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.

Exotic curiosities and reformist propaganda

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

      I picked African Art: Legacy of Oppression and African Art because they are thematically the same. The two videos complement each other because they both focus on sub-Saharan art.

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

     In African Art: Legacy of Oppression I learnt that there is a racially tinged bias in the way non-western art is collected and interpreted. In spite of the rich cultural inheritance that resides in Africa and in spite of the fact that some of these art has influenced luminaries like Picasso and Munch, there seems to be a willful ignorance that dictates that there should be an emphasis on minimizing the beauty and importance of African artifacts as childish and primitive.

     I was left with the impression that the exhibit that is the focus of these video goes out of its way to omit the historical narrative that inspired the various artifacts on display. This narrative includes such themes as the colonial legacy of slavery, mutilation and genocide. For this to be ignored and to instead display the works as nothing more than abstract mementos of a primitive and non-Christian past takes away so much from the “psychological truth” that should be part of all art.

     This type of art (described as “simple and dramatic, startling and exaggerated”) is credited for giving western art its "visual vocabulary" that allowed it to move away from its constant search for higher and higher levels of realism. But all this is lost if the art is not seen in the painful context of its origins.

     I have to mention that I find it truly obnoxious that the narrator of the video nonchalantly mentions that this African exhibit which is on a world tour will soon “return home to Belgium’s Tervuren Museum.” Home, indeed.

     The next video I watched, African Art, explores the importance of art as a spiritual component of everyday life in African societies. Unlike western art which is mostly perceptual, African art is said to be conceptual in that it draws its meaning from imagination and symbolism. This gives the art a deeper meaning to the societies it originates from because it represents something that is seen as greater than its creators. The art, which is said to consist of a rich tradition of sound, color and movement, is handed down from generation to generation and is venerated as deeply mysterious and spiritual. It influences how people live, interact and sometimes how they are expected to carry on after they die.

     The video discusses the influence of Egyptian culture on the spread of art in sub-Saharan Africa. This exchange of ideas, through migrations and conquests, accounts for some of the most diverse art cultures anywhere in the world and has long been a source of fascination that is not fully understood or appreciated. I also learnt from the video that it is not correct to speak of African art as something that is monolithic. Rather, to understand African art, one must look at it as regionally distinct and very diffuse.

     But generally speaking, African art differs from European art in that it is rooted in “invisible realities” and is grounded in the belief that everything, including the hills and the rocks, is animated and possesses life. African art does not normally represent living things or people but rather it is a carrier of spirits and to possess this art is to seek their intercession and some control of the supernatural world.

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

     Both the text and the video have very good imagery depicting the different types of art from the African continent. I found the video African Art, to be particularly informative because it collaborates much of what the book says. The spiritual importance of art and the role it plays in the daily lives of people is examined by both. Taken together, the text and the video give a more complete picture of this type of art than they would by themselves.

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

     The video African Art: Legacy of Oppression raises some very important issues about the role of African art and the effect of colonialism. This is something I feel has not been fully explored. Both of them give good descriptions and meanings of the artifacts in question. This gives a foundation that one can use to explore the subject further. By looking at the art through the eyes of different experts, it becomes possible to understand why certain art is created and why certain art forms have not survived as long as others.

Give me a hand. Not that one, the other one.

Left hand
By yours truly

Right hand
By yours truly

1. What was it like using your hand as subject matter for a drawing?

The whole experience felt like doing a self portrait except it didn't involve drawing my face.

2. What media did you select - pencil or charcoal? Why?

I used pencil on paper because I have never really worked with charcoal before ans so that was an easier and safer choice for me.

3. How did it feel to create a drawing with your non-dominant hand?

It felt very awkward and unnatural. It took me at least three times as long to complete the drawing using my non-dominant hand.

4. Compare and contrast your final drawings. Do you think they are successful studies?

I think overall I did manage to create a workable drawing. I also think I managed to capture the lines on my hand

5. Would you consider using your non-dominant hand to create artwork in the future?

 Not really and only if I have to. It was just too cumbersome and time-consuming. I would use use my non-dominant hand if I was trying to get a different perspective on the same subject but that decision will have to wait until it is time to make it. 

Men of the Renaissance

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

Velazquez self portrait (circa 1630)
Oil on canvas 

Portrait of Michelangelo (1550-1555)
by Daniele da Volterra

     I selected the video on Velázquez because I saw one of his paintings when I took a trip to Spain a few years ago and I thought this was an opportunity to learn more about an artist whose works I have long admired without knowing much about him.  

      I picked The Drawings of Michelangelo because no discussion of art is complete without a mention of this great artist. I especially wanted to see the drafts that led to his finished works. His rough drawings offer a glimpse into his inner mind and so I wanted to see how his created process unfolded.

2. For each video list/discuss the key concepts you learned.
      I learnt that Velazquez spent most of his professional life in the Spanish royal court and therefore most of his works were influenced by the daily goings on in the palace. A majority of his subjects are members of the royal household and staff.

Pablo de Valladolid (circa 1635)
By Diego Velazquez
Oil on canvas

   I also learnt that he was one of the first major painters of his age to experiment with figures of mythology although he didn’t do this for long. He instead preferred to paint works that emphasized the now as opposed to the past or the future. This seems to have been his greatest strength. He was also an artist who was deeply influenced by other artists, both living and dead and often based his paintings on other paintings. Never afraid to experiment, he was also a slow painter who took his time and this may have given him his keen eye for detail.
      I find his paintings to be rather colorless with their bleak, dark, solemn and unimaginative backgrounds, as if those backgrounds were meant as afterthoughts. The dull shadowy spaces behind the human subjects are barely discernible or remarkable as if the artist didn’t want to draw too much attention to them. 

Portrait of Sebastian de Morra ( circa 1645)
By Diego Velazquez
Oil on canvas

     As mentioned in the video and as I agree, Velasquez always strived to create a balance that incorporated the outer flaws of his characters with the humanity within them. His portraits of court jesters, some deformed on a physical level or spiritually (they just stand there looking foolish or buffoonish), was an attempt by him to capture the humanity that the eye can’t see. This depth is achieved, as the video narrator says, “through an interplay of soft and strong colors” and through the use of “detail and lack of detail” which makes it possible to look not at the subject but inside the subject.

Christ Crucified (1632)
 By Diego Velazquez 
Oil on canvas

     Not surprisingly, Velázquez was criticized for this excessive use of realism perhaps by those who thought a royal painter was supposed to gloss over certain facts and paint the royal household in the best imaginable light. But it seems Velázquez was never really concerned with the superficial. Although he considered himself a courtier whose first loyalties were to his friend King Phillip IV, much of his subject matter often veered away from the grandiosity of royal life, which in itself is a contradiction in the great artist’s priorities.

      Velázquez understood better than most people that the purpose of painting is not to “imitate nature but to guide the eye of the beholder to see what the painter had discovered.” In other words, Velázquez was not interested in capturing beauty per se. Rather, he was interested in capturing not a moment of time, but a moment in time.

      In the The Drawings of Michelangelo, the artist’s early influences are examined through his early life as an apprenticeship and how this experience shaped his artistic mind. His struggle for creative identity is alluded to in the video when it is said that although he denied the influence of his teacher Ghirlandaio, his rough sketches show this not to be the case.

David (1501-1504)
By Michelangelo
Carrara marble

     Michelangelo used these drawings as one would use an archive, or a bank account, as a place to store his ideas and inspirations for future reference. He also used them as sounding boards for his experiments. For example, in one of the drawings, he reimagines a Roman statue that he saw and gives it movement and emotion in an effort to “improve” it.

Pieta (1498-1499)
By Michelangelo
Marble

     Although he had great respect for sculptors of antiquity, he was always trying to outdo these old masters either, I suspect, because he thought he was better than them, or because he suffered from a sense of inferiority. This might also explain his reluctance to admit being influenced by his old master Ghirlandaio.

     He eventually came into his own as a genius sculptor through his carving of the statue of David. In this and other works, he managed to express such feelings as spirituality and emotion by making the body move and pose in unnatural ways and also by trying to create as perfect looking a body as only he could. The whole effect is said to have been a turning point in how the art of that time came to be viewed. The male nude figure, which he used extensively, seemed to become an obsession for him.

The Last Judgement (1536-1541)
By Michelangelo
Fresco

     The drawings tell of the challenges and processes he faced and went through in creating such great works as the paintings inside the Sistine Chapel. That he had to transfer his ideas from small pieces of paper to the massive mediums he used in his final artwork was a truly monumental achievement in itself.

2. How do the videos relate to the readings in the text?     The text devotes little space to Velázquez and only spends a paragraph or two discussing his masterpiece Las Meninas (The Maids of Honor). The importance of light and shadows is emphasized in both. The use of these elements to draw attention to his subjects and organize scenes seems to be something the artist was very good at doing. Spotlighting is used to create ambiguity and gives an observer of the painting an enhanced sense of intimacy with the subjects.

Las Meninas (1656)
By Diego Velazquez
Oil on canvas

    The text is very thorough in its analysis of Michelangelo as a renaissance man while the video is mostly concerned with his drawings and how they translated to his finished works. Both the video and the text trace his artistic journey through the period in which he lived and the influences he incorporated into his work. The "why" of his obsession with the nude male form is not fully explained in the book although the video does suggest, in passing, that Michelangelo may have had a male lover which may very well explain his liking for this subject.

The Creation of Adam (circa 1512)
By Michelangelo
Fresco

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

    Both the films are very detailed in their explanations of Renaissance art. The background information is very detailed and the accompanying imagery allows the viewer to follow along with the different works that are being discussed. This combination of imagery and narration makes the films a powerful and effective method of appreciating these masters.

Ancient Mediterranean Worlds through the Middle Ages

1. Explain why you selected the video you choose from the selection listed above.

     I selected The Measure of All Things: Greek Art and the Human Figure because it seems like a logical continuation of the first video. Both talk about Greek art and the development of realism. After watching and listening to the concept of exaggeration and how it affects art, I was better able to understand why art, especially western art, has developed along lines that it has. The videos that I watched complement each other and allowed me to better have a more informed opinion.

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

     The video More Human Than Human attempts to answer some of the most enduring questions about art: why are we more drawn to art that is out of proportion to the world around us than to art that is truly representational? Why have humans been so universally fascinated throughout their history with art that deemphasizes certain features of their subjects even as it exaggerates others? The answer, the video explains, can be found in our brains. Humans, the theory goes, are hardwired to amplify or diminish certain features of the body as a means of effectively rendering effectively what matters to them most.

     One of the first proponents of this theory, Professor V.S Ramachandran, a neuroscientist from the University of California, conducted a series of experiments using the feeding habits of seagulls and established that animals, including humans, are preprogrammed to pay more attention to those parts of the anatomy that represent things that are important for their existence. In the experiment,        Ramachandran found that the seagull nestlings could not tell the difference between their mother’s beaks from a similar looking stick and that in fact the nestlings became more stimulated when the features of the stick that represented food and feeding were exaggerated. This led him to conclude that early humans artistically exaggerated certain features of the body because those features represented positive aspects of the world around them.

     This, the theory claims, might explain why the different Venus statues from all parts of the world seem to have certain exaggerated aspects that are generally understood to denote fertility, or abundance. In places where the threat of famine is real, it is therefore not uncommon to make art that depicts figures with distended stomachs or full breasts because those features can be said to denote health and plenty of sustenance.

     This theory of exaggeration has its exceptions. In ancient Egypt, for example, art was drawn facing sideways but generally the proportions were more realistic. The explanation for this, the video explains, is because this type of art was influenced more by the culture of the time than with any hardwiring of the brain. Because of the regular ebbs and flows of the River Nile, the threat of famine was not as common as would be expected even for people who lived in the desert. The ancient Egyptians understood that shared order and consistency was the cornerstone of their civilization and this would explain why that particular aspect of their art lasted as long as it did.

     The ancient Greeks seem to have experimented with different forms of art as they sought to create images that were as realistic and as lifelike as possible. They managed to achieve this, as depicted by the statue of the Cretan Boy which was the closest thing to a lifelike statue ever created up until that time. This need to create realism and perfection to the closest detail possible was an attempt by the Greeks to close the distance between them and their conceptualization of the gods.

     But once they achieved what was they perceived as the pinnacle of art (realism), they seem to have morphed back to an earlier time when art was less representational. And that becomes the focal point of the discussion: why if they had been striving for perfection did they feel a need to go back to whence they had come from? It seems that the instinct for exaggeration took over and eventually drove art back to a less sophisticated era. The reasoning for this is explained thus: if art is about realism then you don’t need art because all you have to do is to look around at the world around you for all the realism you need and want.

     Although what we choose to exaggerate might change over time as culture and aesthetic values change, the driving mechanism behind it all is that deep in our brains, a need for exaggeration brings us closer to what we want, desire or aspire to. Perhaps it’s this need to create art that is as close to our imagination and as representative of our subconscious thoughts as it is humanly possible that defines us and ultimately separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

     In The Measure of All Things: Greek Art and the Human Figure, the point is made that ancient Greek art and its search for the dichotomy of inner life and outer form is perhaps the biggest influence on how modern humans define themselves. The reason why we have always been obsessed with the human figure as a subject of art is epitomized by the Greeks who believed that a perfect human body was the closest representation of the gods as we could ever hope to find here on earth.

     Subsequent exchange of ideas between the Greeks and other cultures, especially the ancient Egyptians, only fueled this obsession with the human body and took it to a whole new level. They, for the first time ever, started to make statues that were more lifelike in size and scope. Through all this, the fascination with the female form was especially emphasized. This leads me to believe, as the previous video discussed, that art (especially old art), is a desire to set in tangible form what we desire, in this case continuity as represented by the idea of fertility and reproduction.

     Eventually, the concept of realism was developed

 sufficiently for it to become its on genre. As the Greeks became more adept, they learnt to incorporate movement and balance and a sense of individualism in their statues. They tried to capture the intangible qualities of the soul, life and emotions in their art. So much so, statues soon became gods in their own right rather than mere embodiments.

     However, as the Greeks became more technologically and philosophically advanced, they moved past that stage of their development driven along, in part perhaps by Pythagoras, who famously stated that “man is the measure of all things”. This led to the idea of combining realism and idealism in a compromise that sought to redefine the very role they wanted to carve for themselves in the natural world around them. I am tempted to say that although this might not be the first time man found himself in open competition with the gods, it is perhaps the most consequential.

     It was during this era that balance started being incorporated into statues by using part of the art to act as a counter balance which allowed the illusion of movement to be created. The subject of the art could be made to lean forward or pose in unnatural angles allowing sculptors to cover a wider range of dynamics that had not been possible before.

     This form of sculptural art has become and remains the mainstay of all modern western art and it appears it will remain so for quite a while to come.

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

     The books dedicates a whole chapter on ancient Mediterranean art. The influence of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt and their influences on art as we know it today is explained. Although the text and the video seem to collaborate each other, I thought the videos in this case went into more detail and laid out a better and broader case for realism. The text does give a better history of various stages of art development than the videos do. The history of “classical” art is particularly well explained by the book as it deals with other art beyond statues making it less limited in its approach than the videos. All in all, the complementary value of the book and the videos is great.

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

     The video More Human Than Human and is particularly interesting to me because it seeks to trace the earliest history of art using something other than conjecture and opinion to try and explain what art is. This scientific approach is more convincing than any other subjective inquiries I have seen out there. The second video The Measure of All Things: Greek Art and the Human Figure draws on a wide variety of art experts who explain art through the eyes of artists, museum curators and other interesting experts for a more in-depth view of the subject matter. When watched in combination with the text, one does not need to be an expert to sense that something much deeper is happening and being communicated by the artists who made those statues.