered and disorganized vagueness but is also present in its ability to focus the eye simultaneously on multiple points.

     This quality is summarized best in Munch’s own words: “I don’t paint what I see, I paint what I saw” and it is this seeming reliance on memory that lends Expressionism its subjectivity, roughness and a very particular feel of what I like to think of as neo-bohemianism. It is for this reason that I don't consider Expressionism to be “high art” because it lacks that quality of richness that is generally associated with royalty. In fact, with its broad untidy strokes and very expressive subject matter, this is the kind of art I would expect to see on the side of a bridge, or on a wall at the local playground, painted by urchins in the middle of the night. This is not high art, it is high graffiti: deep, solemn, exhausting and uncomfortable to look at, easy to dismiss, and only memorable because its complexity is enhanced by its incoherence.

     In The Impact of Cubism, disassembling and reassembling of figures into flat planes is examined. This style of art, which is credited to Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque and traces its roots to the early part of the last century, is said to have been the most influential art form since the Renaissance. Cubism is much more concerned with representing form and space and less with color and the other elements that are a big part of previous art forms.

     Unlike Expressionism, I learnt that Cubist paintings are a little harder to decipher in that they don’t seem to have a single storyline to tell. This allows the artwork to be viewed from different perspectives and from different angles.

     The video made me think that Cubism offers the most “mathematical” approach to art. Unlike other art I have seen up until now, I believe this particular art form is the easiest to numerically measure and therefore it is the most mechanical. It is blocky, full of patterns and although I found it to be less harmonious precisely because of that, it is fairly easy to see the starting and ending points in the elements. In this sense, and since it is about reassembling parts, Cubism is nothing more than a jigsaw puzzle, to be arranged and rearranged as each mind see fit.

2. How do the videos relate to the readings in the text?

     The videos are much more detailed in their analysis of Expressionism and Cubism as they both focus on the masters who brought this art form into popular culture. The book mentions, something that the videos don’t spend much time on, the influence of ancient cultures like those found in Iberia, Rome and Africa and their influence on artists like Picasso and the art movements they started.

     Both the text and the book place great importance on the impact this new art forms had on art as we know and appreciate it today. The text does offer a criticism of cubism in that it alludes to the fact that other artists thought Picasso and Braque were too traditional in their treatment of new subjects. These critics, like Giorgio de Chirico, felt cubism was not “truly immortal.”

3. What is your opinion of the films? How do they add depth to understanding of the readings and art concepts?

     I thought the narration in The Impact of Cubism and Expressionism was excellent, neutral and very well delivered. By approaching the subjects in an objective manner and by spending time giving the backgrounds of each featured painting, it made it easier to see into the artist's mind and better under his motivations.

      By first reading the text and then watching the films, I came away with a deeper understanding of the progression of this artforms which developed at a time when so much around the world was changing because of the events of pre-world war one Europe.